;)
Overseers: Ruling to Discern Unity
Posted by Chris Johnson in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
The aim of this post is to point out the biblical doctrine of “being members one of another”. In other words, what does the ekklesia look like and how does she function? The purpose of this article is not to haggle over whether the church is “universal” or “local”. I will though, be approaching the subject from the aspect that the church is monolithic, and expressed around the world as local gatherings. It seems clear to me at least that God doesn’t have the same problem as we do when it comes to recognizing His own body.
The purpose of this post is to address four functional perspectives when the church gathers locally. Many people understand the “called out ones” to be maintained by congregational “democratic processes”, while others believe it is best maintained by what is termed “Elder Ruled” congregations. In recent days there has been an attempt to merge these two paths, which allow the congregation to exercise the “democratic processes” style of voting in order to allow “Elder Rule”. This hybrid is embarked upon to potentially work out the discrepancy between the two opposing views. Wow…this can get really interesting! These three views obviously have some compatibility, but they also yield new ideas and complexity to an already simple design, and typically these new ideas are what cause the disruption of unity.
I teased around the idea of getting all fancy and pull out G. Kittel and the razzle dazzle of etymological hermeneutics of Israel through to the present. Or bring out the many great theologians of history that have emerged on the scene to confirm or deny the findings of these three camps that have emerged since Christ commanded the church to go into all the world. All of which are excellent studies and fun guys to read. But, I think I will keep this exercise much simpler and use a few pictures to illustrate these various views of the ekklesia, and then pursue the biblical view that Christ modeled with His disciples as He helped them understand “being members one of another” through the Spirit…..Because if they were not clear on how to proceed and instruct others, then the commission to go into all the world with the gospel would make little sense and create much confusion.
Congregational Rule with Democratic Processes
So let us embark upon this first idea, “congregational polity through democratic processes”. Having been raised most of my life in this type of church polity, I have always asked the question…. Is this what “being members one of another” really means? Is the right to vote my conscience the same idea that the Apostle Paul had in mind as he taught the principle of maintaining the unity of the Spirit? I believe that most overseers/Pastors (same critter) within the SBC probably have a decent idea of this crude concept (voting) in the church where according to a written policy the number of votes in the affirmative carries the motion and the will of God is discovered through consensus. Now if you are not an overseer, say you are a new believer,…. having a vote is more likely best understood through the American principle and the quest for E Pluribus Unum, or an opportunity for me to speak up and make my intentions known. In either case, the maintaining of “unity” is left to a prescribed majority of the tallied votes complying with the charter and bylaws of the organization. So a typical visual of this process can be depicted like this:
Elder Ruled Congregation
Having served in this type of organization for a few years, it appeared to me that the main goal of the Elders was to “rule well”. Albeit a conviction and goal to do what is best for the congregation, an Elder Ruled congregation is a foreign idea when compared to the congregational model. Yet it becomes clear that the two organizations are operated in a similar manner with a charter and a constitution where in the one the congregation has a certain number of votes in order to canvas a majority,…and in the other the Elders simply have a smaller number of votes to achieve the same result. The advantage or disadvantage of the Elder Ruled design hinges upon the rules set by the Elders. One way is to have the policy that all (100%) of the Elders agree on the agenda before anything is sent out to the congregation for affirmation. It is in the purview of the Elders to not always require total compliance, so there is a potential risk of disunity at that voting level as well. Elder rule is typically defended from the 1 Timothy 5:17 passage and the Hebrews passage to obey your leaders. A typical diagram would look something similar to this:
Elder Ruled Hybrid
The system that I describe as the “Elder Ruled Hybrid” is similar to the Elder Ruled model yet can be very traumatic to the congregation. This hybrid model is typically sought by having the congregation vote to allow for Elder Rule. Since most of the SBC congregations have been trained to understand their right to vote and discuss changes that occur in the operation of the organization and property purchases, etc. It is the absence of these things that can cause confusion for the congregation when the Elders begin to rule in earnest. This type of change can lead to impatience in the Elders to respond and distrust among the congregation when their questions are not answered in full to the congregations satisfaction. Because of this, those that oppose Elder Rule tend to point out these outbursts of disunity as a reason to abandon a need for a plurality of Elders. I must say this model typically results in the Elder Hybrid eventually evolving into the typical Elder Rule since all decision making, after the initial congregational vote, is given over to the Elders. This model would look something like this:
Congregational Affirmation
There is another congregational model, which I believe to be the closest mirror of the ekklesia during the first century. This model of congregational involvement decreases the dependence upon “voting” where consensus is typically the goal, and places the emphasis on affirmation where maintaining “unity” becomes the aspiration of the ekklesia. Congregational affirmation is built around the idea that we “are members one of another” with vary gifts that bring edification to the body. Men are engaged in discipleship and expected to lead their families. Over time, God provides a plurality of Elders (qualified men, 1 Timothy and Titus) to work within this environment as instruments, not rulers; to be used by the congregation in their preaching and teaching so that the entire congregation grows up/matures into Christ as the only authority in the church. So the church is led by Elders that “rule well”, but the church is not Elder Ruled. And the church is “served well” by deacons in the same manner. Elders are simply one of the many gifted family members designed to serve the body of Christ as the Holy Spirit gifts each individual specifically for service. Since the affirmation process is simple and does not have levels of voting, the entire congregation is continually affirming and making decisions in ministry (worship, edification and discipleship) and missions (commission to go). A typical diagram would look similar to this:
It is clear that the first century church has many advantages over the vast majority of organizations that exist today. It is obvious that in order to build unity, each and every member must be involved in the life of the church. Churches should be very deliberate and careful to understand how they function and answer the question … are we set up to “maintain unity” or are we satisfied to “develop a livable consensus”.
Churches should obviously encourage a plurality of qualified Elders. Is how your current church operates prohibitive or is she open to the Apostle Paul’s encouragement to Timothy and Titus? Is your church able and willing to pursue these doctrinal principles to lead the church to unity? What do you think are some of the reasons that a typical SBC church has limited the amount of qualified Elders to “one” or possibly “two” men in the church? (since the vast majority of churches are at 75-100 members)
Blessings,
Chris
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
John Maxwell wrote in the summery of his Law of Empowerment the following:
Enlarging others makes you larger. The purpose of power is to be distributed, not hoarded, but only secure leaders are able to give their power away. Recognize and resist the natural inclinations to keep a tight grip on power. In the long run, you’ll be rewarded for letting go.
I’ll close with a quotation on empowerment from decorated war hero and former vice presidential candidate, James B. Stockdale:
“Leadership must be based on goodwill… It means obvious and wholehearted commitment to helping followers… What we need for leaders are men of heart who are so helpful that they, in effect, do away with the need of their jobs. But leaders like that are never out of a job, never out of followers. Strange as it sounds, great leaders gain authority by giving it away.”
Whatever set-up is made in the church, the leadership is there to “empower” (in relationship to the kingdom) the members of Christ’s body. This, as I see it, is the unification of each part of Christ’s body. The Board of Elders are to disciple, train and point the local church in the direction of the Author and Finisher of our faith. The business of the buildings and grounds should be left up to others unless the boundaries of excess are crossed. There are other reasons that would accompany an intervention, however, they would lean toward a more biblical, spiritual and prayerful duty toward the Body.
I like the elder rule on spiritual matters as they relate to all areas of the church along with using the “business” of the church to strengthen and motivating each member toward his greatest potential. It’s all about faith after that.
Great post, Chris. Hope I stayed on topic.
The best example of the inner workings of the early church is seen at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. James is clearly taking the lead as the Elder/Pastor yet does not act until he sees that all were pleased with a specific direction. Our church functions in a similar fashion with regards to issues that affect the whole church yet we do not function as a democracy. Our leaders have the freedom to lead and do so without various individuals telling them how to do so. But, the congregation always has the freedom to question, and if necessary discipline, the actions of our leaders. I like to think of it as freedom with accountability. My experience has been that many larger churches have to function this way because of the sheer numbers but it works very well in smaller churches too. Trust your leaders until you have reasons not to, rather than tying their hands with the hope that they will do nothing wrong.
Thanks Bruce,
You have brought out an important point, which I have seen to be a difficult mission for Pastors throughout the years and it is exacerbated when the Pastor is taught and carries out the mission of being the “only” man with oversight. The “single by design” Pastor is setup to fail simply because it is not the will of God for the church. The Apostle Paul, Peter and others have made this clear. The question I always ask myself is… How does a church get itself into the habit of ignoring apostolic authority?
I think it occurs in two ways: Budget and Reinforcement
1. Budget – most churches (congregations) are taught and led to believe that a Pastor is their professional guy (singular). They own the man via the vote. Mega churches do not help this out since money is the reason why they have the buildings and look of success. The smaller church family is lured into looking to these larger churches as a model and this creates a horrible expectation for this “one” Pastor. So that,…when he does not produce (measured by baptisms) he is typically voted out within two to three years. This is a tragic cycle!
2. Reinforcement – I visited the Baptist Distinctives conference in Ft. Worth last year and was not surprised to find this “single” Pastor model being reinforced to hundreds of young men and a few women at the seminary. I spoke briefly to the individual teaching the session and broached the subject of “many men aspiring to oversee”. His answer to me was typical, but sad. He said that if you are starting a new ministry, new church plant….then it could (not should) be the way to lead the church. He went on to tell me that having a plurality of elders will not work in some of the well established, older congregations. Basically rebutting the Apostles, not me. Again, I was not surprised, but more appalled at the lack of obedience to the Word of God with regard to men aspiring to oversee. I sincerely hope this will change.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I agree with you most ardently.
The ignorance of the body today in this one area is growing by leaps and bounds. We are a people influenced and focused on our political agendas and we succumb to more of a fleshly approach rather than a kingdom approach in church purpose. The body of Christ has only one head and one Shepherd for the flock. The whole kingdom structure is built on Christ and Him alone. We cannot go back into the OT and form our structure nor can we look at our society for structure. The way God’s kingdom operates has a different flow and we need more men of God preparing the way. Once people have experienced the true kingdom order within the local church they will not be able to function any longer in a church being built on sand.
We choose our pastor whether we are replacing or looking for a church. I am in the process of finding a church at this writing. I live north of Houston, TX and would like to have a suggestion from anyone who knows of a Baptist church that is set up this way. It takes a long time to find one when you have limited time on weekends.
Scott – You have made a great statement in your last sentence.
Under the Congregational Affirmation model, you said that “the affirmation process is simple and does not have levels of voting.”
Could you describe in some detail how that affirmation process works? I don’t think I understand it. Thanks.
Brother Scott,
Acts 15 is an amazing scene is it not. The church is fully engaged using all of its instruments… the Apostles, Elders, the brethren, the whole church in getting the gospel into the mission field and present to clarify doctrine as the church gathers to edify one another.
The contemporary church is dysfunctional at best and is void of what is depicted in Acts:
- Of course there are no Apostles – although we do have their inspired words.
- Our churches rarely have this type of scene, where multiple elders are hard at work clarifying doctrine, working nose to nose with the whole congregation,…having everyone involved.
- Hearing reports daily of the churches activity
- Deliberate to send other Elders to plant churches and clarify doctrine in other churches. (O how this could have helped Broadway Baptist, but it seems autonomy has become a reason for keeping brothers and sisters at arms length.)
- The Spirit was not being grieved, but was readily at work in the hearts of the entire congregation.
Thanks for the comment, good word.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Barry,
I have had others contact me with this same request. Let me put some detail and context to an answer …. and I will attach the detail as an attachment to this post.
What I would like to do is fashion the answer in a series of scenarios, so that you can get a feel for how efficiency, simplicity and unity are all sum and substance of “being of the same mind”.
Thank you for your patience,
Chris
Thanks, Chris. I look forward to reading that.
Thank you for posting this Chris.
Brother Benji,
I believe that this type of discussion needs to be done more often. For the most part, Pastors in the SBC ignor the obvious implications of being members of one another and opt out to “voting” as a means to know God’s will. Not all Pastors do,…but a pure voting system or strategy has become a constant crutch and is destructive to unity, simply because the best it has to offer is consensus.
Consensus is more often the enemy of unity. Pastors must understand the differences so that the entire body will walk toward “maintaining the Spirit” as the center of their relationship in the body, instead of voting to have their opinion registered while maintaining the perception (not the Spirit) that what they have done in voting “is” their duty to the body.
Being members of one another is so much more!
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
I think that the best you can usually hope for is concensus, since an all for or an all against is prabably not going to happen in most situations, but I think I agree with your main point. One of the nice things about voting is that everyone can have a say, including timid people who may not want to risk getting pointed out or talked about for being the only person who disagreed. One process I’d like to see more is a pastor-sponsored written comment/question submittal prior to any church business meetings. Then issues can be addressed and questions answered without people questioning motives. I’d also like to see more prayer meetings about the business meeting too. I say this in a general sense, not about any particular church or leadership method.
I typed the preceeding message with one hand while eating an apple, forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes (“prabably”)
Brother Andrew (Apple typist)
You’ve struck into the main point for the post….which is unity. Barry had asked a similar question in a little bit different way…so, I am going to ask Geoff if he will allow me to put together another post to address some scenarios around unity and the congregation. I told Barry I would put it into an attachment, but another post specifically on that subject could be more helpful.
Now back to the main point … Unity. I would contend that we, both you and I, should not have to expect a consensus as the best we can expect from our interactions in the church… and here is why. The Apostle Paul has us moving in a different direction (than consensus) based upon the control of the Spirit as he said….
Romans 15:5-7 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, (6) so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (7) Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.
The church, under God’s giving of perseverance and encouragement, is “one voice” based upon the oneness of the transaction that Christ made on our behalf. In other words, consensus is not a language that is provoked by God, …it is a language that is provoked by the deceiver. So, in order for us, you and I, in the same body to agree….we must not think about “having a say”, we must expect and encourage everyone to participate in order to maintain the Spirit in the bond of peace. That is the beauty of God’s design in the church with a plurality of Godly leaders….those qualified overseers will have this goal, along with patience, along with kindness, longsuffering, etc. in order that everyone is involved and using their Spiritual giftedness to edify the body so that the “one voice” of the body “will” glorify God.
Prayer is definitely the key,….and no one has to be singled out or be made to feel insignificant. But, to the other point of the post, …it is not the teaching of the Apostles to lead the church in this manner with only “one” guy…thus the reason for the Apostles encouragement and the many, many elders in Jerusalem. A local gathering with only “one” overseer is a huge blindspot in the SBC, and the disunity is very apparent….The reason Paul brings it up to Timothy and Titus, is the same reason we have to bring it up today. Overseers are expected and needed in the church.
Some of our SBC seminaries are not teaching what the Apostles are teaching concerning leadership in the churches. This has to change.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Andrew,
Hypothetically, if I were asking you…..
- have you been a Christian for a while
- are you the husband of one wife (can be clarified further)
- are you respected in the community
- are you of good character,..which spills over into the congregation and community.
- are you not a drunkard or have a suspect reputation handling money, etc.
- are you able to teach
- are you a gentle man, seeking peace with your brothers and sisters
As you were to think on these things and your answer to all of these things in your mind was yes….My next question is …. Are you aspiring to oversee the church? If so, what is keeping you from overseeing?
1. Would it be that “the” Pastor has never asked men in the congregation to consider such as part of his daily work as an overseer?
2. Is it because you are conditioned to believe the Pastorate is a profession or job with a salary and you would be giving up your current employment?
3. Is it because you believe all Pastors must have been to seminary in order to lead the church?
4. Is it because you are not sure that God is calling you to the responsibility?
The first three questions are typical and nonsensical … the fourth question is legitimate and is confirmed through interaction with the congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Just curious, but what makes you ask?
As far as the questions go, here’s what I’ve got:
1. Would it be that “the” Pastor has never asked men in the congregation to consider such as part of his daily work as an overseer?
I think question one would have more to do with the structure of church government as stated in the church constitution than with the will of “the” Pastor (with a capital P
. Also there is a question of how much of a pastor’s “daily work” can be performed by non-elders and how much must be performed by an elder.
2. Is it because you are conditioned to believe the Pastorate is a profession or job with a salary and you would be giving up your current employment?
I certainly don’t view the pastorate (capital P?) as a profession, but rather as a calling (question 4). Again, there is more the question than just that. Certainly we would agree that an elder is worthy of some type of compensation for his work. Perhaps I wouldn’t serve without some form/level of compensation that the church can’t/won’t provide.
3. Is it because you believe all Pastors must have been to seminary in order to lead the church?
No. While I believe that generally a pastor should have some type of formalized training (mentorship/seminary/etc), seminary in and of itself is not a requirement, unless I overlooked a passage in 2nd Opinions or 1st Impressions
.
4. Is it because you are not sure that God is calling you to the responsibility?
I personally don’t feel called to the pastorate specifically, but rather to missions/evangelism. I don’t mind performing some of the activities that an elder would, but right now I’d view myself more as an apprentice in the ministry than as a candidate for eldership.
Brother Andrew,
Thanks for working with me on this ….. It seems to me that you are interested in the things of God and church….so this is a good exercise for both of us.
On question #1, I think you are correct that typically it is the structure and sometimes the language in the charter or constitution that maps out whether there will be one or many overseers in the church. Obviously I believe that a plurality is clearly taught by the Apostles,..and not only taught, but lived out. This is clear.
What I was referring to as “daily work” was that it is the responsibility of the overseer to always be in discipleship with other men and encouraging them to aspire to leading the body. This is the point that Paul is making to Timothy and Titus. Most Pastors learn to ignore that command.
#2. Your right,…it is not a profession. Nor should any overseer weigh his calling relative to being paid anything in return. Being worthy of double honor, is not to say that he is going to be paid anything….the emphasis is on “being worthy”. For instance we currently have three qualified Elders, all of which are not paid. During all my years functioning as an Elder, I have never been paid. Not that I am opposed to being paid, but because of the way we advance ministry it is not necessary that I or any of the men be paid. All the revenue that is collected goes to caring for the families in need, widows, spreading the gospel and church planting. I always have wondered how many Pastors would still feel called to oversee the church if they were not paid.
#3. You are right here as well. Seminary can be an excellent supplement to ministry, but sometimes a doctrinal desert as well….depending upon the teacher.
#4. Fair enough,… But what better as a missionary or evangelist than to have some experience overseeing the church….it is a natural progression (Spiritually).
Thank you so much for the interaction….!!
Blessings,
Chris
Regarding ministers being paid.
I don’t think the concept of pastors not being paid is ever going to be mainstream. Very few pastors are independently wealthy. They have to have some source of income to survive. They have to pay their bills, provide for health care, etc.
Most people who have jobs work so many hours per week that there is no way there would be time left over to do all the work that pastors do — visitation, sermon preparation, etc.
Pastors are expected to be available 24/7 during times when members of the church are having serious illness or other difficulties. At the same time many jobs entail extensive travel and/or the need to work extended hours when there is peak demand.
The pastors I know are already working 110% of capacity as it is. I don’t think expecting them to work for nothing — which would require them to take on a full time job — is realistic.
If somehow all churches in the SBC decided to quit paying pastors then I think many (maybe most) churches would find them selves without a pastor. This is because there are not enough qualfied people available who can afford to work for nothing.
Brother Roger,
Thank you for bringing of focus to Pastors being paid. (Brother Vol usually wears me out on this one). The main point I was trying to make is … “if a Pastor did not get his income from the church, how many would still believe they were called to Pastor or would even consider that they should aspire to oversee the church. I think the church has placed an artificial barrier as a disruption to unity in this matter.
The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9, has given us enough evidence to support the idea that men devoted to gospel also have the right to be paid from the gospel. Even though Paul and others chose not to take anything, he also made it clear that it was his right as well. So Pastors “to get paid or not to get paid” is not the argument I am trying to shed some light on.
The question is this though,…is “getting paid” a prerequisite for a church to consider as men aspire to oversee the church? It appears that the Apostle Paul and others prove that it is not a prerequisite. If the church begins to understands this principle, then she is free to appoint as many men as aspire and are qualified to lead.
You have also pointed out in your post what Paul and others taught as the practical need for a plurality of elders. “One” man (whether paid or not) will obviously work 110% or more, even as high as 300% and the church expects it and will allow him to work until he drops. There is little doubt that men working in a “one horse” scenario typically burn out, get discouraged, move away from ministry, grow resentful, etc. and wonder why it is so hard to serve God. Or they begin to compromise and get any other men, that are not qualified to do the tasks reserved for qualified men to do the work of overseeing the church. Besides preaching and teaching, one of the main jobs of the overseer (Pastor) is to disciple other men for overseeing the church, bringing unity to the church by having qualified men aspire to oversee.
But as far as the “getting paid” thing goes….pay every qualified overseer as much as is needed, but the church would be wise not to make money be the litmus test for how many men are qualified to serve as overseers.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris:
I totally agree with you that just because a person is paid, that does not make him/her qualified.
Another thing I guess you are saying is in those churches which have paid staff (which I guess is at least 90% of SBC chruches) the paid staff don’t delegate enough.
Brother Roger,
Yes, the “money exchange” has nothing to do with the willingness to serve or to delegate. Money is simply a means to eat and survive.
Some folks like to think it is the Overseer/Pastors job to do everything. The Overseer must be clear to teach that type of thinking as nonsense, and raise up peers (other qualified overseers) to lead along side of himself,…. while delegating at the same time to qualified deacons, etc. in the church.
Good thoughts,
Blessings,
Chris