Financial and identity challenges to tentmaking
Len at “NextReformation” has written a very interesting post called “missional spirituality – tentmaking.” Of course, by the term “tentmaking,” Len simply refers to elders/pastors who work a secular job, that is, they are not paid by the church to be elders/pastors.
Len makes this very observant statement about “tentmaking”:
The deepest challenges are financial and identity related. Christendom structures do not tend to validate unpaid ministry, and that lack usually impacts the internal sense of identity of leaders. Pastors and teachers without letterhead and business cards may have difficultly not just with those who would otherwise be colleagues, but also with their internal convictions about call and adequacy. But we desperately need pastors, teachers, evangelists, apostles and prophets who are not waiting for permission to pursue their kingdom vocations. The existing system will only rarely legitimize a call that is outside its boundaries. But those boundaries exist more as a legacy of a cultural modality than a biblical one, and they are collapsing.
I can tell you that from my seminary and denominational perspective, Len is exactly right. An elder/pastor who works a secular job for support is viewed differently than an elder/pastor who is paid a salary by the church, even if that salary is extremely small. Now, don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think anyone who is part of the seminary or denomination would make that statement, but it seems evident in actions and attitudes.
I guess, using this terminology, I am a tentmaker… and by choice. Interestingly, I think Paul would be surprised that we use the term “tentmaker.” That was his profession. It wasn’t anything special.
How church leaders were different from synagogue leaders
There were, however, differences [between church leaders and synagogue leaders]. Our Christian documents give no evidence of some of the dignitaries who were occasionally reported at the synagogues. There is no senior elder = gerousiarches, nor any equivalent by another title. The levitical priests, who had only vestigial identity in the synagogues, have none in the churches. The inner circle of authority, the notables = archontes, have not carried over. Nor have the various minor officers mentioned [in the synagogues]. (James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, 340)
Is submitting the same as being subjected?
Matthew recently provided his full PhD dissertation on his website. The title of his dissertation is “The Authority of Church Elders in the New Testament.” I’m still reading through the dissertation, hoping to better understand Matthew’s position on elders and authority. But, I came across this very exciting conclusion from Hebrews 13:17:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 ESV)
(By the way, Matthew also thinks that “Follow” is a better translation than “Obey.”)
Matthew says:
That the recipients of this letter were to choose to follow their leaders with understanding and conviction, having been persuaded, is confirmed by the exhortation itself. The author did not urge the leaders to bring the congregation into submission, which would imply they had some power to do so. These instructions were given to the congregation; they had the freedom and responsibility to follow their leaders. The author provided several reasons to persuade them to follow their leaders. (157-58)
Yes! Exactly! There is no passage of Scripture in which leaders are told to exercise authority over others. None. Every passage that is usually used to teach elders and other leaders to “exercise authority” are actually directed toward others in order to encourage them to respect or give honor to or submit to their leaders. (see also 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 and 1 Timothy 5:17)
In other words, submitting is not the same as being subjected. We are to offer our respect and follow our leaders. Leaders are never to exert authority or force others into submission.
Lionel wants to follow someone’s example
Lionel at “A Better Covenant” has written a great post full of thought-provoking ideas called “You Need A Leader And God Has Called Me To Be Yours.” The entire post is about a desire to follow a leader’s example (his life) and not following because of his position.
This is Lionel’s conclusion:
Everyone wants someone to submit to them, but nobody wants to serve. Everyone is called (I am not saying this calling is true only affirming the common mindset) to be a leader and says you should submit to them but again leadership begins with service. Leadership begins with reputation, practice, living it out amongst a group of believers. We love leadership here in America because it costs you nothing yet gains you everything. Man want to eat the fruit of being apostles but are [not] living like them. So you can miss (miss means to bypass in the urban vernacular) Lionel Woods. I don’t believe in submitting to positions in the body of Christ. I believe in submitting to people who have lived a life worthy of imitating. Self-recognized men who call themselves leaders and then require others to submit to them based off of some wrong biblical interpretation won’t work. I will submit to all believers as I see the work of the Lord Jesus in their lives and as the Spirit speaks through them. All that other stuff, is just stuff and titles and positions and at the end of the day it looks more like a Franchise than a family!
I wonder how many more people would be willing to follow a Christ-honoring, serving example. I wonder how many “leaders” would be willing to step down off the platform and start serving people on their hands and knees.
When good motives go bad: Further thinking about the pulpit and other churchy type stuff
Recently, my good friend Lew wrote an interesting post called “Words Not Found in Scripture – Pulpit.” (By the way, this post is part of a series in which he traces words/concepts that are not found in Scripture. If you haven’t read it yet, then you should.)
Lew begins his post like this:
What is said and done behind a pulpit is serious business to the average churcher. Sometimes you might hear someone say, “Can you believe what he said behind the pulpit?†Another may believe that the pulpit is a ministry that is “absolutely essential to the vitality and health of the church as a whole. †Some even believe that a pulpit shows our dependence on God and his Scriptures. I could go on and on about what people see the pulpit as; or believe what the pulpit means.
Lew then points out that the term “pulpit” is not found in the New Testament at all. Because of Lew’s post, I started thinking about things that are started for good reasons, but end up harming the church… or, if not harming, at least hindering the church’s maturity.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Are you saying that ‘the pulpit’ may harm the church or hinder the church’s maturity?” Well, yeah, that’s what I’m saying. Let me explain.
Now the pulpit is ancient. It originally referred to a stage for actors, then eventually began to refer to a podium used by speakers. In the Reformation, the pulpit took on a different significance… not a different purpose, but a different significance. Pulpits and podiums had been standard furniture in church buildings for centuries, and people stood behind those podiums to read from Scripture and to present sermons. But, the Reformers decided to de-emphasize the Eucharist and emphasize the Scriptures. Thus, they began to put more and more significance on “the pulpit” and less and less significance on “the altar.”
Good motives, right? I mean, it’s good for people to think about the importance of Scripture. But, something began to happen.
People began to lose sight of the fact that “the pulpit” was meant to point to the Scriptures, and began to see “the pulpit” as something that almost stands on its own. Christians began to argue about what kind of language could be used “in the pulpit” (and they still argue this point), completely missing the fact that the passages of Scripture used to argue against coarse language “in pulpit” actually said nothing about “the pulpit.”
Similarly, others began to find authority “in the pulpit” such that only certain people were allowed to speak from “behind the pulpit.” Once again, the passages of Scripture used to defend this line of thinking did not mention a pulpit or any type of furniture. “The pulpit” became so important for some that the thought (and God-forbid the practice) of removing the pulpit meant a slide toward atheism.
Soon, “the pulpit” began to replace the Scriptures instead of pointing to the Scriptures. (Obviously, this didn’t happen for all believers.) Even the fact that pulpits seem to be irreplaceable and necessary to our understanding of the church shows just how far this line of thinking has progressed. “The pulpit” no longer points to the Scriptures, but has replaced the Scriptures.
When the reformers began to focus attention on “the pulpit,” they had good motives, but I think the outcome has actually worked to harm the church by hindering the church’s growth and discipleship.
The same thing could be said of church buildings, pews (or chairs) in rows, choirs, baptistries, etc. As with the pulpit (the piece of furniture), none of these things are evil in and of themselves. However, without recognizing it, things that we use for good reasons can actually work against the edification of the church.
So, should we stop using podiums? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop sitting in pews or chairs lined up in rows? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop using baptistries? Maybe, maybe not.
How do people view these things? Are they distracting the church? Are they causing believers to misunderstand who they are in Christ and their responsibilities in Christ? Are we willing to take a close look at the things that we consider to be indispensable? Are we willing to change if we find these things are actually hampering the church in their life together?
Manage his own household?
I’ve read several books and blog posts that mention 1 Timothy 3:5 as an indicator that elders/overseers are to “manage” the church – with “manage” meaning “be in charge of” or “direct the affairs of”. First, let’s look at that verse in context:
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:7 ESV)
According to the ESV, if someone cannot “manage his own household”, then that person will not be able to “care for God’s church”. Let’s begin with the last part of that phrase: “care for God’s church”.
“Care for” is a translation of the Greek verb á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai). In the New Testament, the word always means something like “care for a person or thing”. It is used twice in Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan:
He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care [á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai)] of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care [á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai)] of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ (Luke 10:34-35 ESV)
It is pretty clear what á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai) means in the context of 1 Timothy 3:5. If X happens (the first phrase that we’ll examine next), then the same person will not take care of the needs of God’s people.
But, what about that first phrase? What does it mean for someone to “manage his or her own household”? The verb translated “manage” is Ï€Ïοΐστημι (proistÄ“mi). This verb has three different meanings: 1) to be at the head of, rule, 2) be concerned about, care for, give aid, and 3) busy oneself with, be engaged in.
The question is, which definition should be used in 1 Timothy 3:5? The ESV, and most English translations, opt for definition #1. Thus, Paul would be saying that a person who cannot rule his household will not know how to take care of people.
However, in context, it seems that definition #2 fits better. A person who does not know how to care for his or her own family will not know how to care for the people of God. Both verbs then – Ï€Ïοΐστημι (proistÄ“mi) and á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai) – would be translated as “take care of”, meaning that Paul is using them synonymously.
Of course, we don’t have the option of changing the meaning of á¼Ï€Î¹Î¼ÎµÎ»á½³Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ (epimeleomai). It does not carry that meaning. Thus, there is no option for Paul talking about “ruling the church of God”. However, this is how this passage is often understood because of the translation of the first verb Ï€Ïοΐστημι (proistÄ“mi).
However, if we take these two verbs together, it seems that Paul is not talking about ruling/managing a household or ruling/managing the church. Instead, he’s talking about taking care of people.
Ordination
My friend Maël from “The Adventures of Maël and Cindy” has started publishing a paper that he wrote on the topic of ordination. His introduction is in his post called “Ordination – Intro.” I’ve read his paper, and I really enjoyed it. I’m sure it garnered some great discussion when he presented it in a PhD seminar.
I wonder… what do you think about ordination?
Employment
“Employment” is a post (really an observation and a set of questions) that I published three years ago after a conversation at work. This short post triggered some good discussion. Hopefully, it will do the same this time.
———————————————————————
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?
Considering Mutuality – Implications for ‘Non-Leaders’
So far in this series, I’ve introduced the topic of mutuality (“Considering Mutuality – Introduction“), contrasted mutuality with both individualism and collectivism (“Considering Mutuality – Individualism and Collectivism“), demonstrated that the concept of mutuality is prevalent in the New Testament (“Considering Mutuality – Where in Scripture?“), and explored the scriptural connection between mutuality and maturity for believers (“Considering Mutuality – And Maturity?“). Finally, in my previous post in this series, I discussed some of the implications of living mutually interdependent lives for leaders among the church (“Considering Mutuality – Implications for leaders”).
There are many, many among the church who desire to live mutually interdependent relationships with other believers, and who recognize the importance of these relationships for the maturity of the church. However, these people are not considered “leaders” among the church. They are not elders, or deacons, or pastors, or teachers, or whatever other titles the church may use to recognize leaders. What do these people do? Is it hopeless? Must they “leave their church” in order to find and nurture these kinds of mutually interdependent relationships?
The simple answers are: No, it is not hopeless, and no, they do not have to “leave their church” in order to live mutually with one another.
However, they many need to become leaders. What?!?!? Am I saying that people will need to become elders or pastors for their church in order to seek and see these mutual relationships? No. That’s not what I said.
Instead, I said that they may need to become leaders… meaning, they may need to lead others in forming mutually interdependent relationships. They may need to become the examples that others will need in order to recognize the importance of mutuality.
I get calls and emails from believers all the time. I meet with people for lunch. And, eventually, a question like this comes up: “But, how do I begin to form and live in this kind of relationship with others when our church and church leaders don’t seem interested? Should I leave my church?”
I have never suggested that someone “leave their church” for this reason. Instead, I encourage people to begin forming and living in relationships with those people who are already in their lives. They may know these people through church organizations, work, neighborhoods, etc. Eat together. Serve together. Get together. Play games together. Go to movies together. Help one another.
Invite your church leaders to your house and spend time with them outside of the “formal programs” of the church. Relate to them as brother and sister. Ask them about their problems and concerns and hopes and struggles etc.
In other words, if you want live mutually with others, then you may need to “lead” in this type of relationship. Share your life with others and provide opportunities for others to share their lives with you. And… be PATIENT! People do not naturally think mutually. You may need to listen to others for months, years, decades before they start listening to you. You may need to care for others for a long time before they start caring for you.
But, that’s okay… even though it is very difficult. The goal of mutuality and maturity in Christ is worth the hard work… and it IS hard work. In fact, once there is a group of people living mutually with one another, the hard work remains.
But, mutuality and maturity are worth the hard work. And, remember, you are never working along. In fact, you are never working at all… you are simply allowing the Holy Spirit to work through you doing the work that he already wants to do.
Recent Converts as Elders?
My previous installment of “Scripture… As We Live It” was based on Acts 14:23:
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14:23 ESV)
In this passage, Luke records that as Paul and Barnabas traveled back toward Antioch, they stopped in the cities that they had previously visited and “appointed” elders among the believers in each of those cities. More than likely, only a few months to a year had elapsed since Paul and Barnabas had first proclaimed the gospel in those cities.
As Lionel and Jeff pointed out in the comments of my other post, this seems to contradict what Paul later writes to Timothy:
He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:6 ESV)
So… is this a contradiction?