Slaves with private offices?
I want to point you to the blog of another friend of mine. Isabel, who blogs at “amateur“, has posted two blogs concerning the book The Jesus Style by Gayle D. Erwin. Her two posts are called “Recommended…no, almost required” and “Slave of All“.
Consider these quotations from The Jesus Style:
I have had the chance to see a good measure of church unity. It is always present when people are living the servant-style of Jesus. I have had a chance to see a good many church splits and it has become obvious that no church has ever split because two factions were arguing over who would get to be slave, or who would get to be least, or who would get to be last, or who would get to be of no reputation, or who would be the last use force.
Perhaps a good way to handle the trappings of leadership would be to put Slave over the door of our plush offices and take away everything from the surrounding that is incompatible with that.
A slave should have no title that raises him above that lowly level and definitely no title that raises him above others. A slave should have no status symbols except the scars that come from hard work. You would not expect a slave to have a special parking space more accessible than his master’s.
This last quote reminds me of this passage of Scripture:
Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ (Luke 17:7-10 ESV)
I’m looking forward to Isabel’s continued posting on this book.
Why are we passionate about leadership?
I’ve noticed a trend on my blog. Whenever I post something about leadership, that post is read more and receives more comments than other blog posts in general – even though I do not post on leadership very often.
For example, last Thursday, I posted a blog called “What does a bishop oversee?” On Friday, as a follow-up, I posted a blog called “The Church or the Organization?” In less than four days, this blog post was read by more people than other posts that have been on my blog for much longer (50% more than the next most read post, and climbing). Also, it now has the most comments of any of my other blog posts. In fact, five of my top ten most read blog posts are on the subject of leadership in the church (6 out of 10 if you count “Messy Meetings“.)
Why are we so passionate about leadership? Relatively, Scripture says little about specific leadership such as elders, bishops, etc. Certainly, there is more in Scripture about general leadership attitudes, especially in the Gospels. But, Scripture has much more to say about other topics, such as a believer’s conduct, or faith, or even eschatology (gasp!).
I do not know the answer to this. I have never been able to gauge the reaction of readers to my blog posts. Some posts that I am very passionate about, other people seem to have less interest (measured by the number of times the post is read and the number of comments it receives).
So, since I don’t know the answer, I hope to learn from you. I ask you to consider my question: Why are you and others passionate about leadership? Please, comment and let me know what you think.
Christian Leadership around the Blogosphere…
Since my last two posts have covered the topics of Christian leadership, specifically elders, I thought I would post some links to others who are discussing the topics of Christian leadership, elders, ministers, and organizations:
My good friend Maël, from “The Adventures of Maël & Cindy“, examines the use of the English word “ministers” to describe Christian leaders.
A new blogging friend, “Aussie” John, who blogs at “Caesura“, has added his own thoughts to mine in a post from Thursday, March 29, 2007.
Two other blogging friends, the husband and wife team of Brandon and Heather, describe their interactions with the church and the organization. Brandon, at “Eleutheros“, calls his post “The death of a dream and the birth of a dream“, while Heather, at “Free Heart Reflections“, calls her post “The Institution At What Costs?“
Finally, here are a few of my previous posts concerning leaders, elders, and servants which you can add to “What does a bishop oversee?” and “The Church or the Organization?“:
1. “Leaders and Servants“
2. “More on Leaders and Servants“
3. “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority“
4. “Who is your pastor?“
5. “Qualifications and Examples“
I hope you enjoy reading these.
The Church or the Organization?
In my previous post, “What does a bishop oversee?“, I suggested that elders/pastors/bishops should focus on the church – that is, the people – instead of any organization formed around or by the church. This was my concluding paragraph:
But, what difference does it make? Why does it matter whether our pastors/elders “oversee” an organization or “are concerned about” the people of God. Well, for me, it makes all the difference in the world. As an elder, I want to know what God requires of me. Does God require me to run the church like a well-oiled machine? Or does He expect me to “look after” and “be concerned about” those believers around me? I believer God’s focus is people… and so, our focus should be people as well. If my focus is on people, I will respond differently than if my focus was on an organization. My priorities will be different if my focus is on people instead of an organization. My time, resources, and effort will be spent differently if my focus is on people instead of an organization.
In the great discussion that followed in the comments, there were some questions about organizations and the church. David Rogers, from “Love Each Stone“, made the following statement:
I agree that a “bishop” should focus more on “overseeing” people than an organization. However, I think we would be hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization.
I do not quote David to point out a disagreement. In fact, I believe that we are probably very close on this issue. Instead, I want to use this statement as a starting point in to further discuss the difference between focusing on people (the church) and focusing on the organization.
First, I do not believe that it is wrong or evil for the church to organize itself for particular purposes. I think we see this in Scripture. For example, as Paul was travelling around the Roman Empire, he travelled with several people. I’m sure there was some type of organization involved. We know that Paul made tents at times in order to provide for himself and his travelling companions (Acts 20:34-35). One person working to provide for himself and others demonstrates some type of organization.
So, organization is not wrong or evil in and of itself. My good friend Theron from “Sharing in the Life” (Who is finally blogging again!), has a great post on organization called “The Role of Organization in a Body of Believers“.
Though we might agree that organizations are not bad, and may even serve a good purpose at times, this does not mean that we will be “hard-pressed to find those who would say no, they should neglect people, and focus more on the organization”. Unfortunately, in today’s “Church Growth” literature, we find just this: a focus on the organization at the expense of the people involved. Here is one example:
Mark Driscoll is an interesting figure. He is at times accepted and at times excepted by emerging/missional believers. Some praise him and the Mars Hill Church which he started in Seattle, WA. Others claim that he is not truly “emerging” but more accurately reflects “evangelicalism” or the seeker church movement. Similarly, some evangelicals say that Driscoll is emerging, while others (like the Southern Baptist Convention, which appears to be wooing him and his Acts 29 Network) welcome him as a fellow evanglical. In other words, Driscoll somehow represents both the emerging and the evangelical flavors of Christianity – loved by some in both camps and hated by some in both camps.
In his 2006 book Confessions of a Reformission Rev: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church, Driscoll describes the phenomenal growth of Mars Hill Church. In one chapter, he explores some of the decisions that he had to make in order for Mars Hill Church to grow from 350 people to 1000 people:
We had to quickly reorganize all of our systems and staff. Our administrative pastor, Eric, left, which we all recognized was God’s call on him. And our worship leader was a great guy and great musician but was unable to coordinate the multiple bands in the three locations, so we let him go. This was one of the hardest decisions I’ve ever made because he was a very godly man who had worked very hard and would have been fine if the church had not gotten so crazy so quickly, and he and his very sweet wife were both close personal friends of mine. But I needed a worship pastor who could lead multiple bands, coordinate multiple services in multiple locations, and train multiple worship pastors while keeping up with a church that was growing so fast that we had no idea exactly where it was going. [135]
Now, just in case you think that Driscoll may have made the decision to let his close personal friend go because of his concern for other people, please continue reading:
A very wise friend who is a successful business entrepreneur, Jon Phelps, shared an insight with me around this time that was very clarifying. He said that in any growing organization, there are three kinds of people, and only two of them have any long-term future with a growing organization. First, there are people on the rise who demonstrate an uncanny ability to grow with the organization and become vital leaders. Second, there are people who attach themselves to the people on the rise as valuable assistants who rise by being attached to someone on the rise. Third, there are people who neither rise nor attach to anyone who is rising, and they cannot keep up with the growing demands of the organization. These people fall behind, and the organization can either allow their inability to slow down the whole team or release them and move forward without them. This is difficult to do because they are often good people who have been partly responsible for the success of the organization. But the needs of the organizational mission, not an individual in the organization, must continually remain the priority if there is to be continued success. [135]
From what I have read, none of the people who commented would agree with Driscoll’s approach. However, I also do not think that Driscoll is alone in his priorities. There are many who say that the organization should be placed above the people involved.
What Driscoll describes is the exact opposite of my position. The pastors/elders/bishops must focus on the people before the organization. However, we should all admit, even if we do not go to the extreme that Driscoll went to, it is much easier to put the organization above the people. But, according to Scripture, the people should always come first.
Our desire should be to grow the people (edify the body), not to grow the organization – and this includes those “stubborn” people that God has placed in our path. In fact, our purpose should be the growth of the whole body, not just 2/3 of the body. When people begin to be sacrificed in order to further the “organizational mission”, then the organization has the wrong mission. And, when pastors/elders/bishops begin focusing on the organization instead of the people, then they are not acting as the pastors/elders/bishops that Scripture describes.
What does a bishop oversee?
The noun translated “bishop” or “overseer” in the New Testament is επίσκοπος (episkopos). There is also a feminine form επισκοπή (episkope), usually translated in the abstract. The verbal form is επισκοπÎω (episkopeo). The English terms “Episcopal” and “Episcopacy” come from these Greek terms.
The Ante-Nicene Father – those writers who came between the time of the writing of the New Testament and the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD – often taught that the “bishop” was a hierarchical position above the level of “elder” or “presbuteros“, and often in charge of multiple churches in a large city or region.
Today, while arguing that the idea of a “bishop” is not scriptural, many continue to hold to the concept of a “bishop” of a congregation while using a different title. For example, in his book Who Rules the Church?, Gerald Cowen states, “As pastor (bishop) he is the chief officer in the church. Overseeing implies that he has administrative responsibility for the entire operation of the church.” Similarly, John S. Hammett suggests that the term “overseer” refers to an “officer [who] gives overall administrative oversight and leadership to the church” in his book Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches.
In these two descriptions of the elder as “bishop”, the oversight described by the word “bishop/overseer” is related to an organization. Thus, the elder becomes one who steers an organization, who makes decisions that will aid the organization, who directs the future of the organization. But, is this the biblical use of the word “bishop/overseer”?
Consider two passages that use the noun form (“overseer”) and the verb form (“exercising oversight?”) respectively to describe the function of the elder: Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-2 –
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 I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly… (1 Peter 5:1-2 ESV)
In each case, “oversight” is related to caring for the people of God, not to taking care of an organization. Thus, in Acts 20, the elders of Ephesus – whom the Holy Spirit had made overseers – were to shepherd the flock of God, specifically by watching out for those who teach contrary to the Gospel (Acts 20:29-31) and by working hard with their hands, following Paul’s example, so that they would be an example to other believers and so that they would be able to share with others in need (Acts 20:32-35).
Also, in 1 Peter 5, each instruction for those elders who are “overseeing” deals with how to care for people. Perhaps a better translation than “overseeing” would be “look after” or “be concerned about”, both well within the semantic range of the verb επισκοπÎω (episkopeo).
But, what difference does it make? Why does it matter whether our pastors/elders “oversee” an organization or “are concerned about” the people of God. Well, for me, it makes all the difference in the world. As an elder, I want to know what God requires of me. Does God require me to run the church like a well-oiled machine? Or does He expect me to “look after” and “be concerned about” those believers around me? I believer God’s focus is people… and so, our focus should be people as well. If my focus is on people, I will respond differently than if my focus was on an organization. My priorities will be different if my focus is on people instead of an organization. My time, resources, and effort will be spent differently if my focus is on people instead of an organization.
What does a bishop oversee? I mean, what should a bishop be concerned about? People… or organizations. I choose people.
Answers to Questions…
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.
Qualifications and Examples…
I have mentioned John Hammett’s book Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches several times on this blog. I do not agree with everything that he says about pastors, elders, and overseers (or other aspects of the church). However, he has a great section on the “qualifications” from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:
The first notable aspect of these lists is their ordinariness. As D.A. Carson notes, “almost every entry is mandated elsewhere of all believers.” Whatever is involved in being an elder, it is not a calling to a higher standard of Christian living. How could it, when every Christian is commanded by Christ to “be perfect” (Matt. 5:48) and when the goal and destiny of every Christian is Christlikeness (Rom. 8:29)?
But if these character traits are commanded of all Christians, what is their significance here? The key to understanding the meaning of these lists of character traits is remembering that one of the responsibilities of leaders is to set the example for the flock (1 Peter 5:3). The character required to be an elder is the character necessary to be an example to the flock. Such a person would not need to be perfect (such persons are in very short supply among fallen humanity) but would need a degree of maturity and proven character that would enable him to serve as an effective example, including an example of how to confess and repent when he does stumble.
Second, it is also striking how different these qualifications are from modern lists of qualifications for a position. There is no mention of the need for training or educational requirements, little in the way of skills or experience or certification. Character is the central issue. [166]
So, according to Hammett, elders are not perfect. I agree with this. In fact, I would suggest that no one can live up to the list of “qualifications” given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Perhaps that is why Paul does not call the lists “qualifications”.
What are the purpose of the lists then? Well, I think the lists are not given for the benefit of the elders, but for the benefit of all the people. If leaders are to be examples as Hammett says – and I agree with this – then which examples do we follow? I mean, everyone is an example of something. Which examples are we supposed to follow? Who should we look to as examples?
We should look to people who most closely live according to the lists given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 (among other lists). We do not look for perfect people to follow – there are none, other than Jesus Christ. We look for people who would be godly examples, people who are mature followers of Jesus Christ. They will fail to meet some of the “qualifications” – all of them will – but they will also be known for repenting and confessing when they do fail, to paraphrase Hammett’s description.
But, these people are not living a certain way in order to be leaders. They are living an examplary life in response to God’s work in their own life – in obedience to the presence, conviction, and leading of the Holy Spirit. These people do not become elders and then beging living an exemplary life; they are recognized as elders because of the life they are already living.
So, perhaps “qualifications” is not the best term for these lists. Any suggestions for another name for the lists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1?
Another view on authority and elders…
In response to my post “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority“, Dave Black linked to an interesting article on the same topic. The article is called “Do Elders Rule?” and it is written by Dusty Owens. The article is long, and at times it seems the author may not present both sides fairly. But, there is some good research in the article. Most importantly, Owens studies some of the same terms and passages that I have been studying in order to understand elders and authority.
The Holy Spirit has made you overseers…
We are currently attempting to recognize additional elders among the church. We believe that a pastor, an elder, and an overseer are the same. In other words, an elder is a pastor is an overseer.
Recently, someone brought this verse to our attention:
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)
As we discussed this verse, and how we should apply it, we noticed the phrase “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” This brought up a very interesting question: At what point does a person become a pastor/elder/overseer?
According to Acts 20:28 (above), it is the Holy Spirit who makes someone a pastor. Does the Holy Spirit do this as a response to the actions of a church? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe that the Holy Spirit makes someone an overseer regardless of the actions or lack of actions of the church itself.
In other words, the Holy Spirit places someone in a group of believers and subsequently gives that person the responsibility of “caring for” (that is, being an overseer for) that group of believers. The church is then supposed to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit and to recognize that individual as an overseer.
If the church does not recognize that person as an overseer, the church’s action does not remove the responsibility from that person, because the responsiblity was given by the Holy Spirit not the church. If the church recognizes different people as overseers, the church’s action does not remove the responsibility from the first person, because the responsibility was given by the Holy Spirit not the church.
Now, this is not the way that we normally think of pastors/elders/overseers. However, it does seem to align with what Scripture says about the work of the Holy Spirit among a group of believers (especially Acts 20:28 above). How does a church ensure that the people the church recognizes as overseers are the same people that the Holy Spirit has made overseers?
Employment…
A few days ago, we were discussing employment at work (of all places). I asked some of my coworkers the following question: If this company stopped paying you, would you still come into the office and do what you do now? (This assumes that they are working.) No one would continue doing their job if they were not paid.
So, I asked the follow-up question: Would your pastor continue to do what he does if he were not paid?
So, I ask this to my readers… What are pastors responsible to do because they are believers and followers of Christ? What are they responsible to do because they are pastors – examples, teachers, and leaders to God’s flock? And, what are they responsible to do because they are employed by a church organization? Which of these responsibilities does God allow them to stop doing if the pay stops?