Upcoming Series on Church Polity
I’m working on a series on church polity. It may be ready to being publishing next week. Maybe.
When I first started studying ecclesiology, I found that most books and articles primarily wanted to talk about church polity. This was strange to me, since I saw so little in Scripture about the problems that church polity attempts to answer. But, maybe I missed something.
What do you think of when you hear the phrase “church polity”? What are some different options of church polity that you’ve experienced? What are you views of church polity?
Leadership is not decision-making
Since I’ve been talking about leadership and service lately, I thought I would re-publish one of the posts that I wrote two years ago on a similar subject. The post is called “Leadership is not decision-making.” Leaders – along with the entire church – may need to make decisions, but this is not a factor of being a leader. Instead, it is a response to the Spirit who indwells all believers, not just leaders. No, the main factor of being a leader is service… serving other people… no decision-making.
————————————————-
Leadership is not decision-making
When we study the idea of leadership in Scripture, we find that leadership in the church is not decision-making, and decision-making is not leadership. When we study the idea of leadership in today’s church, we find that leadership is primarily about decision-making.
Ready almost any book on ecclesiology or church leadership, and you’ll read about various forms of “church government” or “church polity”. You’ll read about the episcopal form, in which a bishop (or senior pastor) makes decisions for the church. You’ll also read about the presbyterian form, in which a group of people (elders, pastors, staff, or deacons) make decisions for the church. Finally, you’ll read about the congregational form, in which the church itself makes the decisions.
But, when we search Scripture to determine who should make decisions for the church, we come up short. Scripture does not deal with the concept of making decisions for the church. Yes, we find church leadership in the church: elders, bishops, pastors, deacons, teachers, etc. But, these are not mentioned in the context of making decisions. However, we do find that decisions are made in Scripture.
In Acts 6, the people come to the apostles with a problem. Some of the widows are not receiving food, while others are receiving food. The apostles did not make decisions for the people. Instead, the apostles tell the people to take care of the situation. The apostles lead by suggesting characteristics of those who should serve these widows, but they do not make the decision for the people.
In Acts 15, a major question is brought before the apostles: should Gentile Christians become Jews – i.e. should they be circumcised and required to keep the law. The decision that would be made at this time would affect the church for all ages. Who made the decisions? The apostles? Yes, they were part of the decision-making process. The elders? Yes, they were part of the decision-making process. Others? Yes, even Barnabas and Paul were allowed to take part even though they were part of the church in Antioch. In fact, it seems that the entire church took part in the decision-making process. But, certainly the entire church would not have been considered leaders.
In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul writes to the church in Corinth about a “brother” who was living an immoral life. The church was doing nothing about this situation, and Paul admonished them for it. Paul told them what he thought they should do about this situation, but who was responsible for making the decision to actually do it? Apparently, Paul left that up to the church.
In each case, the “leaders” involved guided and taught and admonished and exhorted, but they did not make decisions for other people. In fact, in 3 John, we see an example of a “leader” who does make decisions for people, and John speaks of him (Diotrephes) negatively.
So, if leadership is not about decision-making in Scripture, then what is leadership? Leadership is service – serving people. Service should be the start of the discussion about church leadership, and service should be the end of the discussion about church leadership. Teaching is about service. Sherpherding is about service. Overseeing (watching out for) is about service. Leadership is about service. Those who do not serve are not leaders in the scriptural sense.
When we see discussions about church government (polity) and its different forms, we should recognize that these questions and forms and structures arose after the New Testament was written. For example, it is from Ignatius that we learn that the bishop should make decisions for the church and that the church should do nothing without the approval of the bishop.
Now, this does not mean that scriptural leaders (servants) do not have influence concerning decisions. They do and they should. Assuming that we have recognized leaders because of their spiritual maturity and their service to others (and this is a HUGE assumption that is often not true), then we should ask for their opinions, and we should often follow what they say (Heb. 13:17). Leaders, on the other hand, must recognize that we can selfishly use our influence to get our own way – even when the outcome doesn’t really matter.
Since they are more spiritually mature (we’re assuming, remember), then leaders should be the first to give up their rights for the rights of others. Leaders should be the first to consider others as more important than themselves and, therefore, to consider the opinion of others as more important than their own opinion. When leaders are concerned about a decision, then they influence that decision through service, teaching, admonishment, exhortation, but not by attempting to exercising authority – that authority belongs only to the one head of the church. Leaders must be willing to serve all, and allow Christ to control the decision-making.
But, that’s not what we find today. Instead, when people talk about leadership in the church, they talk about decision-making. Perhaps, we need to stop trying to make decisions, and start serving. If a decision has to be made (and make sure that it actually HAS to be made), then offer your opinion, teach, admonish, exhort, etc. Then, allow the ones affected by the decision to make that decision.
To do that, of course, we’ll have to find leaders who are willing to serve only.
Count others more significant than yourselves
At the beginning of Philippians chapter 2, Paul lays out a very convicting list that should define the life of believers. One of those characteristics is this: “Count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3) Another is this: “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4).
Paul then tells us that in order to think like this, we should think the same way that Jesus Christ thought (Philippians 2:5-11).
Have you ever thought about what this should look like in the lives of Christian leaders, elders, pastors, bishops, etc? Do these commands apply to leaders in the church? How?
We Have A Short Memory
When it comes to our church traditions, beliefs, and practices, people tend to have a short memory. We believe that whatever has occurred in our lifetime – or our “church time” – must have occurred through all of the history of the church.
I remember when I first realized this. When we were discussing leadership for our church, we started talking about “elders.” Of course, coming from a Baptist tradition, most of the people used the term “pastors” and “the pastor.” Someone said, “We’re not Presbyterians. We don’t have elders; we have pastors.”
I scratched my head at that statement. Why? Because I knew that historically Baptists had used the terms “pastor,” “elder,” and “bishop” interchangeably. In fact, the London Baptist Confession of 1689 used all three terms, preferring “elder” or “bishop.” The Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 (the earliest confession of our own denomination) used only the terms “elders” and “bishops.”
But, the people who were part of our church only knew about the term “pastors.” Since that was the only terms they had heard, they assumed it was the only terms that could be used.
Of course, this doesn’t only apply to what we call pastors/elders/bishops. Did you know that Sunday School only started (at the earliest) in 1751 in England? And, it wasn’t started to teach people Scripture; it was started to teach children living in slums how to read so that they would not become criminals. That’s a far cry from modern Sunday Schools, isn’t it? But could you imagine suggesting a Sunday School that didn’t teach the Bible or Christian doctrine, or Christian living? Why can we not imagine that? Because we have a short memory, and we assume that what we’ve experienced is the way it’s always been done and the way it should always be done.
What about Youth ministry? Surely the first Youth ministry was started by Peter or Paul, right? No. Actually, youth ministry did not start until the industrial revolution (late 1800s to early 1900s) as a way to provide community support for young people who moved away from the farms (and their home town community support) to be near the factories. Youth ministry kicked it up a notch in the 1940s and 1950s to help servicemen returning from World War II. (But, note, these were not primarily teenagers, but people in their early twenties.)
So, why can we not imagine a church without a youth ministry? Because that’s the way we’ve always seen it done, and so that must be the way it’s supposed to be. We have a short memory.
You could say the same for our “traditional” hymns, which tend to be only a couple of hundred (at most) years old. Or traditional church instruments. Or so many other beliefs, programs, and activities of the church. In many cases, we don’t realize that what we’re doing or what we believe is a relatively new invention or creation. (Note, this does not mean that these things are bad in and of themselves.)
It’s true. We have a short memory. Typically, our memory only reaches as far back as our own experiences.
But, the church should never be based on our experiences… or our traditions, for that matter. The church is much more than that. Perhaps, this is why I love to look at the church in Scripture so much. In those images and stories and encounters and corrections and instructions, we find a beautiful picture of a timeless community built around the continued presence and work of Jesus Christ.
When we focus on the church from a scriptural perspective and on the presence and work of Jesus Christ, our memory gets much, much better.
Are you my elder?
Arthur, at “The Voice Of One Crying In Suburbia,” has asked an excellent question in his post “Things that make you shake your head.” Arthur links to a post whose author suggests that reading should almost be a requirement for being an elder. Arthur says that reading is a good practice, but he doesn’t see it as a requirement for being an elder.
I wonder, what do you see as being requirements for being an elder? By this, I mean, what absolutely must someone be, do, think, believe, etc. in order for you to recognize that person as an elder (pastor, if you prefer)?
(By the way, I know about 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Please do not just list those passages. Instead, explain what those passages mean and how you would use them to choose whether or not to recognize someone as an elder. For example, 1 Timothy 3:3 says, “Not a drunkard.” How would you apply that?)
(By the way #2, the man in the picture above is one of my elders.)
Qualifications and Examples
About three and a half years ago, I wrote a post called “Qualifications and Examples.” The post was triggered by a passage from John Hammett’s book Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. As I say in the post, I don’t like the phrase “qualifications” for the lists in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Perhaps, as I ask at the end of the post, you have a better term.
—————————————————–
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 exemplary 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 begin 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?
A servant is a leader is a servant
Jesus defined leadership like this:
But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. (Mark 10:43-44 ESV)
So, a leader is one who serves. And, Jesus defined service like this:
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45 ESV)
If someone is not giving up something costly (i.e., even his/her life) for other people, then that person is not serving. If that person is not serving, then he/she is not a leader and should not be followed.
It’s really rather simple. We should not measure our leaders by their education, speaking abilities, or giftedness. Leaders are those who serve.
If we are not following servants, then we are not following the leaders that God has placed in our lives. (By the way, if we are not imitating the servants, then we are not following them.)
(Can you find the leader in the picture?)
The Pastor as Prophet, Priest, and King?
My friend Adam from “adamic” has posted a very interesting question in his post “Church Leader as Jesus?” He points to a “missional” class that he says sounds like it is teaching that a pastor should “fill Christ’s role in the local body.” He says:
On further digging, my fears appear confirmed. Each course’s description ends, “This course will focus on the pastor as prophet . . . pastor as priest . . . pastor as king.” I’m not sure where in Scripture you get the idea that the pastor is to fill all the offices of Christ in the local body. Do you know?
Like I commented to Adam, this sounds more like Ignatius than Paul. I’m hoping someone answers his concerns.
Women Serving in Context
So, I’ve published two posts in the last two days about “women in ministry,” that is, about women serving others. (see “Spiritual Gifts and Women” and “Spiritually Gifted Women“) In those two posts, I suggested that 1) the NT authors did not limit the spiritual gifts that God gives women, and 2) it is proper to use titles such as apostle, prophet, evangelist, teacher, shepherd, leader, etc. to refer to women.
Also, in both posts, I pointed out that God gives spiritual gifts so that the one gifted can serve others. So, it would appear that God does intend for such spiritually gifted women to serve others.
In general, these are not the hotly debated issues when it comes to “women in ministry.” Instead, the heated debates surround questions such as:
Should a woman be an elder (pastor/preacher)?
Should a woman be a Bible study teacher?
Should a woman teach men?
Should a woman be a deacon?
Since the modern church tends to view “pastor” and “preacher” as synonymous with “elder,” I’m combined those into one question. In Scripture, though, a “pastor” is one who shepherds, and I’ve already suggested that it is appropriate to refer to a woman who exercises the spiritual gift of shepherding with that title… if a title has to be used. Similarly, a “preacher” in Scripture is one who proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ to unbelievers. Since we are all called to proclaim the gospel (including women), I see no problem with calling a woman a “preacher.”
Once again, though, the problem is the way that the modern church uses those terms, not with the biblical usage of the terms. Thus, in today’s church, when someone says “preacher,” that person is probably referring to an elder who regularly teaches the church. That person is probably not using the term “preacher” to refer to someone who regularly proclaims the gospel to unbelievers. Thus, we have problems due to our use of words, not due to commands or prohibitions in Scripture.
Once we get past those differences in word usage (that is, the difference between the way we generally use words today and the way the words are used in Scripture), we still must deal with certain passages of Scripture that deal with the context of women serving others. Primarily, those passages are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Others would include 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9.
I am not going to exegete those passages at this time. That’s not the purpose of this post or this series. Instead, I would like to point out that differences of interpretation in these passages… and, in fact, those different interpretation are not new. Followers of Jesus Christ has disagreed about the meaning of those passages for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
So, I do not intend to present another interpretation – my interpretation is already out there among the myriad of other interpretation. One of them is correct… perhaps.
But, how do we deal with instances where people disagree over the interpretations of these passages and others like them? What do we do when someone limits the role of women more than we think is correct, or when someone gives more freedom to the service of women than we think is correct?
In my denomination, the rule has been to separate from churches who decide that women can serve in more contexts than the denomination allows. In other denominations, it has been the role to allow any interpretation.
So, what do we do? How do we handle these differences when we meet together with other believers?
An imaginary conversation with Jesus about leadership
Me: Jesus, I want to be a church leader.
Jesus: That’s good.
Me: Thanks. I’ve been talking to other people about it, and I’ve gotten some good advice.
Jesus: Such as?
Me: Well, I’ve been told that I should find a leadership position, like a Sunday School teacher, or a ministry director, or something like that, and start getting experience being a leader. Then, I should consider going to seminary, because that’s where I’ll really learn what it means to be a leader. After seminary, I can find a position in a church somewhere and really start leading.
Jesus: Oh? And what do you think about that?
Me: Well, it sounds good. I mean, everyone I talked to did it that way, and it seems to have worked for them. But, I was wondering what you thought.
Jesus: Interesting. I don’t usually get asked this question until after the plan is in motion.
Me: What do you mean?
Jesus: Well, I often get requests from people who are already considered leaders, but I’m not often asked what it means to be a leader in the first place.
Me: Oh. Well, what do you think I should do to be a leader in the church?
Jesus: Serve.
Me: I don’t know much about tennis.
Jesus: No, not tennis. Serve people.
Me: Oh, you mean like “servant leadership”?
Jesus: No, I mean serve people. If I give you an opportunity to serve someone, then do it.
Me: Oh. You’re talking about actually serving people.
Jesus: Yes.
Me: I’m asking you about leadership, though. You know, teaching, making decisions, presenting a vision – your vision, of course – that kind of thing.
Jesus: If that’s what you want, then fine. But, you asked me what I wanted. And, I want you to serve.
Me: What about seminary? Shouldn’t church leaders go to seminary?
Jesus: Seminary – or any other type of education – is fine. It can be very helpful. But, I want you to serve people, whether you go to seminary or not.
Me: But, will people appoint me to a leadership position without a seminary degree?
Jesus: I don’t know. Maybe not. Do you want a leadership position, or do you want to know what I expect of leaders?
Me: Well, I guess I want to know what you expect of leaders.
Jesus: Then, I want you to serve. When I bring someone into your life, I want you to give up your own wants, desires, hopes, even needs in order to take care of them. If they need food, then feed them. If they need something to drink, then give it to them. If they’re sick, then take care of them. I want you to serve.
Me: But, that’s not really leading, is it?
Jesus: That’s exactly what I call leading. In fact, the more you serve, the greater the leader you will be.
Me: But, how is that leadership?
Jesus: I want you to serve, and I want others to serve as well. As people see you serve, they will serve. You will lead them in how to serve as you all serve together.
Me: You know, that’s not really what I was talking about.
Jesus: Yes, I know.
Me: The advice that the other people gave me sounds better.
Jesus: Yes, I know.
Me: If I become the other type of leader, people will follow me then too.
Jesus: Yes, I know.
Me: But, you want me – and others – to serve people?
Jesus: Yes.
Me: Are there any good books that will help me understand what you’re talking about?
Jesus: I’ve always been partial to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts,… well, you get the picture.
Me: Yeah, I think I do.
Jesus: Paul is a great example of service. Do you know how much he gave up in order to serve people?
Me: Well, I haven’t really read it that way.
Jesus: Maybe you should try…
Me: I’ll think about it.
Jesus: I hope you do.