Since several of my readers are preachers (or have played one on TV), I feel the need to speak to the role preachers play in people leaving a given congregation. Preachers have always had an influential role in our brotherhood; there has been a conscious effort over the last few decades to give them even more power. For the record, I’m against it.
It reminds me a bit of the situation of Israel in the days of Samuel. “We want a king like all the nations around us.” We want to make our preachers pastors, senior pastors! This will help us to be like the churches around us. Just as it was a terrible idea back then, it’s a terrible idea today.
It’s interesting to me that about the time the business world moved away from the “Lone Ranger at the top” model, churches decided that was the way to go. Businesses moved to collaborative leadership; churches moved away.
I support the elder model, where the elders lead. Ideally, the ministers provide biblical teaching, helping the pastors to feed the flock. But the elders remain the ones responsible for the congregation.
A big reason for this has to do with tenure. Preachers come and go. There are exceptions, but by and large, preachers are at a congregation for a relatively short amount of time in the history of that congregation. A healthy congregation will have continuity in the eldership, consistently raising up new men to serve alongside those who are already there.
I remember one congregation that I love that went through a rough time back in the 1980s. A minister came in (associate minister) and pushed for the congregation to create a detailed vision statement. This led to months of committee meetings, with almost everyone in the congregation stating their opinion as to where the church should be going. Discussions became heated and hard feelings were created. Finally, a vision statement was created. I don’t know that the ink was dry on that statement before the minister that started the whole process had taken another job. What he left behind was the heartache and strained relationships.
I’ll say a bit more tomorrow about the role of preachers in congregational dissatisfaction. But for now, I’d like to hear your thoughts on elder-led congregations versus minister-led congregations.
Tim, I can’t comment on this, Don will give me a call :)
Tim,
I remember attending a lectureship at one of our colleges where a professor from another college was teaching on elders as shepherds. He made the statement, which I believe to be correct, “All elders should be shepherds, but not all shepherds are elders.”
As a preacher, I have often done much shepherding – not in trying to do the elder’s job, but because God put the opportunity and necessity before me. Yet, I have never considered myself “The Pastor” of the church – not even when I was not preaching, but served as an elder.
Could you comment on the quote as it may or may not apply today.
Jerry
Jerry,
I agree that many people who aren’t elders shepherd. They perform the functions of a shepherd. But I also know that there is a reason why certain ones are designated as “the shepherds” of the congregation. I’m not sure if that makes sense.
I do a lot of pastoral duties at the congregation where I attend. However, when asked to become an elder, I felt that I didn’t have the time to dedicate myself to that role as needed. I asked to not be named at this time, but I will continue “shepherding” people. But I’m not able right now to do all that is needed to be an official leader of the church.
Don’t know if all that makes sense.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I notice, even in your own narrative, Tim, that it wasn’t the shortness of his tenure that created the problem – it was the shallowness of his attitude (of course, I’ve never had a great deal of trust for job-hoppers like that anyway!).
I think that “elder-led” is a wise way to work, but it definitely has its own pitfalls. Unteachable elders… power struggles among the elders… treating the preacher as a hired hand rather than a partner in ministry…
I think the New Testament gives us examples of elder-led, minister-led, and congregational leadership, so the pattern to be restored isn’t quite as clear-cut as our leaders of a few decades ago would have us believe. I believe the Spirit works best in the midst of a community of leaders (thus, the elder-led model), though.
Matthew Morine recently blogged about relationships between ministers and elders – it’s a fascinating series that might be beneficial to the discussion here.
I am going to disagree strongly with you on this Tim. I’m not for a single-preacher/minister (senior-minister, pastor, etc…) led church. But I challenge you to show where the leadership of the local congregation was the final responsibility of the elders alone. The elders certainly have a role and responsibility to play in the leadership but it is clear from all three of the Pastoral epistles, that Paul expected Timothy and Titus to continue asserting their role and responsibility in leadership as an evangelist. Further more, I think we need to take a stronger look at Ephesians 4.11-12, where the list of those involved in the leadership of the church is even greater than just elders (pastors) and evangelists.
As I said, I’m not for putting the role and responsibility in the hands of a single lead-minister but I am convinced that placing that same role and responsibility in the hands of the eldership is just as unbiblical as the other way. What I would suggest (and what I believe when considering the biblical evidence) is that the leadership of the local church ought to be undertaken by the leaders of the church which, at the very least, includes both the pastors and the evangelist(s)or as we commonly identify them, the elders and minister(s).
Grace and Peace,
Rex
BTW…
I meant to say also that recognizing both the role of the pastors and evangelist(s) in the leadership of the local church, that each group needs to understand what role and responsibility it plays in the leadership, fulfilling that and allowing the other to do the same. Further, each group needs to see itself as servants of the church rather than overlords and each group needs to listen to the other.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Nick,
I agree that the problem I described was not just about short tenure. That was actually the point I was trying to make, that preachers need to be sensitive to the temporary nature of their position and that they need to think of the longterm consequences. Too often, preachers contribute to creating a mess, then move on somewhere else, leaving the mess behind.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Rex,
I agree that ministers do share in the leadership of a congregation, as do other members who may not be in recognized leadership positions. But I find the whole “preacher is the CEO” model to be extremely unhealthy. And I would argue that ministers grow into a leadership role in a church over time. It’s a position they earn, not one that they are entitled to due to the title on their business card.
Your comments about servant leadership vs. “lording over” are extremely pertinent.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I agree with you on disliking the CEO Minister role. I also think all leadership is earned, not gained by title.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Sheep will follow the one they perceive is the shepherd.
I feel the same way you do about making the preacher the pastor. Whenever he decides to move on (or when the elders decide it), you’ll have the sheep who feel he’s the shepherd moving with him. They may not follow him across the country, but they often follow him out the door.
Yes, the preacher will often have opportunities to offer pastoral care, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a pastor. Problem is, when you’re looking for men to be elders/shepherds, you tend to look for those already shepherding.
I think, a la Eph 4:11-12, that what we call ministers today grow into leaders inasmuch as they grow into pastor/teachers. They aren’t apostles… they might be prophets in the “interpreting the will of God” sense…
But my biggest concern with drawing Eph 4:11-12 into a discussion of a modern concept of “leadership” is that leadership isn’t what Paul’s talking about. Not in the sense that we typically imagine leadership.
Equipping is the job of a squire, not a general.
Interesting discussion, Tim. I am currently looking for a new ministry position, and from the majority of “churches looking” descriptions, most (not all) congregations are looking for a full time, paid elder. Most emphasize the necessity of pastoral visitation (although they will loathe to use the term), involvement in the community (I see Kiwanis clubs here) and the willingness to counsel, officiate at weddings, funerals, etc. Very rarely to I see an emphasis on Biblical preaching, and I cannot remember one that emphasized the prayer/devotional life of the minister/preacher. In congregations with no or deficient elders, the minister may be forced into more of a leading role – but I strongly agree that a healthy relationship is one in which the minister serves under the elders’ leadership and alongside them in feeding and guiding the congregation. I do not want to be a “denominational” pastor! I do want to be a biblical minister – and that is tough enough in today’s culture.
Where does Paul ever instruct Timothy and Titus to serve under (or over, for that matter) the elders they are to appoint? Further more, where does Paul ever instruct Timothy and Titus to subject the decisions they must make for their ministries to the authority and approval of elders (that is not too say that either evangelist should not seek counsel with the elders about a decision)?
I realize that in many classic denominations, the leadership model has posited the preacher/pastor over the “board of elders” as though the “pastors” leadership authority is greater than that of the elders (i.e., Pastor > Elders) to the church. I agree that this is wrong but I believe the Restoration Movement, in reaction, when to the opposite end where the elders are posited over the preacher so that their leadership authority is greater than that of the preacher/minister (i.e., Elders > Preacher). Yet when we consider the instructions that Paul does give to Timothy and Titus as well as the absence of any language suggesting their leadership authority is to be placed under the elders, I submit that the typical Restoration model is just as unbiblical or biblically unbalanced as the classic denominational model we want to abstain from.
Rather than a view of leadership where one group (elders, ministers) serve over the other, I would suggest that each serve alongside of each other in different roles, respecting each others roles and leadership authority as both serve under the authority of Christ (i.e., Christ > elders/ministers). Thus, the elders and ministry staff become leadership partners serving under Christ.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Rex,
I don’t know that Titus is a good example, since he wasn’t expected to stay on Crete. Timothy’s role is closer to that of a “located evangelist,” though we really don’t have much information about how long he was to be in Ephesus, nor how permanent his connection with the church was to be. Of course, we’d be hard-pressed to finding anything in the New Testament that resembles a modern ministry staff.
I think Acts 20 gives us a good idea of who was leading the church in Ephesus. Paul doesn’t call “the preacher” over to a meeting. He calls the elders. And on Crete, it was urgent that Titus appoint elders to oversee the church in each town.
Neither in these cases nor in Acts 14 do we find the appointing of elders and ministers; elders were appointed to oversee the churches. To me, that’s the great failing of the “preacher training schools” we’ve established around the world. Instead of training preachers, we need to be training elders.
Hmmm… considering your examples pushed me to an opposite conclusion than yours. I just don’t see the image of ministers and elders serving on an equal basis. I’m not in favor of anyone lording anything over anyone else, but the idea of a ministerial staff being on a par with an eldership doesn’t seem to fit what I see in the Bible.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
You’re right, Tim. Churches need to be led by good elders.
Tim,
Though we disagree, I am glad that we can do so in a respectful appreciation of each other. I will take a look at the passages you mention and I thank you for pushing back on my own comments. We need more dialogue like this.
I also want to say that as a minister serving in a church where there is no elders, I wish I had elders because although I am the preacher/minister, I am still earning the right to be a leader and it makes ministry very difficult at times (more difficult than I believe it would be if there were good elders).
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Tim, I waited until others quit commenting, and you moved on before posting this comment on who should shepherd the church.
Paul is mentioned 163 times in the “new testament” and mostly in the book of “Acts” written by his close friend, or in his own writings, one time in 2nd Peter. no other times is Paul mentioned in the bible, as I can see.
Look at who Jesus chose to shepherd his church, why not follow him.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jhn 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jhn 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jesus appointed Peter the overseer of his Church, and we have snatched the keys from Peter and given them to Paul, all on one of his close friend’s and his own say so. Why ? do we think we can make a better choice, than the builder/creator of the church? evidently.
Paul is never mentioned in the Gospel of God, but he is mentioned many times in the gospel of the CoC.
Laymond,
I guess it depends on how you see the Bible. If, for example, you elevate some books over others, then you’re reasoning is accurate. If, however, we can believe Luke, Paul was also a chosen instrument of God, designated as the apostle to the gentiles… to us.
But help me with what you propose. Make it simple. Which books of the New Testament would you accept? I’m guessing not Luke’s writing (which is the largest portion of the New Testament). Not Paul (the author who wrote the second largest amount). Which of the authors would you propose that we confidently read? Probably not John, because he kept saying that Jesus was God.
I’m guessing we’re down to Matthew, Mark, Hebrews (?), James, Jude and the two letters of Peter. Is that about right?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Let me throw a wrench into the discussion. I know of a church in another country where the person who has been in the preaching role for the last 30-years is called the “lead evangelist.” The congregation has no elders (and never has). The question has come up: does the lead evangelist have any authority? Spiritual or otherwise? My “big picture” vision (if I am to go there) has, in time, elders installed and myself as a lead-minister/preacher/pastor/whatever – with all of us working side-by-side but with the elders having spiritual authority (I think more in-line with Tim’s view).
So my question is, does a “lead evangelist” have any authority? What concerns me is that I’m not sure anybody does (biblically speaking) in the model they currently have (a lead evangelist with men who meet once a week in a business meeting).
[And Laymond, Paul was set apart from, get this, before he was born to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (Gal 1:15-16). Additionally, it was Paul who had to set Peter back in his place after Peter “stood condemned” and separated himself from a table of fellowship with Gentiles (Gal 2:11-14). Tell me, was Peter in the right by his practice of hypocrisy and fear of men? I’m not disregarding Peter at all, my point is saying that Peter was not the end all. That situation in Antioch alone proves as much.]
The authority of the evangelist derives from the message they announce.
The authority of the shepherd derives from the integrity of their example.
This is not to suggest that evangelists are free to live w/o integrity or that elders are not to be dedicated to the gospel.
Rather, I mean that each bears authority delegated from the Messiah. The way that authority is recognized is different.
Tim, tell me what Matthew left out that was of importance to our salvation.
Mark pretty much repeats what Matthew said, Luke tells us he loves Paul and pretty much followes him , he does repeat some of what Matthew says, John pretty much tells stories of Jesus life and death, trying to convince us Jesus was telling the truth, If you don’t believe Matthew , I doubt that John will convince you. I like to read all the bible, but if we lived our daily lives by what we see in Matthew, I doubt we would be bound for HELL.
I’m pretty sure the discussion isn’t about what you like to read. I like to read Harry Potter, but I don’t trust it for training in righteousness.
So far, you’ve said that you trust Matthew (and Mark, insofar as he agrees with Matthew). Any other books you trust?
ooops guess I didn’t wait quite long enough to comment. Thanks anyway JR sorta prooves my point the CoC places Paul above Jesus and Peter. Who was it that wrote about this disagreement and the winner of such in Gal. ? I would venture to say John Haggie , Joel Osteene, and others would say the same about their ministry, it was planned before time began.
OK Laymond: tell me what things that Paul said that will make you bound for hell if you live by them.
Laymond… Peter doesn’t end Matthew as a follower of Jesus. That sorta hurts your theory, eh?
Tim, putting words in my mouth won’t get you out of answering my question about Matthew. I have never said or suggested that Paul, one of the most devoted followers of christ, would send you to hell, I just said his opinions were not always those of the Gospel of God. show me in the Gospels where it is said women should ware their hair long, and a man should have short hair, show me in the gospel where Jesus said “Women should be silent” show me in the Gospels where it is said there will be an apostle of the gentiles to follow Jesus Christ, who was the true apostle of God to the gentiles, and the bible says so. No I can’t tell you that Paul said anything that will send you to hell. But I can tell you what paul said about preaching another gospel.
“Laymond… Peter doesn’t end Matthew as a follower of Jesus. That sorta hurts your theory, eh?”
Nick, I guess I am kinda dense today, what the heck you talking about willis.
Couple of points in the discussion with Laymond…
“Mark pretty much repeats what Matthew said”… actually most scholars agree that Mark wrote first.
Also, if you accept Peter as a writer of scripture, you have to accept Paul, because Peter refers to Paul’s writings as included in “scripture.” (II Peter 3)
Hey Tim,
I think one of our great challenges is we put most of the training and responsibility in one person(s) (ie. ministers), and the authority in others (elders). I think resolving that descrepancy would go a long way at making congregations more efficient. However, efficiency is man’s value… it isn’t always divine.
Thanks for the thoughts
Danny
Laymond,
“Nothing”
I answered. Now it’s your turn. What parts of the Bible are authoritative and what parts aren’t? Which books should I be reading to find out what God wants and which are just interesting opinions of other followers of God?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Laymond, what’s going on is that the last recorded mention of Peter, by Matthew, is his renunciation of Jesus in the courtyard.
When Matthew ends, Jesus is still physically present with his remaining disciples, and Peter is not named among them.
And, for the record, one cannot be both a “most devoted follower of christ” and “preach another gospel” at the same time. If he indeed preaches another gospel, obeying his gospel would make you anathema.
And by the way Laymond. My asking another question is NOT putting words in your mouth. If “not going to hell” is the only reason we study, then my question was valid. If there’s more, then what you’re saying about Matthew is insufficient.
Didn’t run, just had to leave for a while.
Tim, my comments started out giving my opinion of how and who should shepherd the church Jesus started. I still think Jesus and the one he left in charge would be better to follow than Paul. but hardly anyone agrees with me, especially in the CoC.
Rules and regulations on how to worship, or study, started with Paul and continues today in the most legalistic churches. If you notice the churches who realize the most growth are the ones who follow Jesus Christ and teach the doctrine of love and obediance.
The reason I waited until I thought everyone was finished is I knew what it would become, an argument. If you want to place Paul up there beside Jesus Christ that is your perogative.
If “not going to hell” is the only reason we study —————
That is pretty much what it all comes down to, why do you study, and teach others what you have learned, so they can go to hell smart.
Laymond,
(1) Unless you are wanting to put words into others’ mouths, no one is placing Paul beside Jesus Christ. You did state it as a conditional sentence, though. So since no one wants to do that, we can ignore all the comments about “gospel of the CofC” vs “gospel of God.”
(2) Since I’m not willing to place Laymond beside Jesus Christ, I’ll stick with what the Bible says… all of it, not just the books Laymond approves of.
(3) Which brings us to the point that you STILL won’t tell us which books fit into your own personal canon. Do you pick and choose as you go? Is there some logic? Are you able to articulate what you believe? I believe Peter when he says that what Paul writes is Scripture. Despite what you say, you don’t follow Peter’s lead, so please tell us, once and for all, which books express God’s will for His followers?
Nick said in all confidence, ” And, for the record, one cannot be both a “most devoted follower of christ” and “preach another gospel” at the same time.”
Jesus might disagree.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Laymond, now you’re just arguing and not even trying to be reasonable. Or are you seriously saying that Matthew 7:22-23 applies to Paul? That’s what was under discussion.
Laymond,
if “he never knew” someone, that person wasn’t one of his “most devoted followers,” no matter how much they protest to the contrary.
You weren’t talking about how Paul perceived himself, but about what he actually WAS. You said he WAS one of Jesus most devoted followers, not “thought he was.”
I’m still waiting for you to tell me how you know that Peter rejoined Jesus, since John and Luke and Paul are just interesting reading.
No! NO! what I am saying is what Nick said is not necessarly so. I don’t know that Paul claimed to be teaching only “the gospel” . When we teach all that Paul taught as gospel, we are teaching another gospel–Pauls gospel.
Nick said if “he never knew” someone, that person wasn’t one of his “most devoted followers,”
Nick, I don’t follow your reasoning, Elvis had followers who would die for him, and he never knew them, he never even saw them.
When we teach as gospel something that Paul taught, but NOT as gospel, we are definitely NOT teaching Paul’s gospel.
Only what Paul taught as gospel can be rightly called “Paul’s gospel” (and even that phrase should be rightly understood as ‘the gospel Paul taught’ and not ‘the gospel about Paul’).
What Paul taught as post-gospel edification cannot be called “Paul’s gospel” even if we find a reason to cram it into our gospel. When we cram stuff in, or clip stuff out, it becomes OUR gospel, not Paul’s or Peter’s or Jesus’.
Laymond,
Please answer the question that has been asked of you three times in this discussion alone:
Which parts of the Bible fit into the “just man’s opinion” category and which are words that we should live by? (I’m trying to find a way to word that so that you will actually answer the question and not nitpick around it)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
By the way Tim, Matthew 7:22-23, could apply to Paul just as it can apply to you or me. Paul was not above judgment. But he is above my judgment, just as you are.
Laymond, only you would seriously compare Elvis to Jesus. *sigh*
Your metaphor collapses because Jesus is still alive, still in intimate fellowship with his followers, while Elvis is resting awaiting the resurrection.
When Jesus says, “I never knew you,” it doesn’t reflect a weakness in his perception, but that you weren’t actually there.
Unless the vast part of the New Testament is wrong, Jesus did know Paul, so no, it couldn’t apply to him.
Laymond: I do not represent anybody (other than myself) or any particular group. Second, I didn’t place Paul above Peter or Jesus. What I did do was introduce a historical occurrence into the discussion, where Peter was eating with Gentiles only to separate himself when “certain men from James” came; therefore putting a piece of the Gospel message in jeopardy (that Gentiles are justified the same way Abraham was: by faith). So I ask again, was Peter in the right for separating himself from the Gentiles? Or, was Peter’s hypocrisy valid? Was Paul wrong in confronting him? Would Jesus have been proud of Peter’s actions there?
More:
-God Almighty called Paul from before he was born (Gal 1:15-16).
-Peter gave Paul the “right hand of fellowship” (Gal 1:9).
-As mentioned by Danny and Tim, Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). [btw, I take both of Peter’s letters as Scripture as well.]
-Paul and Barnabas were called by God to be a light for the Gentiles (Acts 13:46-47).
-Peter was also called to do likewise early on (Acts 15:7)
-Peter substantiated Paul and Barnabas’s claims through his own experience (Acts 15:7-11)
-The same Spirit who was at work in Peter was at work in Paul (Gal 2:7-8)
-Peter taught justification by faith (Acts 15:8-11)
And I know Paul wrote it, but I still mean it:
Grace to you –
Jr
“The same Spirit who was at work in Peter was at work in Paul”
Jr. ask Tim, or Nick what spirit is at work in them, why don’t we accept what they say as holy scripture?
The same Spirit does different kinds of work in different people. He does what He wants, when He wants, how He wants, and He doesn’t ask our permission.
Still waiting to find out which books of the Bible are trustworthy for salvation and which you just like to read but are just ancient Christian opinion, Laymond…
I think we’ve been more than fair in answering your questions as openly and bluntly as possible.
Laymond,
It’s time for you to add something constructive to this conversation. TELL US WHAT PARTS OF THE BIBLE ARE IN THE INNER CIRCLE OF ACCEPTABLE BOOKS.
I accept all the books of the bible for why they were written, to have an informed public. So we have the opportunity to decide on what we believe. Read John 14 and see if it (in your opinion) coinsides with what is written in Acts about the meeting of Paul and Jesus on the road to Demascus. I can not say in all good faith that God inspired both books. I cannot in all good faith say God inspired every word written in the “Gospel Books” I can’t help but believe the writers slipped their opinion in every now and then. I do believe in the story of Jesus Christ, I believe God’s sacrifice is sufficent to save the lost, and I do believe Jesus loved his father, and followed his instructions to the “T” or dot and tittle how ever you wish to say it. I believe if you have gained this belief from the bible it has served the purpose for which it was intended. But that said I still believe there is room for a “grain of salt”.
I hope this will suffice to sooth your curosity in how I see and read the bible.
Now tell me you believe “every word” was written by God. Even every letter written by Paul telling the churches he founded they could stand some improvement. And the parts of his letters telling of his travels, his imprisonment, the punishment he suffered in general for the sake of Jesus. Paul speaks of himself , a lot. Holding himself up as an example to follow, “I follow Jesus , you follow me” I think I prefer Jesus.