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
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.
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Stayed Tuned for More on Church Polity
So far in my series on church polity, I have described the three major forms of church government: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. The major differences in the three forms of polity concern who has final authority and decision-making responsibility for a church:
episcopal: one person
presbyterian: a group of people
congregational: all members of a local church
Next week, I will continue this series, adding some comments of my own.
But, for now, I have a question for you, my dear readers. If you had to choose one of the three (and you had no other choices), which of the three would you choose, and why? No cheating by offering other options.
Church Polity – Congregational
This is the fourth post in my series on church polity. (See my posts “Church Polity – Introduction,” “Church Polity – Episcopal,” and “Church Polity – Presbyterian.“) In this post, I am going to discuss the “congregational” form of church government.
According to Wikipeadia:
The term “congregational polity” describes a form of church governance that is based on the local congregation. Each local congregation is independent and self-supporting, governed by its own members.
While there are many denominations and independent churches based on congregational polity, many descended from the anabaptist, puritan, and baptist traditions. As the wikipedia definition explains, in congregational churches the members of each local churches make decisions that affect that church. Congregational churches are also known for being independent and autonomous.
For example, consider this statement in the Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist Convention:
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.
Those who support congregational polity point to the times in Scripture where “the whole church” was involved in the decision-making process. They also point to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.
Congregationalism arose as a form of church government alongside presbyterianism and around the time of the rise of the democratic form of government (in modernity, that is).
Congregational churches may appoint committees or even individuals to oversee certain tasks or functions, but the final authority always rests with the entire church membership.
Similarly, church with congregational polity may associate with other churches, but the decision-making power rests within each local church organization, and is not usually shared among churches – even churches of the same denomination or association.
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Church Polity – Presbyterian
This is the third post in my series on church polity. (See my posts “Church Polity – Introduction” and “Church Polity – Episcopal.”) In this post, I am going to discuss the “presbyterian” form of church government.
According to Wikipedia:
Presbyterian polity is a method of church governance typified by the rule of assemblies of presbyters, or elders. Each local church is governed by a body of elected elders usually called the session or consistory, though other terms, such as church board, may apply. Groups of local churches are governed by a higher assembly of elders known as the presbytery or classis; presbyteries can be grouped into a synod, and synods nationwide often join together in a general assembly. Specific roles in church services are reserved for an ordained minister or pastor known as a teaching elder, or a minister of the word and sacrament.
For example, this is how the Church of Scotland describes its organization:
Church of Scotland government is organised on the basis of courts, mainly along lines set between 1560 and 1690. Each of these courts has developed committees, which may include other members of the Church, and those at national level now employ full-time staff…
At local level: the parish – the court is a kirk session. Kirk sessions oversee the local congregation and its parish, and consist of elders presided over by a minister.
At district level: the court is a presbytery. Presbyteries consist of all the ministers in the district and an equal number of elders, along with members of the diaconate (a form of ordained ministry, usually working in a complementary role in a ministry team in both parish and industry sector contexts).
At national level: the court is the highest court of the Kirk – the General Assembly. The General Assembly consists of around 400 ministers, 400 elders, and members of the diaconate, all representing the presbyteries.
Notice that the focus of the church government is on groups of leaders, either at the local, district, or national level. These groups make decisions for the church and hold authority over the church.
Other denominational churches and independent churches practice the presbyterian form of church government called “elder rule.” For example, this site supports elder rule:
As those who rule in the church, elders are not subject to any higher earthly authority outside the local assembly. Their authority over the church is not by force or dictatorial power, but by precept and example.
Similarly, those churches controlled by a board (whether the board is called deacons, elders, or directors), would be considered to have presbyterian polity.
Those who support the presbyterian form of church government, typically point to the use of the term “elders” (or presbyters) in the New Testament. Similarly, the proponents point to the use of elders in the plural, as well as plural forms of authority in the Old Testament and among the apostles.
Presbyterian polity rose to prominence during the Reformation when leaders of the various reformed churches decided to throw off the monoepiscopal rule of the Catholic Church.
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Church Polity – Episcopal
This is the second post in my series on church polity. (See my post “Church Polity – Introduction.”) In this post, I am going to discuss the “episcopal” form of church government.
(Note: There are actually no pure forms of any of the three types of church government. Most churches use mixed forms. So, when I talk about “episcopal” forms of church government, I’m speaking about those churches in which the episcopal form is the primary form.)
Once again, we’ll start with Wikipedia’s definition:
Episcopal polity is a form of church governance which is hierarchical in structure with the chief authority over a local Christian church resting in a bishop (Greek: episcopos). This episcopal structure is found most often in the various churches of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Church, and Anglican lineage.
Here are a few entries from a Catholic reference site to help explain one form of the episcopal government:
Primacy: Papal primacy refers to the pope’s authority over the whole church.
Cardinal: Cardinals are appointed by the pope and constitute a kind of senate of the Church, and aid the pope as his chief counselors.
Bishops: The chief priest of a diocese. Bishops are responsible for the pastoral care of their dioceses. In addition, bishops have a responsibility to act in council with other bishops to guide the Church.
Presbyterial Council: Also known as the priests’ council, this is the principal consultative body mandated by the Code of Canon Law to advise the diocesan bishop in matters of pastoral governance. It consists of bishops and priests serving the diocese.
Pastor: A priest in charge of a parish or congregation. He is responsible for administering the sacraments, instructing the congregation in the doctrine of the Church, and other services to the people of the parish.
(Also see Article 6 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)
Similarly, the Church of England explains that the bishop of a diocese is the party responsible for the diocese:
The Canons of the Church of England state that the diocesan bishop is ‘the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God’. Bishops have a particular responsibility for apostolic teaching and doctrinal orthodoxy and are to be themselves ‘an example of righteous and godly living’. They also have responsibility for worship, with the right ‘of conducting, ordering, controlling and authorising all services’.
The primary difference between the episcopal form of church government and the presbyterian form of church government is that final authority rests in one person in the episcopal form, while final authority rests in a group in the presbyterian form.
Those who espouse the episcopal form of church government usual point the necessity of having one person in charge. Similarly, they often point to the unity realized by having a single person in an authoritative position. From Scripture, they point to the hierarchy in the Old Testament levitical priesthood, as well as the role of the apostles in the New Testament. Specifically, they point to the Greek “episkopos” word group, from which we get the English term “bishop.”
The episcopal form of church government is also highlighted in Ignatius’ letters written sometime around 100 A.D.
Note that regardless of what the “governance” is called, if final authority rests in one person, then that church has an episcopal form of government in reality. This is true of many independent churches with a single strong leader (especially if that leader also started the church). A church with a senior pastor who holds final authority would also be an example of episcopal polity.
————————————————–
Church Polity Series
Church Polity – Introduction
According to the great, all-knowing Wikipedia:
Ecclesiastical polity is the operational and governance structure of a church or Christian denomination. It also denotes the ministerial structure of the church and the authority relationships between churches. Polity is closely related to Ecclesiology, the study of doctrine and theology relating to church organization.
Theopedia provides a similar definition:
Church government (or sometimes church polity) is that branch of ecclesiology (study of the church) that addresses the organizational structure and hierarchy of the church. There are basically three types of church government that have developed in the various Christian denominations: the episcopal, the presbyterian, and the congregational.
So, church polity (or ecclesiastical polity or church government) refers to organizational or governing structure among the church. Polity is closely related to questions of hierarchy and authority. And, in fact, one’s view of ecclesiology is strong influenced by one’s view of church polity (and vice versa).
The definition from theopedia also tells us that three basic types of church government are episcopal, prebyterian, and congregational. I’ve planned a blog post about each of these three basic types of church polity. In each one, I will talk about the scriptural justification as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each type of government.
To begin with, though, I want to point out what I think is a major weakness of each of these three types of polity as they are generally practiced today. For the most part, church polity deals with organization and hierarchy. The church, however, is not an organization or hierarchy. The church is a group of people. Don’t misunderstand me: any group of people will be organized in some way, whether that organized is intentional or not, highly structured or not. Whenever two or more people get together, there will be some type of organization.
However, the organization is not the church. Too often today the organization and especially the leadership is confused as being the church. The church comes before the organization, supersedes the organization, and is more important than the organization. But, when the church acts as if organization and hierarchy and government make up the church, the growth of the church will be stunted. (I’m not talking as much about numerical growth as much as maturity growth.)
Even though the church comes before the organization, organizational and governmental issues often drive the direction of the church, even when the matters being governed are not truly “church” issues. Often, polity revolves around making other organizational decisions, which should have very little, if anything, to do with the life of the church. But, when the church puts too much emphasis on organization, these organizational issues soon take on a life of their own, and begin to take over the life of the church.
So, while organizational issues are not as important as the church itself, often the church makes organizational issues more important because of the way they handle polity, organization, structure, hierarchy, and decision making. I’ll talk a little about this in each of the three posts related to the three basic forms of church government.
Then, in the last post of this series, I will talk about a fourth form of church government, one that is not episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational. This fourth type of church polity also has scriptural roots and has strengths and weaknesses.
I look forward to your interaction in these posts.
————————————————–