;)
In Between Pastors
Posted by Bowden McElroy in Church & Missions
I’ve been doing some supply preaching the past few weeks; once for a friend on vacation and once each in two different churches who are currently without a pastor. I enjoy doing supply preaching. Not as much as being an interim, but I still enjoy it.
The two pastorless churches are as different as they can be. One is in small-town, rural Oklahoma. It runs about 250 in Sunday School, has a contemporary worship service, and has multiple staff members. The building they are in is nearly new.
The other is in a transitioning neighborhood in Tulsa. The congregation consists of about 40 members: white, middle-class, and elderly . They are surrounded by a community that is poor and Hispanic. Most of the members still attending the church have moved out of the community a long time ago. The worship is traditional; they not only use hymnals, they seem to find the oldest, most traditional songs in the book. Their church building is old, in need of many repairs, and has that old church smell: the moldy, musty smell buildings get when the heat and air no longer works properly.
Both churches, though, have a lot in common. Both have chosen to get by with a series of guest preachers rather than calling an interim minister. Both claim finances as the primary reason; it’s cheaper to pay a weekly honorarium than an interim’s salary. The larger church gave their outgoing pastor a year’s worth of severance pay. The smaller of the two hasn’t had money in years. Both are eagerly anticipating what God has in store for them next. Both are anxious about the future. Statements of faith alternate with declarations of vague unease. Both had pastors (one full-time, the other bi-vocational) who left after more than 15 years at the church.
Both churches have decided it is better to move too slow than to make decisions too quickly. Unfortunately, fear plays at least as big a role in the decision-making process as faith.
Both churches have multiple options.
They can continue to have a different minister each week to preach. There are two advantages often voiced regarding this option. The first is that it saves on money. An honorarium really is the cheapest way to go. The other so-called advantage is that “we get to hear a variety of really great preachers”. At first glance I suppose that appears to be an advantage. Supply preachers don’t really know the congregation. We don’t know their struggles, their victories, or what they have heard the past few Sundays. Most of us who do supply preaching think and pray about our sermons, but that’s just not the same as speaking consistently week after week to the spiritual needs of the people. Often we preach a variation of a sermon we’ve given before. No wonder people hear a series of great sermons: they are often hearing highly polished but generic messages preached several times before.
Another option is for the church to call the same man to preach every week. Not an interim, exactly. More of a consistent supply preacher. This has the advantage of still being affordable, but the interim can provide consistency in the sermons. The interim has the opportunity to get to know the people, at least a little. The disadvantage is the congregation has a preacher, but they still are lacking a pastor. Pastors do so much more than preaching. The church is lacking the shepherding and leadership an interim can provide.
The next option for a pastorless church is a traditional interim minister. While this could be a full-time position, most churches opt for a bi-vocational interim. The role is traditional in the sense that the interim strives to keep things humming as they have been. No big changes and no rocking the boat. The traditional interim is marking time and both he and the church are content with that.
The fourth option is some kind of a Strategic Interim Minister. In Southern Baptist life, that means either an Intentional Interim or a Transitional Pastor. The two involve different types of training and slightly different approaches, but both aim to achieve the same thing. The idea is for the interim to do all the things a traditional interim minister does (preach, teach, lead, baptize, marry, bury, etc) plus serve as a consultant to help the church during the time between pastors. The strategic interim may help a congregation work through unresolved issues of the former pastor leaving, resolve conflicts within the church, help the congregation assess their strengths and weakness, or clarify the vision of the church. Always, the strategic interim focuses on preparing the church to call their next pastor.
Another advantage to a strategic interim is the promise that he will not submit his name to the search team to be considered as the next pastor. That way there are no hidden agendas and the interim is free to say whatever he needs to say to the congregation without fear of messing up his “interviewing process”.
There are always a percentage of churches in every association that are between pastors. I hope they use their time wisely and don’t take the cheap or easy way out when there is so much more to be gained during a time of transition.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Brother Bowden,
As I read your post, it struck me as to how backwards churches have become when compared to the Apostles encouragement to the leaders in the churches. The early churches never thought primarily, if at all, in terms of an “interim”. They thought in terms of qualified leaders in the church.
Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,
1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
These men of that served for 15 years as “Pastor” did the congregation a great disservice by not obeying the scriptures as to appointing leaders. That seems to be a great omission today in the churches. Additionally, leadership should never be tied to “economics”. Having qualified leadership is a function of gifting of the Holy Spirit and hard work, not a function of the dollar. I am always tickled at the Pastors that use 1 Timothy 5:17 as some proof text for being paid by the congregation. Paul is all the while establishing the opposite point. Men who work hard at shepherding are certainly “worthy” of being paid, but as Paul is very quick to teach,…it is not the money “at all” that is the determining factor when meeting the call of obedience to God.
1 Corinthians 9:16-19 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. (17) For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. (18) What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. (19) For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
Sometimes I get the feeling that these churches that are left leaderless are happy to get an interim or hear a new guy every week. Its kind of like going to the movies,…there is an excitement about what you may or may not like in the drama. In other words, was the show exciting enough that I will pay my entry fee and keep on coming back. Interims should be a dying thought for churches that are serious about obeying the word of God and appointing leaders within their congregations.
Thanks for the post,…it was like “smelling sauce” to me this morning….
Blessings,
Chris
Chris stole my thunder! Even small congregations can be elder led. We have about 75 folks in our church and if the pastor had to leave tomorrow we wouldn’t miss a beat. If these churches had taken the time to disciple leaders they most likely would not be in this pickle.
While I didn’t express my thoughts as clearly as brother Chris I do believe the lack of proper church polity has led to their dilemma. Perhaps they can look within for their God given solution that could be right in their midst?
Chris and John,
I understand what you’re saying: planning, discipleship, and mentoring would have raised up leaders within the church and avoided or minimized this problem.
But that won’t help these two churches at this moment.
Bowden,
You are in a good position to see if there might be a “home grown” possibility currently attending either fellowship. For the congregation with only 40 members, maybe a nearby fellowship could look at it as a church plant? We have a few churches in downtown St. Louis like that and what an exciting opportunity for a nearby congregation to grow God’s house back into a vibrant fellowship. My bottom line is this, the solution could be right under someone’s nose. Who do you see in those circles that display elder like qualities, who God is preparing for a time such as this?
Brother John,
You are absolutely biblical. We began a new mission about 20 months ago with 8 people. We had two qualified men that were appointed as Elder/Pastors. We are now approaching about 40 people, and we are able to continue to build up and appoint leaders in the church as we have been instructed by the Apostle Paul. In our small group we now have 4 men that are qualified to preach and teach, beyond the men and women that are serving the body. Somehow many of the churches of today are disregarding the clear teaching of scripture by not providing for their body with Godly qualified leadership.
If a congregation goes for 15 years, has 250 people, a new building, etc. and have not done the elemental biblical distinctive for a Christian church (i.e. appointing and growing multiple leaders) it is know doubt certain that there will be financial woes, and without a doubt multiple other problems. I just returned from a Baptist Distinctives conference at SWBTS that was teaching young, innocent, …possibly future leaders of Baptist congregations that multiple leadership is not the aim nor is it the Baptist norm. It may not be the current Baptist model that suites that presenter’s point of view, but it is certainly biblical with Apostolic authority. My reproof to the presenter after his presentation at the conference was not accepted with enthusiasm (he was congenial, but not enthused). Furthermore, I can’t imagine a group of 250, in America, with financial issues. That is certainly malpractice on the Leadership’s part.
I hope that whoever claims to be Baptist will also be biblical and follow the Apostles command and the command of our Lord to appoint Elders in the churches. To teach otherwise is sin.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bowden,
Your right,…Currently, these two congregations would probably benefit if viewed as church plants, and promptly identify qualified leaders. Unfortunately, the poor teaching of the past may take a little time to overcome while potentially discouraging those that attend now.
The last thing they need is an interim man that is not planning or his purpose is not to follow the Apostles command to establish and build multiple leaders.
Sounds like fun to me!
Blessings,
Chris
Let me throw out a couple of thoughts (just to keep the conversation going).
1) Having an elder-led church polity is no guarantee there will be a smooth transition. Merely having a form is not the same thing as having that form (whatever it is) function in a healthy, vibrant, godly manner.
2) It is possible to raise up leaders (and thus make for a smoother transition) regardless of the church’s form of governance.
Brother Bowden,
The Apostle Paul was not concerned with the most popular Baptist church polity that is learned at seminary.
He simply states for Christ followers that are serious about obeying God to appoint Elders (plural) for the edification of the church family. If a church has to argue if their church polity is open to following God’s command that is a different problem.
Just because a Pastor or church planter is ignorant of why the Apostle commands that a plurality of Godly men lead the church is no excuse to sidestep the command. It would be more beneficial to embrace it and move forward.
Again, doesn’t it strike you as odd that a church that was founded 15 years ago does not have more than one spiritual leader qualified to Pastor the family. That type of planting seems like a sure recipe for failure and brings confusion to the flock.
Your right,..simply having any ole Elders (unqualified deacons for instance) is not the solution. But, having qualified God men is what our Lord prescribes.
Blessings,
Chris
A few thoughts.
It sounds great to raise up leaders in the congregation. That is good and that is biblical. But it is not always possible. Sometimes in older or poorer congregations, the leadership material is not there. The pastor is about the only qualified and capable leader.
In some churches rather than raising up leaders, it is all the pastor can do to keep his members off crack and out of jail. And I am here thinking of a particular church, not making up a story. You want a cutting edge church, that is one of them. They may not set growth records, but they will reach people for the Lord that would not otherwise be reached.
The pastor finally raises up a leader and that person is now able to better himself. So he gets a good job and moves out of the area to a better location. And, of course, joins a nicer church.
This is not to denigrate anyone, just a fact.
Not everyone is called to start a church in a growing middle to upper class neighborhood. Some of God’s choicest servants are called to these transitional, low-income, struggling, declining churches. And most of us are going to be surprised when we get to Heaven and find out who God was impressed with.
By the way, I’m not talking about myself. But I’ve known of a number of these type situations. May God bless those struggling churches and pastors that are so often criticized. Oh, and I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that criticism. Just stating a few things I’ve seen through the years.
David R. Brumbelow
Ditto on the elders. Most SBC churches (in my experience) are far too Pastor-centric. Not only is there usually singular leadership, there is a lack of effort to distribute the workload among the members. Pastors burn out, leave, and then the church flounders until the next pastor shows up. The cycle begins again.
Bowden,
I think the weakest link in the strategic interim chain is simply getting the news out. I hope that posts like this one will spread the word that there are options for pastorless churches out there. Ideally the outgoing pastor or Associational Missionaries will also inform the churches about these options.
Just this past week, I have heard 3 new “burned out” or “forced out” pastor stories. It seems this is becoming more and more epidemic.
As Chris points out, though, the traditional Baptist model regarding this does not seem to be solidly based on NT teaching. While I suppose there is nothing in the NT that absolutely precludes a local congregation from “calling” a man from outside to come and provide leadership, and consequently naming that man as an elder within the congregation, that definitely does not seem to be the norm in the NT church. Elders/Bishops/Pastors (understood as 3 aspects of the same role) were normally appointed from within the congregation.
Once we send our young men off to seminary to learn the “profession” of pastoring, though, it only makes sense that we provide a system of “ministry placement” to make sure they have somewhere to put into practice what they have learned at seminary. No doubt, a return to a more NT model of ministry would involve some serious structural changes in the way we do things.
But, once again, as I look around, things don’t seem to be getting any better. More and more pastors are getting “burned out” or “forced out.” Maybe it is time to start seriously thinking about other models of church leaderhip.
After having the same pastor for 25 years, our church went the Transitional Pastor route. It’s the best decision we’ve made since the pastor announced his retirement! 13 months after the former pastor left, we are getting ready to call a new one, and he will have far fewer issues to deal with because of the incredible transitional pastor we’ve had. I highly recomend going that route.
Brother David B,
I am not sure if I am following your comment ….. Being old and poor should not disallow qualifying for leadership in Christ’s church. The Apostles were not necessarily old, but they were pretty run the mill folk like me. Paul was an exception, but the others were a bit wet behind the ears as Christ called them.
I do agree that there are areas where new ministries struggle to develop leadership….and there is nothing wrong with patience and time. It could take years to develop those fundamental foundations that are outlined by the Apostles and grow that mature group of qualified men to lead the church.
As David R. pointed out though,…. There are seminaries that teach against the biblical norm established through the Apostles for the churches or teach some other pragmatic ecclesial system that fits a tradition. It is probably worth looking into what is being taught so that when these men and women are edifying one another,… they are not teaching aberrant doctrine to the church in ignorance.
And interims are not bad as well,…but I would hope the interim will use wisdom and begin to teach the congregation the norms given to us through the Apostles. Just weeding out trouble people during the interim time will not fix the problem of the omission of doctrine.
Blessings,
Chris
Dear Chris,
I am the former pastor of the rural church that Bowden mentioned. In all sincerity, I don’t think that you know enough about the situation to state that I have done this church “a great disservice”. I was forced out after 15 years. I cannot begin to describe the pain and deep wounds this has caused my family. Please, don’t be too quick to judge me or this situation. I asked the church to obtain an “intentional interim” and even told them to contact Bowden. I will someday give an account to our Lord for my years at this church. Lord be merciful to me, a sinner saved by grace. I poured out my heart into this church and it will always be a part of me. Remember that behind these stories are real people and real pain. Even churches with sound doctrine and leaders can fall into trouble. Signed,
former pastor of rural church in question
Brother Former Pastor,
Please forgive me ….and Please do not take this reproof personally because you may have tried valiantly to appoint Leadership. I was making a generalization in order to stress a point that is a common doctrinal omission in most Baptist churches. Based upon the amount of time that transpired at whatever church it is,.. I did make assumptions in an effort to make a point that no overt attempts were made to produce more Elder / Pastor / Leaders within the church for the benefit of the congregation. It is clear from scripture that when a Pastor does not follow the command of our Lord to replicate Leadership in the congregation, he (whether me or you) does a great disservice to those in the body.
Unfortunately most Pastors in the Baptist world are taught to go it alone, and many times that ends up in tragedy for a multitude of reasons. The church was not encouraged by the Apostles to limit the gift of Leadership among the congregation. Godly Leadership throughout the congregation can be great encouragement when others prey on the flock.
Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
16-21 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. (17) But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, (18) that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” (19) These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. (20) But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, (21) keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
My earnest prayer is that whoever is causing dissention in that congregation will repent and bring honor and glory to Christ. May God be gracious to you my friend.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone nor trying to single out you or your comments. But I am saying that it is easy to sit back and decree what a church or a pastor should do. It’s a different situation when you are pastor of that church filled with problems in a difficult community. Some churches may always be small and struggling. Some will never have many potential leaders. That is why rescue missions usually stay rescue missions rather that being transformed in that community to vibrant, growing churches. I’m all for raising up leaders. In some situations that is much easier said than done. Perhaps we should be a little slower to condemn that church or pastor. Perhaps we should empathize and pray a little more.
Former pastor of the rural church,
In God’s eyes no one will ever take away the good things you accomplished for the Lord. Few people know the lonely road you’ve traveled. Don’t quit. May God soon lead you to another place with fulfilling ministry to our Lord and His people.
May God protect you and your family. My prayers are with you, my brother, and if I can be of help, let me know.
Sincerely,
David R. Brumbelow
nsbc77562@LWOL.com
David R.,
I always try to be sensitive to the issue of burn out. Too often we deconstruct the situation and try to find the ONE reason for pastoral burn out. Most often it is due to a multiplicity of factors. The best of men can find themselves burned out if the system is dysfunctional.
Taran and Wade,
Thanks for the plugs about strategic interims.
Former Pastor,
First let me say I enjoyed preaching at your church and would go back in a heartbeat should they invite me. My purpose for including them in my illustration was the decision they have made (at least for the moment) to have a series of different preachers each Sunday. I think that’s the worst of the options available to them.
To All,
It seems the gist of many comments is: If these two churches were only elder-led they wouldn’t have these problems. I’m not sure I can buy that. Even if I could accept that elder-led is the one-true-biblical-way, having the proper polity in place doesn’t guarantee people will actually do what they say they will do. Personalities, politics, and tradition get in the way, sometimes.
Brother David B,
There are no doubt situations where multiple Elder/Pastors cannot be achieved and may never be achieved and yet those groups are healthy vibrant people living in unity, but that is not the biblical norm or command for the congregation.
Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with a “single” qualified Pastor in a congregation. In fact, it is better to only have one if others do not aspire and qualify. It is tragic when men just appoint Leaders to be in vogue,….that as well will be detrimental to the congregation. So, your right…it is not an easy task.
But, we should not ignore the “norm” provided for the churches and rest in the comfort of our pragmatism,.. that would be presumptuous and lead to arrogance. That is what we see many times in today’s pragmatic justifications of ignoring the command.
Like our dear brother that left that difficult situation…. The congregation may run you down and eventually off whether you increase the Leadership in your church or not, but I think we all are inclined to be faithful that happens or not.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Thanks for your reply and your spirit.
I’m hearing a lot about elder led churches. I believe the Bible uses the three terms, pastor, bishop, and elder synonymously of the pastoral role. But it seems people mean something different when they say “pastor led” and when they say “elder led.” I also think some of the verses quoted can be interpreted other than just the “elder led” way. Through many years of Baptist history those who had a pastor, deacons and congregational votes may not have been as ignorant of the Bible as some think.
I’m also fully aware that a Baptist church does not have to do things exactly as I would do them, to be blessed of the Lord.
Here I go again, stirring things up. Well, whether you believe in elder led, pastor led, congregation led or whatever, there are some awful difficult situations out there.
David R. Brumbelow
Dear David,thanks for the words of encouragement. I was out of the pulpit only two weeks. I am now the full time interim pastor of an urban church in a transitional community. Our Lord is soveriegn and good. He has taught me to depend on Him alone.
Dear Chris, thank you for your charitable reply. The church in question has had only three pastors in the last 45 years. All three were forced out due to “power struggles”.
Dear Bowden, keep up the good work you do.
I need to remain anonymous for the purposes of this post to protect the church in question. Take care and God bless.
Former Pastor
Bowden,
Great Post, and how true of most Baptist Churches. As I have shared before we have 24 Baptist churches within a 10-mile radius. All because of church splits over the years. I have traveled the world for 12 years and visited or belonged to different churches. I find the infighting or clicks more prevalent in the Baptist Churches. For people of the Book, I have never seen such small mindedness. They have great Hearts, But they need to have Hearts for Jesus Christ. As Chris and David know that the best way to grow a Christ Centered Church is set forward by God’s Word, Elders. Elders, Elders. I learned a long time ago that we need to be strong and we need to share, by always having an understudy. We need to Train / Disciple a Brothers to be able to Grow God’s Church. If they leave they are equipped to further the Kingdom somewhere else. All to God’s Glory. My heart goes out for all Pastors that are Called by God and then have to put up with church full of small minded people, who claim to be Christians.
Former pastor of thr rural church,
My Heart is Heavy for you and Others that have suffered because of small minded People. My Pastor is one of those that has been treated this way. We are a small church plant that is growing and we have 2 Elders so far and hope to have 2 more on a few months. We had about 50 people this past Sunday, Pastor Jeff preached on John 10:22-30,WOW what a blessing that was.
Wayne Smith
First off: I believe in multiple elder-led churches as the biblical norm.
But, (a big BUT) it is no guarantee for anything in a church on its own. I have seen an elder-led church that split when the elders couldn’t get along and the factions were created along the lines of who like which elders. Christ-like leadership is the PRIMARY need while Biblical structure/accountability/authority comes in second. This is why churches of differing structures can all thrive in Christ honoring ways. (I think churches can thrive in ways that don’t honor Christ–the Mormon “church” does!) I believe that mutually accountable elders are the best leadership structure for a church but certainly not the only one God uses.
NOW FOR THE CRAZY-NESS: To my elder-liking friends out there. If God GIVES these men (ELDERS) to the church as a gift for His work and to His glory, then don’t you think they are there, even in churches that don’t officially recognize them? While it is, of course, best to recognize them and hold them accountable as such, they still often do their work even when not formally recognized by the church. I joke with a deacon at my home church all the time that he is actually an elder, just he and the church don’t know it yet. He’s old school and it used to make him uncomfortable, but I think it’s sinking in. He has “unofficial” leadership responsibility because of WHO he is, not the office he holds. He has impeccable character and a track record of following Jesus that cause him to be looked to in “cross roads” situations for the church. He just IS an elder whether they know it or not. Why? Because God made him that way.
Also, the idea of “demoting” a current set of deacons from their decision making responsibilities in a church with no elders is a little crazy. The people there often recognize them as the “leaders” and in a more reformed world, they might just call them “elders.” Let’s suggest to pastors who seek to transition to a more biblical model to look for the deacons who are already “elders” in the informal sense and then find the decaons who are actually deacons. Then put the two groups in their places. Chances are, the real deacons don’t want the authority anyway–they just want to serve. If you find the insipid third set (the men who are NEITHER elders nor deacons) then you can start the difficult work of relieving them of their roles.
God already has the elders in many of these churches. We just need to teach them more about their roles and hold them accountable to do it.
From one who has it ALL figured out,
Shane Tucker
ps–OK. There may actually be one or two things I still need a class on.
Brother Shane,
You are correct. That is the point of the Apostle in that all churches are Elder-led, that is a biblical certainty for those following Christ and edifying the church. The only question to be answered,… is the man and/or are the men qualified to lead. The church should be instructed to understand the difference which will help the congregation mature and be edified.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Shane,
Regarding your first paragraph in comment 24: Spot on! When people look up to and follow someone, that person is a leader – recognized or not.
God’s grace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
I was asked to fill the pulpit at a pastor-less church several years ago. It was a single Sunday deal. When I got there, I found that I was expected to teach adult Sunday School also. When it came time for the service, I also led the singing. This, imo, is insupportable. This wasn’t a large church. Probably tiny in many respects, but it was clearly pastor-centric. I don’t know the former pastor so I want to be careful about making judgments, but in my experience, most SBC churches are pastor-centric and many flounder when the pastor leaves (what is the average? 18mo?).
Now, what I would like to know is what is being taught in seminaries about the role of pastor within an SBC church? Are students taught that they will most likely be the singular leader? Are they taught that this is the norm? Are they taught that this is acceptable? I have seen many pastors come and go. Only once did someone (an interim pastor from Wales) say to the church, “you need elders.”
Yes, it is hard. It’s not a quick fix or a complete fix. But it is biblical, and practical. But this is a deficiency in a lot of churches, and they should be working on fixing it now.
John,
It does my heart good to know that our church would not miss a beat if I left for some reason but I would hope to be missed a little bit.
It was you who heard Al Mohler say that the ideal situation would be for churches to put seminaries out of business. With this I agree. Everything that I do as a Pastor has a two-fold purpose. The first is to feed and grow the flock and the second is to ensure that the next Pastor would prosper, whether 20 years from now or next week. As I continue to commit what I know to faithful men, I would hope that our next Pastor comes out of the congregation. Many Deacons that I have worked with have one problem: they would make better Elders than Deacons. I believe this is a natural phenomena in that men who are leaders will lead but the structure of most of our churches only allows them to be Deacons. We should not fault them in this but take the time to teach them more accurately the Word of God. While in College I had the opportunity to supply preach in at least 100 different churches and the scenario seemed to be the same in each place. There were always men who were capable of leading that church who would have done a much better job than any new young hotshot who is going to save the world. That was a confession. But over time we learn and discover that there is a better way. We simply need to obey the Scriptures.
Scott
Brother Bill,
I will be writing on the SWBTS “Baptist Distinctives” conference that has just finished up in Fort Worth.
One of the sessions was about “The Offices of the Church”.
I can give you a concrete answer about what is being taught at SWBTS. It was presented without ambiguity.
Blessings,
Chris
It occurs to me that several of you commenting have some unarticulaed presuppositions in your comments. Your chief presupposition, as I see it, is that the churches in question are spiritually mature and emotionally healthy. In such churches, it is relatively easy to raise up multiple leaders, by whatever title you give them, or if they have no title at all (I am one of those who believes that leaders lead because of who they are, not because of any “office they hold.” However, in churches which have greater degrees of dysfunction, and those which have become spiritually inactive (especially as Lyle Schaller defines it), leaders are difficult to find, and often even if they possess leadership abilities, are somewhere between immature and dysfunctional. I heard a politician years ago discuss state employees “who had been on the job for twenty years, but did not have twenty years experience, that rather they had one year of experience which they had repeated twenty times.” Many of our churches, especially smaller and more dysfunctional ones, are filled with peopkle who have been Christians 20, 30, maybe 50 years; but they do not have that many years of Christian growth and maturity; rather they have one years of Christian growth and maturity they have repeated over and over. The churches I have pastored which had leadership problems and became too pastor-centric certainly fit this mold. They didn’t get into that shape overnight, or for that matter in fifteen years, so (1) please don’t blame the pastor for not overcoming it, and (2) be aware of the presuppositions you are making–and maybe offer a thanksgiving prayer for the fact that someone before you “got it right.”
Brother John,
My presupposition is that the appointing of elders in the churches is not being done. The evidence is clear. There are some places that do this, but by in large most do not.
I am not advocating “filling an office”. I am advocating obeying the apostolic command under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the church over time. Your right to suggest it may take a long time (but then again, it might not)…..but it certainly will never be done, if it never begins.
Blessings,
Chris
Dearest Brothers,
As eluded to by James, those who have teaching responsibilities will be held more accountable than those who do not teach. And if Hebrews 13:17 matters, then those who are rulers in the church will have to account for their duties, to say the least. Furthermore, the ones being rebuked in the churches in Revelation 2-3 are the angels. These cannot be heavenly angels as some are instructed to repent. And when judgments are mentioned it is to “you”, which is a second person singular noun whose antecedent is the messenger. As a result, it is not the church who is being called lukewarm in chapter three but the messenger of that church. This is consistent with all seven churches. If we as Pastors do not see ourselves as potentially being where we are at age 65 then maybe our motives should be called into question. This is not to say that God will not move a man but until Pastors begin to see their selves as God sees them churches will continue to flounder. This need to be led properly must start with the leaders.
Sincerely,
Scott
Dear Chris,
I appreciate your efforts to “do” church (and I mean this in no perjorative sense) in a Biblical fashion. First, though, can you be a little more explicit about “appointing elders,” how they are appointed, by what criteria, their exact function, etc.? I ask because different people mean different things by this terminology (some mean by it pastors, i.e., ore-or-less unpaid lay pastors, others mean by it a function similar to the traditional Baptist deacon, still others mean as in an elder-led church along Presbyterian lines, and so on), and I am not absolutely sure how you mean it.
Second, I would suggest that the elder-appointment you suggest is not a “presupposition” at all, but is rather a conviction. Maybe this is just semantics, but to me, a presupposition (generally at least) operates at a subconscious or almost subconscious level. Most presuppositions are not articulated, at least initially. Most of us operate with them, and have to really self-examine to find them. After all, all of us tend to have buffet theology: we pick and choose our theology like we are at a buffet, emphasizing certain elements and ignoring others to different degrees, too often based, not on what the Bible says, but because something both human and subsconsious is directing our selection. For instance, if I say that the NIV is “more accurate” than the KJV, I am (hopefully) going by conviction, and my criteria are manuscript evidence, accuracy, and dynamic equivilence. But if I say the NIV is “better” than the KJV, my presuppositions would be (1) that I am assuming modern American English at that as my language of choice and (2) that for whatever reasons, I do not have an appreciation for Elizabethan English found in the KJV.
Third, I have to ask: do you have experience in dealing with troubled, dysfunctional churches? I have been in the ministry 22 years, and 18 of those were spent ministering in troubled churches. And while I agree that they should be led in a Biblical fashion the same as any other church, I would suggest that they (1) operate on a different time scale than do healthy churches, and (2) there is no “magic bullet,” including the appointment of elders (by whatever definition) that will make them healthy. I am sorry to disagree with you, but this is a conclusion the Spirit has led me to.
Thanks for your willingness to dialogue! I hope my earlier comment did not sopund critical, because I did not mean it as such.
John
Brother John,
I think your comments are helpful. I will try to address them in the order you have presented.
1. This is an excellent question that I had the opportunity to discuss with a Senior Pastor of a fairly large congregation today in Nashville who has become aware that his congregation needs to be more obedient to the charge given by the Apostle in this area. Elders are only appointed as a result of their aspiring and qualification.
1 Timothy 2:8 Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.
1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
1 Timothy 5:17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.
Titus 1:5-6 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, (6) namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
Unfortunately, SBC Seminaries are not clear or consistent concerning this command which ultimately results in the single mode Elder working with Deacons that have assumed roles of leadership, unqualified, that tear the church apart instead of building the church up. This is cruel to those men that are functioning as Deacon while expected to lead or assuming they are the leader, yet not gifted or qualified.
2. Your right,..I would be more accurate to replace the word presupposition with the word command. Scripture does not presuppose that Elders would be appointed as such, the Word actually commands by Apostolic authority that it be carried out for the health of the church. At the same time I am also not at all intimating that appointing Elders is a silver bullet. It very well could be devastating if a man for instance becomes unqualified as some point and is not confronted, disciplined, and potentially unqualified to remain as Elder,….. Although he hopefully would be restored and able to remain a gifted member of the congregation and edify the church. (Matthew 18). Leading the church is an immense responsibility, not for the faint of heart or the unqualified man as you know
3. Yes, at one time I was part of a dysfunctional “Elder-led” church that did not begin dysfunctional, but became that way over time. I have also been part of a dysfunctional single Elder model congregation (We may have been members of the same church..ha)….. So again, whether churches choose to follow multiple Elders or single Elder, the church will more than likely become dysfunctional at some point because we are all sinners (But obviously we pray we do not,.. and stay vigilant). That’s not the point that the Apostle Paul is trying to make though. He simply commands that we “do”. What that looks like is not cookie cutter, but it is qualified, and to obey the command is beneficial for the church. Simply ignoring the command or slightly changing to a model because of results is backward thinking.
And John, you may never be able to appoint or have any aspire and qualify to lead in your churches. But the joy of knowing God is about the business of providing leaders and gifted men to preach the gospel and teach the congregation is amazing. We must lean that direction, because it is true.
Blessings,
Chris
I like this discussion.
There seem to be three intersecting goals here:
1) To structure leadership in a biblical way.
2) To hold leaders accountable according to biblical mandates.
3) To seek to serve as leaders under Christ’s authority.
If we are earnestly seeking these three things, then we are in pretty good shape.
Praise God!
Chris (if by chance you are still listening to this one),
Sorry, but I am still unclear. By “elder,” what exactly do you mean? Pastor? Lay minister/pastor? Traditional Baptist deacon? “Ruling elder” (as opposed to “teaching elder”) as in Presbyterian churches? Or something else altogether?
Certrainly I agree that the “lone ranger” approach to the pastorate as is anything but Biblical, and that God calls servants from within the church (i.e., a given local church) to lead.
John
John,
I can’t answer for Chris, but it seems to me that “elder” has a pretty clear biblical definition.
When referring to church leaders, i.e. those who “rule,” there are three words regularly used in the NT and they are often used interchangeably.
poimon: Pastor/Shepherd
presbuteros: Elder
episkopos: Overseer/bishop
These words imply no separate rank of leaders (like in episcopalian leadership strucure) but separate aspects of any leader’s role.
In other words, elders are pastors are overseers. Elders pastor. Elders oversee.
There also seem to be multiple leaders (elders) in each congregation, rather than just one.
With that being said, then there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between “pastors,” “lay pastors,” or “ruling elders.” If you are implying differences in pay, then that has little to do with what the Bible says. There is no difference scripturally in a pastor and a lay pastor (if by lay pastor, you mean unpaid, otherwise I’m not sure what a lay pastor is.)
Pastor are told to “rule,” so what then is the difference between a pastor and a ruling elder? Are these not just different terms for the same office?
I totally recognize that when folks use these terms, we get a glimpse into their theological underpinnings, but there seems to be little real difference where it counts: the Bible.
Just to reiterate:
I cannot answer for Chris. It just seems to me that there is only one clear source for what an elder is and it (The Bible) is seemingly pretty clear.
Hi Shane,
OK, the Bible is reasonably clear, but there is interpretative room. And BTW, I am not convinced all early churches had exactly the same “organization,” or even that organization was as important to them as the “organism.” And the fact is, different denominations and thinkers have taken what the Bible says in different directions. In traditional Baptist churches (at least those with with I have experience), we rarely have someone called “an elder,” but the term is generally considered about the same as a deacon. However, in some churches, the deacons have become a mostly administrative body (a la the 19th century model of a board of trustees or similar to the Methodist Pastor-Parish Relations Committee). In more conetmporary Baptist churches, the deacons as a ministering body are about the same as Lay Ministers or Lay Pastors are in some denominations. And yet in some churches, especially those following a more Presbyterian model, the term “elders” may refer to paid staff members, unpaid administrative-type leaders, or to unpaid ministers. I am not sure exactly how Chris used the term.
And by the way, I took Greek in seminary, so thanks.
John
Brother John F,
It appears to me that biblical leadership referred to by the Apostles in Christ’s church to be Elder/Pastor/Shepherd/Bishop/Overseer…All of these words describe “a man” that is responsible to lead the churches until Christ returns. That “man” exists only by biblical qualification and in plurality as the church matures in locations that are engaged in discipleship as she (the church) is being built up in Christ.
The Apostle Paul is clear that the Elder is not the Deacon. So a Deacon has yet another role to play in the nurturing and care for those families in the congregation as needed. I believe that when a congregation begins to understand the benefits of having more and more qualified men to lead the congregation, they become mission minded very quickly and understand the commission of Christ more fully.
In your post in #39 you lay out the many reasons why people are confused about the simplicity of servant-leadership in the churches. I believe that the view of leadership is indicative of one’s view of who the church is. If one believes that the church is primarily “a place”, or where people meet in a place… their perceived need for a plurality of Elders is diminished as follows:
A “place” (with members) may put high expectations on the men that are hired to conduct the affairs of the church when they meet to worship. This comes in several flavors throughout the Baptist and the Presbyterian world. One forms a Pastor with a staff to conduct business through democracy, …the other forms through assigned Leadership that responds to the Presbytery on behalf of the members that have some voting parameters. The normal question among these congregations is seen in the manner they ask a person about their church such as “Where do you “go” to Church?” This is truly and odd question.
In the “place” philosophy above…the need for leadership is controlled by “growth” at the place and “perceived” as such by the congregation. A great many congregations are raised up to understand the church in this way.
In great contrast, the church is a people (not primarily a place) that are under the authority of Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit and led by biblically qualified men known as Elders,…served by Deacons as the need arises.
The Christian world has simply come up with too many words for Elder, to try and pragmatically adjust their church polity. The bible fortunately is much simpler and much more clear as to the leadership in the churches.
One additional thought,… there is no biblical distinction among the Elders. They simply qualify and all are able to teach in order that the body may be edified and encouraged.
So there is no need for terms like Lay Minister, Lay Pastor, Deacons that Lead, Teaching Elders, Administrative Elders, Unpaid Staff, Paid Staff, etc. etc. All Elders simply qualify and lead. Their leadership may vary in intensity, depth, etc., but they are qualified by one standard in scripture and may be unqualified by that same standard should they choose to disobey the Word of God.
Hope that helps,
Blessings,
Chris
John,
I think you are right about flexibility in organization among early churches. Ex. What is the role of an evangelist? How do apostles relate? What about the “other apostles” like Barnabas?
What I don’t think is all that flexible is whether or not churches are given elders/pastors/overseers by God. We have them because God gives them, so we need to figure out biblically who they are and what they do.
I’m sorry about using Greek. You seemed to take offense. I presumed you had some level of familiarity with the biblical language.
Since I have now read Chris’ response, I can say that I agree with him. The Bible is simpler on the issue than history is.
Together in the Task,
Shane
Chris and Shane,
Thanks for the explanations. I appreciate your perspective. Pragmatically, the use of the “elder” still seems a bit vague to me, but I will think/pray on it. And while theology is more important than pragmaticism, if we use something, we have to know how to use it, and that is practicality/pragmaticism.
BTW, I would never identify church with “place,” as that is in direct opposition to such passages as 1 Cor 12:12ff. The best (and frankly, the only) public use of it I have ever seen was back 20+ years ago when I still lived in Alabama. On my commute to work (before percieving my call into the pastorate), I passed through a small town, and remember well when I noticed a new sign on a church there, “This Is the Building In Which the First Baptist Church of Plantersville Meets.”
And yes, I did feel that I was being lectured to in the post about Greek meanings, so I appreciate what you said. Maybe it was just me, as it came towards the end of a long, busy week. ‘Nuff said.
Because He lives,
John
John,
You are impressive with your willingness to disagree without being disagreeable.
Take care,
Shane