;)
tagged: Church Government, Church Leadership, Dave Miller, Ecclesiology, elders, Leadership, Southern Baptist, Theology, traditionBaptists and Elders: Much Ado About Nothing?
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
The (ecclesiological) times, they are a-changin’. I have been attending Southern Baptist churches since ninth months before I was born. I cannot remember, in my earlier years, a single Baptist church that had an elder-rule structure. That has certainly changed lately. Many of our churches now have elders and many more are considering it.
Last year, at our state pastors’ conference, a well-known seminary professor addressed us on the subject. He asserted two things that one would have never heard at a Baptist gathering in the 60’s or 70’s. He told us that elder leadership in the church was the church structure mandated by the New Testament. He stopped just short of saying that churches that did not have an elder structure were in disobedience to the Word of God. He also regaled us with stories of the blessings and benefits of elder-based polity. If we instituted elders in our churches, division would be reduced, the gospel would go forward, flowers would bloom, the blind would see, the lame would walk and we would all live happily ever after.
I have come to believe, over my nearly 30 years of ministry, that there are things far more important to the proper functioning of the church than the institution of elder-rule. In fact, I think that arguments about church structure may be something of a tempest in a teapot, or, as my title says, “much ado about nothing” (or about very little anyway).
Preliminary Points
I would like to make three points to begin this discussion.
1) I am not opposed to elder-leadership in churches. In fact, when I was constituting my church in Cedar Rapids, we wrote bylaws with elders in them. Our mother church would not allow us to have elders, since it was “unbaptist”. We took them out at their insistence. We just never got around to putting them back in. I thought about it a few times, but gradually, my view of the importance of the issue changed.
If I started a church from scratch, it would probably have elder-leadership under a congregational umbrella, with the pastor as chief-elder.
2) I think arguments from Baptist tradition are weak. It is silly to base the argument for or against elder-leadership on tradition. Who cares? The whole point of being a “people of the book” is that we are bound by what the Word teaches, not by denominational traditions.
3) All elders are not created equal. Some churches have elders who rule over the entire church – essentially abrogating congregational government. Some churches have elder leaders who seek to discern the proper direction for the church, but are accountable to the congregation. Some claim that the pastor or pastoral staff fulfill the elder role. Many Baptist churches have elders but don’t know it. They call them deacons. In fact, the real issue (for another post) is not whether Baptist churches will have elders, but whether we will ever get around to restoring a biblical deacon ministry.
Thesis
Here is what I have come to believe: The emphasis in the New Testament is not on the structure of the church, but on the character and spiritual maturity of its leaders. Give me mature, Spirit-filled leaders and just about any structure will work. And I don’t care what your structure is, if you have self-centered, immature, ungodly men running things, you will have a mess.
Points to Ponder
1) I think the seminary professor was overstating the case when he said that elder-leadership was the biblically mandated form of church government. There is no formal structure mandated anywhere in the New Testament. Scripture mentioned elders, overseers, pastors (shepherds) deacons (and perhaps deaconesses, if the deacon ministry is properly understood). And it is true that Paul appointed elders in the churches he planted. But there is very little formal structure mandated. We are told to honor those who lead, but are given few details.
2) A friend of mine made a point in an article he wrote that Paul was just using the form of government common in cities in that day. The city-elders held authority in their towns. So, when the church was established in the city, the common form of government was adopted. I don’t have the historical proof of this theory, but I found it interesting. Perhaps some of the commenters can give some wisdom to us on this issue.
3) The emphasis with New Testament leadership is on the character, behavior, maturity, and spiritual passion of leaders more than it is on the governmental structure of the church. Three words are used to describe the leaders of the church. They are called elders, overseers and pastors. These terms have been institutionalized in our day, but they were descriptive terms. An elder is not a formal office; it is a spiritually mature man who is worthy to be emulated by the church. An overseer is not some sort of robed bishop who sits enthroned; he is a man who sacrifices his own needs and desires to watch over the Body of Christ. That is almost synonymous to the term pastor, or shepherd; one who watches over the redeemed sheep. It seems clear to me from Acts 20:28 that these are not three different offices, but three general terms used to describe those who oversee the church of God. We are those who are (ideally) spiritual mature and passionate believers who other believers can use as examples to grow spiritually. We lead the sheep, watch out for them, protect them from predators, feed them and guide them in the right ways.
The most detailed descriptions of both elders and deacons deal with their behavior and character, not with any kind of official job description. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 describe the moral and spiritual maturity and the personal integrity required to lead the people of God. Notice that the emphasis, again, is on character more than structure.
4) There is a danger in unfettered and unaccountable power. The desire to rule over and control the flock of God is impure; something we must resist in God’s service. I suspect that some, though certainly not all, of the movement toward elder-rule in Baptist churches comes out of a desire to insulate ourselves from being questioned, being opposed. It is annoying when you have an idea, present it to the church and they don’t like it. I know of pastors who have treated people who disagree with them as if they are enemies of the gospel, of the Word and of the Kingdom. How dare these impudent people disagree with my wisdom? One famous preacher told his people, “To question me is sin.” Balderdash! We should encourage our people to hold us accountable, not seek ways to solidify our power and control to avoid such accountability.
Please don’t get your braids twisted, pastor-friend. I am not saying that everyone who wants to institute elder leadership is doing it as a power grab. In fact, if done properly, elder leadership is power-sharing.
But I believe that one of the more dangerous trends in the conservative movement is the over-emphasis on pastoral (or elder) authority. We forget that leadership in the Body of Christ is actually service, laying down our lives for the flock. We are not corporate CEOs who dominate and control by the force of our personalities, but servants of the Savior given the awesome responsibility of devoting our lives to the spiritual success of others.
Leadership Imperatives in the Body of Christ
While I am not convinced that there is a single mandated church structure, I do think there are some bedrock principles that must not be compromised – ever!
1) The church has a head – Jesus Christ! Being a pastor became a lot easier when I finally figured this one out. I don’t have to control things. In fact, I am not allowed to. If I try to impose my will, my vision or my ideas on the church, I am committing an act of blasphemy. Jesus Christ died and rose for the right to rule over the church and to be the head of the body. For me or any other leader to try to usurp Christ’s rightful place of authority ought to be unthinkable.
As a wise man said, “All pastors need to learn two things. There is a God. You are not him.”
2) Leadership, then, is not controlling or ruling over the Body, but guiding the body to properly discern the will of God and the mind of Christ. My job as a pastor is not to set the agenda for the church, but to seek to find God’s agenda for my church and lead the church to serve his purposes.
There is amazing freedom in this principle. When I am serving my own agenda, I have to pressure, motivate, badger and direct the flock. When I am on God’s agenda, the Spirit is the motivator. He will bring the Body together on God’s agenda.
3) Leadership in the Kingdom of God is not control, but service. Yes, we have authority and people should give leaders proper respect. But we who lead must remember who we are and what we do. We lay down our lives for the sheep. A self-centered, egotistical pastor is an oxymoron. The greatest must become a servant. In other words, success is measured in the spiritual growth and productivity of those we lead.
4) I do believe that leadership in the Body is too important to leave it in the hands of one man. Each of us has strengths and weaknesses (see Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12). The Body of Christ has only one head, one King. Leadership in the Body should be spread among a group of spiritually mature men – call them pastors, elders or whatever.
5) There is, I believe, more than one way to accomplish biblical church governance. I think the professor overstated his case when he told us that elder polity is mandated by scripture. Some of the principles may be mandated, but the Bible is not specific on issues of structure.
Conclusion
Church government is character-based, not structurally-based. To advocate that establishing elders in churches will do away with conflict, reduce power-struggles and magically advance the cause of the Kingdom is naïve. The answer to these problems is not some structural realignment, but a heart-change in leadership. We need mature, godly, humble, focused, passionate leaders who will operate on God’s agenda.
If you want elders, go for it. You certainly won’t offend me. Just don’t advocate it as the healing tonic for all ecclesiological problems. Keep the focus where it needs to be – developing Spirit-filled, mature leaders to operate whatever structure you have.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
I am traveling today, and will not have internet connection until mid to late afternoon. I will try to respond to any comments or criticisms as soon as I am able.
If you ask nicely, I will send you about 400 photos of my first grandson.
“My job as a pastor is not to set the agenda for the church, but to seek to find God’s agenda for my church and lead the church to serve his purposes.”
This is standard SBC rhetoric. SBC churches and pastors are experts in declaring that they are “seeking God’s agenda” after they have dismissed most of God’s agenda.
Paul was just using the form of government common in cities in his day. So, this is supposed to be a reasoning for not using it today? Is government today that much different?
Sounds to me that you have listened to the idea of having “ruling elders” with a biased ear and dismissed it without giving it any serious thought.
Dave,
A great topic and great information. First, I am in support of pastors and elders 100% and commit my service and ministry to them whole heartedly. This subject has grown proportionate to me as I have seen pastors in our SBC structure north and east of Houston, TX become power figures. They cannot do that without associational encouragement, backing and support. In fact, a percentage of our tithes go to the local association and used to support, back and protect the pastors rather than the church body and/or truth. (I’m not agin’ it, just know first-hand) As a layman, I struggle with our overall structure within Southern Baptist Convention because of this. Churches are supposed to be “autonomous” but that isn’t true locally and the church body is fed that in shovel full’s by the pastors. We need some rebel preachers like a Martin Luther to speak out publically on this issue because laypeople are ignorant due to these men who refuse to “feed the flock”. Enough of my soapbox. Back to the subject. I mean that in a “John the Baptist” way.
Today’s church structure has been set-up more like we do a landscape. We seem to structure our flower beds with tiered levels of foliage and blend colors that nourish the lust of the eye. All is symmetrical and shaped to appeal to the lust of the flesh for ease and comfort of maintenance and viewing. Once it becomes desirable to others it glorifies our pride of life. If we compare this so called structure with what is called “nature” we think our structure is more appealing than the way God has naturally landscaped His earth. We have mechanicalized and structured God’s creation to fit our lust and despise the natural design that God has put in place. This sounds extreme, but, fits for an example. In Acts 6:1-4 we find the need for men who minister the word of God to separate from the “ministry activity” and focus on the greater which are prayer and the ministry of the word. As a layman, if I read my Bible an hour or so per day and pray the same I would think there should be qualified men, including, and especially, my pastor, that spend more time than I in prayer and the word in order to feed and minister the truth to the flock. Today there seems to be too much of a maturity gap between the pulpit and the pew. Maturity is sacrificed for structure and we drift farther away from the nature of the church toward a well manicured and organized landscape. We need elders and pastors to lead the body into a deeper understanding of the truth. One man in power with one gift causes an imbalance. I have seen a pastor with the gift of evangelism put too much emphasis on his gift and never bring his church to maturity. Manifold gifts coming from several qualified spirit-filled men will bring balance and spiritual structure, like a body, to the church. By examining how a body is structured we may come up with the right way to build and function as God’s church.
Thanks for this subject. We need the pastor/elder structure in place in order to fill the spiritual aspect of the church. It can be done without putting it in a constitution or telling everyone, too. Just do it.
Brother Dave,
This is a difficult subject for most men women that have been trained by contemporary traditions to view the pastor as a singular aspect within a local body. In fact, this tradition continues to be held as the model in some of our SBC seminary classes. I sat in on one of those teaching sessions last year when I was in Fort Worth, really wondering if the teacher and I were actually reading the same text. I confronted him after the class session, and he simply could not back up his assertions biblically…the reason being; there is no precedent for this singular motive. I love the man, but he simply was confused about the instructions of the Apostle Paul. So the tradition of the singular overseer is alive and well in the SBC.
What I like about your article is the principles you bring forward. Because having more than one overseer is normal in the body of Christ at the local level. Having many overseers is not in the same context as church government, so I like how you have tried to make that point…..since I believe that is an important distinction to make. In fact, many overseers are simply the fact of the church that is maturing in the faith, because God causes and provides the church with many qualified teachers and men that have conducted their family life in such a way that the church is edified when they use those same gifts and demonstrate that same reputation within the local body of believers and in their communities.
Men should always be aspiring to overseer,…that is normal. For a church to lack aspiring men is a lack of faith, and a lack of scriptural understanding. So the church should expect and work toward men overseeing and edifying the congregation. Aspiring is not a qualification. To aspire is a desire that is qualified by the life characteristics explained by the Apostle Paul to Timothy and Titus, where men are expected to lift holy hands to the glory of God. There is no “magic” to aspiring….it is a fact of a maturing church where men and women are serious about being members one of another.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave, I can and will affirm just about everything you said. In fact. . . maybe, if I look hard enough and parse enough words, I could find something to take issue with. . . but only then. Your statements, “Church government is character-based, not structurally-based” and “The emphasis in the New Testament is not on the structure of the church, but on the character and spiritual maturity of its leaders” are exactly right. And I agree based on having served dysfunctional churches (to varying degrees) for 18 years, and a healthy one now for 6.
I also agree that Paul probably drew upon the forms of government he saw in the cities of his day, amplifying it only to the extent that that government varied somewhat from one city to the next. Hence, if we come to the text with the presupposition that the New Testament supports one and only one form of church governance, we are (1) probably going to find the form we are most comfortable with given our personality-type and maturity level, and (2) it will require us to go through some significant mental, theological, and exegetical gymnastics to explain away the parts that do not fit our presupposition. Oh, and (3), we will be wrong. Which explains one of my hobby-horses about the importance of our presuppositions.
Good article!
John
Dave,
I also agree with practically everything you say here.
I do think it is important to distinguish between “elder-rule,” in the sense that it by-passes the need to move together with the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the context of an entire congregation, and a plurality of elders/bishops/pastors, fulfilling their God-called and Holy Spirit-equipped role within a congregation. Also, I think it is important to avoid the other extreme of “majority rule,” in which members who are not submitted to the Holy Spirit’s guidance can run roughshod over the leadership of spiritually mature elders/bishops/pastors.
As in most things, it is a question of balance.
Dave,
I enjoyed the post. I think we can sometimes argue whether we should make tea or coffee when we don’t even have any water. We certainly need to be reminded that we need Spirit-filled, mature leaders before any local church can function as a body.
I also agree that no matter what structure your church operates under, there will still be heartache and troubles, but I think it is a good thing to strive to emulate the aspects of the NT churches that the NT talks about, including structure and function. The difficult part is discerning structure and balancing function.
Great column, Dave.
The early church presented in Acts does seem to set an example that needs to be followed by churches today — not in the specifics but in the overall picture. (1) Total freedom for the Holy Spirit to work, (2) changed lives that create community and impact the surrounding community, (3) inclusivity, and (4) the bold expansion of the gospel.
But as I read the book of Acts, I see Luke distinctly describing the early church in terms of “variety.” In a lot of ways there was very little uniformity — how the spiritual gifts were displayed and when they occurred, who was given the leadership, and how that leadership was exercized. Luke gives little or no interest to church organization or polity. The seven called in chapter 6 are not called “deacons,” and they do not even hang around to minister in the church. One might even make the case for three different models of church government found in Acts: congregational (6:1-6), presbyterial (13:1-3), and episcopal (20:17-38). Such variety should give us pause to determine which is “the correct” form of church government.
Dave, I am total agreement on the biblical emphasis on character of the church leadership. First Timothy 3 lists character qualities and only one ability necessary for leaders, “able to teach.” I cannot find any biblical teaching regarding “offices” in the church. “Leading” God’s people is directly tied to teaching from God’s word (Heb 13:7), thus a leader’s “authority” does not reside in the person but in the word of God. That is why they must be “able to teach.”
Could it be that this idea of variety in the church, and the emphasis on the character of spiritual leaders, is the Bible’s way of saying how a local church organizes itself for ministry is largely a matter of context and make-up of each specific congregation? If God has placed members in the body “just as He desired” (1 Cor 12:18), does every body need to look and be organized the same?
Tim, first of all, I have not dismissed the idea of having elders. I do not think I would use the term “ruling elders” – but as I said in the article, if I was starting a church, I would almost certainly have some form of congregational government with elders leading the church.
And, despite your disparagement, I actually do try to practice the principle of seeking and operating from God’s agenda. I don’t know if that is, as you say, some sort of meaningless SBC rhetoric for some, but it is a guiding principle for me.
I learned it from Henry Blackaby and it has been the most important practical principle I have ever seen. If I am on God’s agenda, he will motivate and empower the work.
Thanks for the comments, guys. I will try to respond more fully. I just got home to find Sioux City in general and my front door in particular buried under drifts of snow four and five feet high.
I would love to discuss this subject, but evidently, for the next several hours, I am going to be shoveling snow. If my back survives, I will be back at the keyboard tonight.
Tim, you seem upset at my beliefs. Can you show me where the New Testament mandates something different than what I have put forward? I post my opinions and beliefs, then you share yours. I’d love to discuss this with you.
Brother Dave,
I’m not sure how you got CB to sit still for the picture. But the guys on either side of him are not pleased.
-Chris
Oh, Chris, I hope CB wanders by and sees your comment.
Everyone – good comments.
Kevin, you said, “Could it be that this idea of variety in the church, and the emphasis on the character of spiritual leaders, is the Bible’s way of saying how a local church organizes itself for ministry is largely a matter of context and make-up of each specific congregation? If God has placed members in the body “just as He desired” (1 Cor 12:18), does every body need to look and be organized the same?”
I think that sums up my view pretty well.
Dave,
I like the way you write: Your exegesis is tempered. Your points aren’t forced. You don’t try to make the scripture say more than it says. You don’t bring baggage into your discussions. You’re not combative. These are marks of maturity.
Thanks, John. But what on EARTH is up with the Dodgers thing?
LIttle off topic but google up Marilynne Robinson in Harvard REview on John Calvin.
All brought to mind by stout faee to face conversations with strong CAlvinists in last 15 days in two states, the first full of more grace than the 2nd; but both interesting.
Both in favor of elder rule.
Also check out Altar Geography of Babs Taylor and her thughts on The Encounter.
Dave, I like you never heard Elder rule mentioned in Baptist life until recently. When my great grandfather was a Baptist pastor he was referred to as an Elder. The terms pastor and elder were used interchangeably. Instead of having several ruling elders for a church in those days they often had one elder for several country churches. They usually had deacons for each church.
When we first started hearing of ruling elders in most cases it was because the pastor did not want to have to come before the church for a vote on decisions he had made. He would select a group of elders who would then make decisions for the church body and the pastor worked with them to get his agenda approved. The congregation no longer voted on anything, they would not see the church budget and would not see the staff salaries. I think this is reason for many recent cases of pastors getting in trouble for using church funds for personal projects and for the lawsuits we have seen at some of our prominent churches for access to the church budget and expenditures.
We talk about the BF&M so we should look at it says under Church.
Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The BF&M seems to me to be affirming our traditional Baptist belief in congregational rule, not Elder rule. It also says the only offices are pastor and deacon. If you use the terms elder and pastor interchangeably, that is okay. If you use elder as a separate office from pastor and deacon it seems you are in disagreement with the BF&M. As far as several elders for the each church as is mentioned here, do they all have the same ordination? Can they all perform marriages? Is the senior pastor somehow at a different level than the other elders as far as call and authority? I would have to consider these questions to determine if the role of elder and pastor are different or the same in a particular church. I think in most cases they are.
Ecclesiology was something I took entirely for granted until I came to Middle Earth where the only leadership and assembly traditions are the worst examples of authoritarian worldly models. As we attempted to plant churches two things became apparent. One, the western model of church would in no way serve in this culture and two, I had no idea what the minimum biblical structure would look like. Over the years I have studied and gone from a traditional western disciple to a house-church advocate, to a house-church fanatic, finally arriving where your post arrives at today!
You rightly point out that the actual model of governance is irrelevant without men and women committed to the reign of Jesus in His Church. Tim’s critique above is harsh but not entirely unfair as we have for too long used words like servant, service, and love but have acted like little dictators- pastors, please take offense here. I was a pastor for four years and I did it so I know. We talk about all seeking God together until something we really care about comes up and then we fall back to manipulation and power struggle all in the name of ‘seeking God’s direction’. Lord forgive us and guide us into something much better!
What I have found in teaching and planting here is that we must emphasis the ‘one another’s’ in scripture. This keeps the focus off of the worldly organization and on the true life of the community. If we lay Jesus as the foundation and then let him use whatever community our culture is comfortable with He transforms our community into His Kingdom. Elders, always plural in the NT, then become not so much a ruling board but the mature in the group who use their gifts to point others to the true Head. Much more can and should be said but I will let this go for now. I need to go out and find some fireworks for the kids party with tonight.
May everyone have a blessed New Year committed to seeing God’s reign in your lives, in your families, and in your communities.
Ron’s comment above, that I just read after posting my comment highlights the problems we have in dictating our traditions. The BFM states that the only offices are ‘pastors’ and ‘deacons’ and yet the word ‘pastor’ is not even to be found in my ESV (and shepherds are only to be found twice in connection with the spiritual gift)! Deacons as they are defined in scripture have almost never appeared in SB life. I am not complaining about our traditions! There are healthy churches that love one another well and glorify God with the system of pastor and deacons but if we mandate this in the BFM how are we people of the Book? We need to get past the forms and get to the substance as Dave points out in the post. By the way, I like the idea of congregational governance because it protects against the wolves who would take over the pastor/elder positions and dethrone Christ as head of the church. This in my opinion has always been the legitimate benefit for having democratic processes in the church. It forces everyone to participate with the gifts given them. I personally believe in the biblical model of multiple elders but these should only advance and protect God’s people seeking His rule together. Anything else easily degenerates into a human glorifying organization.
John said:
“If we come to the text with the presupposition that the New Testament supports one and only one form of church governance, we are (1) probably going to find the form we are most comfortable with given our personality-type and maturity level, and (2) it will require us to go through some significant mental, theological, and exegetical gymnastics to explain away the parts that do not fit our presupposition. Oh, and (3), we will be wrong.”
I agree but I think it should be extended. Even if we believe that there are legitimate variations in church governance, we still tend to do mental and exegetical gymnastics to explain away scriptures that don’t fit with our present way of doing business.
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb. 13:17, ESV)
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you … for a man has his father’s wife… Let him who has done this be removed from among you… When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus … you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5:1-5, ESV)
I think that sometimes we say things like “the Pastor is just like everybody else, don’t put him on a pedestal” and we end up eroding our confidence in our leadership. We certainly want to be balanced when it comes to pastoral authority and congregational decision-making, but in the 1 Corinthain example, would it have been out of line for the elders to say, “This is not something we can tolerate in the church?” There needs to be a form of checks and balances between pastoral and congregational authority. Remember, it is the spiritual leaders who have the greater responsibility.
I just realized that this has nothing to do with the issue of singularity v. plurality of elders, but I think it fits well with our conversation to date.
For the sake of oversimplification. It appears that the BF&M places the term pastor synonymous with the term used by the Apostle Paul that is translated “overseer”. (which I believe that the overseer is “pastoring” as he edifies the local body).
Ron’s questions help articulate this subject IMHO:
“As far as several elders for the each church as is mentioned here, do they all have the same ordination?” As far as scripture is concerned,..all elders (same as overseer) have the same qualifications. Ordination is really another matter,… since ordaining is spurious in many cases, where on the other hand qualifications remain consistent.
“Can they all perform marriages?” Overseers are never required to marry anyone. It is kind of fun to do though and can be a great way to share the gospel. The State determines if the marriage meets its requirements for civil law within the government that has been established. Just about anyone these days can perform marriages.
“Is the senior pastor somehow at a different level than the other elders as far as call and authority?” Not at all… this is a common misconception and is probably the reason that most churches are taught to keep the overseer as singular. The only authority given to any elder is the authority to be a servant within the congregation along with other men qualified to oversee Christ’s body for edification.
Many churches pretend to have elders (overseers), by calling the deacons or other men in the congregation by this term (title) if backed into a corner about how the Apostle Paul has revealed this to Timothy and Titus. The simple fact is… that an overseer “must” remained qualified in order to edify the church. Overseer is an ever aspiring model in the church. We have many pastors that stand in the pulpit from week to week that do not meet the qualifications, and their church body is well aware. That is the problem…the congregation “is” aware, but have been so trained to ignore the Apostles teaching as long as the guy standing the pulpit meets their personal subjective expectations and professional needs.
The SBC church must have elders (men aspiring to overseer) within the congregation or she will continue the habit of voting in a new guy every couple of years or so (statistical average), remaining in a stiff necked attitude. Christ, by way of the Apostle Paul did not leave much room for that type of disobedience within His body.
Every local body needs qualified men to edify and lead the congregation.
Blessings,
Chris
Strider, you crack me up!
You said, “Tim’s critique above is harsh but not entirely unfair as we have for too long used words like servant, service, and love but have acted like little dictators- pastors, please take offense here.”
I love that!
I had a similar (but brief) experience much as you said. I had the opportunity in 1988 to travel to an African nation and do some teaching/training with pastors and church leaders there. The missionary told me that the churches had adopted the tribal form of government. The pastor acted much as the tribal chief and was in full control and authority.
They had not gotten the concept of “servant leadership” and the pastor/chief’s authority was often unhealthy.
In America, we adopted a strict majority-rule government because that is what we are used to.
Now, in many churches, we are adopting the Pastor/CEO model since that is what we are used to.
It seems we all assume that the model we see, like and are used to must be the biblical model.
I think what you did is what we all need to do – we need to boil it all down the to bone and see what is necessary and essential.
I don’t think it is a problem to have different church government/polity structures unless we try to enforce our culturally-conditioned views on everyone.
One clarification – when I mentioned above that the churches in the African nation I taught in had not absorbed the concept of servant leadership, I in no way meant to imply that we had here. It is in our sinful nature to seek power and control and to demand to be served. We who are church leaders have to fight that desire on a daily basis.
I do not think that American churches have understood the servant-leader model any better than anyone else has.
I just wish I could master it…
Dave,
It would be like trying to master humility. I found in my early years that the closer I got to God it was like stepping from behind the cleft of the rock. More of me was exposed in His presence thus I felt more unworthy which produced humility. Of course, no one can claim humility. Maybe there is a similar way of mastering the servant-leader model.
Good thought, Bruce. I’ve always been proud of my humility!
I think it is one of the key markers of true faith versus religion/self-righteousness. When I truly draw near to God, when I get a glimpse of his glory, it humbles me. I have that “woe is me, I am unclean” moment that Isaiah had.
My religious activity, preaching a good sermon, doing something well – all that can lead to pride and self-glorying.
Dave,
When I teach I have the same lust and pride issues that rattle their chains. One of the things that makes me sense the presence of God in the worship service, home or elsewhere is when I have an urge to repent for the slightest misgivings. It also spurns me to service and produces confidence where there was none. I hear the same words Jesus said to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” I begin to praise His grace and pray for more.
Bruce
Brother Dave,
As I was driving over to another meeting this morning…..I was thinking about what the Apostle Paul might do if he were alive today and happened to be passing through your city and made it over to your house (through the snow) to see how things are going in the day to day happenings of your congregation.
Is it plausible to believe that on this subject he might say “well Dave, is the SBC making it clear enough for you with respect to leading the congregation?”, or “Dave, has a business meeting been scheduled to see if you are able to get some help in here to carry out the ministry?”.
I think he might say something closer to….. “Dave, you know that there is one God and one mediator, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for all…a testimony at the proper time, for which I was appointed a preacher and Apostle,….with that I want the men in every place to pray and have holy hands without wrath and dissension,…and by the way,..you know this is right, if any of these men desire to oversee the congregation that’s wonderful….and since your congregation is led by Christ there is no question that these men must be living out at least these certain qualities and be able to teach…look closely, I’ll list them here for you….this will help you greatly.” (1 Timothy 2&3) “Oh, and another thing…if the SBC hassles you about what I have said…tell them to give me a call,… I’d love to meet with them face to face”.
Blessings,
Chris
Frankly, I don’t know if anyone much is reading blogs this holiday week, but I would love to hear from the other side in this debate – those who believe that elder-rule is a NT mandate for all churches.
I would be interested in interacting with their ideas.
Chris,
If Paul visited Sioux City today, he’d be a block of ice.
I do believe, as you stated, he might have several things to talk about relative to our church and its mission and ministry. The list might be long if Paul addressed a modern American church.
Our church polity/organizational structure would probably be way down on the list.
Your audience may be well educated concerning the distinct difference between elder-rule and elders that rule well. So there may not be a too much to argue about if those definitions are biblically discerned.
-Chris
Elder-rule and elders who rule well. I like that.
I first noticed during my time in the military, particularly in Iraq, that there are two types of leaders. There are people who have been chosen to lead, whether they are elected by a group or by an individual, and then there are natural leaders who people choose to seek out and follow. They aren’t always the people in the positions of “official” authority.
Since I started working with churches, I’ve seen much of the same thing. Good leadership will recognize the people who the people have already chosen–chosen because God chose to gift them in that way and they exercise their gift well–and it should naturally sort itself out.
The key to all of this, as you pointed out in your original post, is discipleship. If I can name one thing that the majority of SBC churches are doing wrong, it’s that. Without proper teaching, there can be no growth. Without referring to the proper standard, regardless of what the BF&M might be interpreted to say, we will be basing our discipleship on the wrong foundation–traditions!
I say we’re doing it wrong, because it was done wrong to me, my wife, it’s wrong in my church (but we are breaking down the barriers) and in the other churches I work with. In the military, I got to travel and become a member of several churches, and from California to Maryland to Arizona to Germany, we have a slew of baby Christians on our hands. You get out what you put into it, and people are putting church on a bottom shelf in their lives. We have to find a way to fix that, before we worry about anything else, or we’re about one generation away from falling apart at the seams.
On a side note, I believe snake-handling is mentioned just as often as the term shepherd or pastor is. How come no one worries about us doing that?
Amen, Jeremy.
What the church needs today, more than anything else, is ELDERS. I am not speaking of some sort of structure or polity, but the presence of mature, godly, Spirit-filled folks who will lead the church in its disciple-making task.
My view of the American church is that we have, by and large, idolized numbers. Bigger is better, after all. The way to get more customers, more sales, is to discount the price (been to Walmart lately?).
We have discounted discipleship, discouraged people from counting the cost, made people comfortable in spiritual mediocrity – and thereby produced a church that is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Dave,
I’m referring to your Comment 29 – If churches are to have multiple elders wouldn’t it stand to reason that they should rule, more particularly, by example and, specifically, in spiritual matters only?
Bruce
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! (1 Cor. 6:1-8, ESV)
Bruce,
This passage does’t specifically mention church elders, but there is a precedent here for elders to be involved in “non-spiritual” matters.
Of course, it depends first on your definition of “rule.” Jesus clearly told us that Kingdom rule is different than the earthly rule model.
I think that we who lead churches need to lead by model. We also lead by proclamation of the Word. I believe it is my job, and that of other leaders in the church, to seek the will of God and the mind of Christ and to present that to the Body. If I am rightly discerning the direction God would set, the Spirit becomes my motivator to bring the church together in unity around God’s agenda.
Andrew
In Acts 6:1-4 the Apostles established the deacon position. It seems to me that the whole body of Christ, at that time, strove to be what Christ expected of the whole body, the church. I have always though that my life should exemplify at least the pastor. Right or wrong that was my goal as a believer. I agree that the elders must be involved in nonspiritual matters, however, it must be offered as optional and, yet, something we must respond rightly too. You are correct about how the elders must involved in non-spiritual matters.
Dave,
Agreed. Rule must mean “example” instead of what we think in the western world. Our flesh follows those who “flesh out” the Word. That would affect our thinking somewhat and cause us to adjust our faith toward right thinking. (If that makes sense.)
What the Apostle told Timothy with respect to the elder who rules well, has all to do with the fact that the man is an elder,…. not working that direction. Having leaders in your church that have the skill to teach a Sunday school class is not the same as having elders that rule well. So in that context, the Apostle is clearly saying that the man that is consistently meeting the qualifications that he had penned earlier….that man, while ruling (literally to engage or manage teachings for..or lead in…) well is worth much to the congregation (not necessarily money…in fact, this metaphoric section may have little to do with actual money). So, it is critical to understand that these men are recognized as performing or serving in this manner of edification for the local church body….and it is in the serving and consistent qualified characteristics as Paul has outlined that maintain and reveal the definitional context of ruling.
In other words, a man that does not rule well,…revealed as a man that is dominating his congregation,…a man set on his own agenda (and blaming God for it),…a man that deliberately lords things over the congregation, or sulks when he not allowed, is not qualified. What that means in the life of the church is critical, because in reality that church no longer has that man as an elder, no matter the title or level of seminary degree. He is simply disqualified and in need of restoration. But today,…most SBC churches just ship him out to another local body a state away. This is not only sad, but horrible stewardship in the body of Christ.
O that we would learn to understand what the Apostle is getting at as he instructs Timothy and Titus in these important matters for the local body.
Blessings,
Chris
Jeremy Bowman,
Good point!
My father was a small-town policeman from about 1950 until 1973. He ran the department starting in the mid-or late 1950s. Interesting thing though: he was not promoted to chief until about 1963! But he was a leader such that for all intents and purposes, he ran it as an assistant chief under two chiefs and before that, as a lieutenant under a chief and an assistant chief. Here the the funnier thing: he was anything but your sterrotyped Southern small-town chief. He rarely raised his voice. He didn’t carry a nightstick or a slapjack. Although unchurched, he did not drink. And when there was conflict under him, he typically responded with some homespun story. As chief, he outlasted every other chief the department has had except one–and Daddy hired him!
I suspect some of our “authoritatian” pastors don’t talk about personal leadership qualities such as these because they lack them, and can (or think they can) only function in situations where formal authority is delegated to them.
John
Tim, your post resonates with me. I’ve long felt that we easily get caught up in the ‘proper’ structure of authority (as though if you just get the right structure, everything else will fall into line), where the more important thing is, how are you handling the authority that you *do* have? It doesn’t do any good to have the ‘right’ structure for authority if those who are holding positions of authority don’t have the right attitude about their authority, if they are not handling it in a Christ-like way.
While we easily talk about servant leadership, I think one part of this we’re generally missing is what’s taught in Phil 2:5,6 – where we’re told to have an attitude like Christ’s, who didn’t regard equality with God as something to be grasped, something to hang on to for dear life. If Christ didn’t regard equality with God as something to be grasped, how much, then, should we regard our own comparatively teeny bits of authority as something to be grasped? If the authority we have isn’t something that we can let go of or set aside when needed, are we really handling that authority according to scripture?
I see this many times in the gospels. The disciple at times seemed to be obsessed with authority and structure. Jesus seems to have consistently dealt with these situations by responding with teaching on the attitude you should have in handing authority: “Jesus, we da man! The demons are subject to us in your name!” “Don’t rejoice in that, rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (which seems to me to reflect the “don’t regard your authority as something to be grasped” in Phil 2:6) “Jesus, how ’bout putting us at your right and left hand. We wanna be near the top!” “The greatest among you shall be your servant”.
What I see mandated in scripture isn’t titles, it’s functionality. You’ve basically got ‘spiritual leadership’ (elders, pastors, overseers, whatever you call them), and those handling the practical aspects of handling the functioning of the church as a local organization (deacons), so that the spiritual leadership doesn’t have to be diverted by those details. The titles don’t matter, the work does. I suspect, for example, that a lot of actual ‘deacon’ work in churches nowadays is handled by secretaries and other such staff, or by member volunteers. That loose structure allows for a lot of flexibility in the way church structure is actually fleshed out in different situations.
Jeremy:
I’ve seen the same thing, although I dubbed the two ‘positional authority’ and ‘earned authority’. And it strikes me that during His time here, while Jesus had all positional authority and used it when dealing with illness and demons, when dealing with people, Jesus seemed to consistently operate according to the rules of ‘earned authority’.
John, did your dad have a deputy named Barney Fife? He sounds like a real-life Andy Griffith.
Ben, you make some very good points.
John, on a more serious note, your story of your father points out something very real.
Leadership is earned by behavior not attained by office. Your dad led because of who he was, not because of a title someone had given him.
Pastors or elders do not have real authority because of the title or office we hold. We have authority because people have seen us walk with God, had seen us endure difficulty, have seen Christ in us, have seen something they want to emulate.
Andrew,
Please look up the first word in the Greek in Hebrews 13:17. I think the translation “obey” is having serious negative consequences for the body of Christ. I am hoping that the new NIV that is Lord willing going to come out will correct it.
Dave,
I think you makes some great points in this post.
In Christ,
Benji
Benji, I did a little preliminary word study. Seems at first glance to imply something other than simply mindless obedience, doesn’t it? Implications of trust, persuasion, etc. I think I’m going to have to do a little more study on that one.
Do you know of anyone who has done work on the meaning of this word?
No, Daddy had no such deputy. Although he wore short Wellington boots like Andy, he was different in some respects. Besides an omnipresent cigar, he always, and I mean always, went about armed, sometimes with a .38 Special S&W Combat Masterpiece, sometimes with an ancient Colt New Service revolver with a 7.5″ barrel in .45 Long Colt caliber, and sometimes with an even older S&W (forget what model) top-break in the old .38 short caliber, plus he kept an M-1 carbine in a zipper compartment under his seat. And he could ream anyone out (including me) with just a few words, but a minute later, was saying, “Come on, let’s get a cup of coffee.” And he meant it.
Now our county sheriff looked more the Andy Taylor part. Although he kept a 12 gauge pump in his car, he almost never carried a side arm, never wore a uniform, and would call up some felons and tell them, “I got a warrant for you. Come on in to the office, let’s take care of it and get you out on bond, so you can get back to your family.” When politicing, he was known to hoe a long row of corn and only at the end of the row, say to the farmer, “Hope you’ll remember me come election day.” Unfortunantly, the similarity ended there. He was eventually convicted of taking bribes from moonshiners, while Daddy retired honorably.
Guess I come by stories honestly.
John
You guys are so de-centrally centralized…whew.
Early Baptists believed the New Testament gave a specific church model–pastor and deacons. Baptist Pastors were called Elders until the Primitive/Missionary split. The PBs kept the elder title, electing one elder as pastor and other elders preach at a later date. The Missionary Baptists adopted the more Methodist/Presbyterian title of Reverend, but kept the essential same model of Pastor and Deacons. The same argument for a plurality of elders is the same argument for infant baptism…(i.e. Paul ordained elders in every city/ He and his household were baptized)…arguments from human deduction.
If you take plurality of elders to its logical conclusion, you have accepted bi-vocational ministry for elders because the churches cannot sustain multiple elders…unless the church is large enough.
BTW, I like the bivocational model, but not the plurality of elders.
Grace and Peace and Happy Twenty-Ten.
GaBaptist
GABaptist,
I trying to figure out what “decentrally centralized” means!
I am no expert on Baptist history, by any stretch, but after what research I have done, I believe that there has been an evolution in leadership/structure/polity over time, even within Baptist circles.
Dave,
Here is a quote from a website I’ll give down towards the bottom:
According to W.E. Vine, the Greek word peitho means “to persuade, to win over, in the Passive and Middle Voices, to be persuaded, to listen to, to obey, is so used with this meaning, in the Middle Voice. THE OBEDIENCE SUGGESTED IS NOT BY SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY, BUT RESULTING FROM PERSUASION” (emp. mine – DO; An Expository Dic-tionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 3, p. 124). The thrust of the word peitho is not one of submission to authority, it is one of listening to someone out of respect and taking their advice. A better translation of peitho in verse 17 is “Listen to,” not “Obey them.”
Peitho is sometimes translated “trust” in the King James Version of the New Testament and would have been an ideal translation in verse 17: ‘Trust them….’ This leaves the reader with a different flavor entirely than does the translation “Obey them…”
http://www.theexaminer.org/volume2/number4/rule.htm
The website also goes into some of the other words in that verse. I personally believe that elders are in view [though that is not explicitly stated]. However, I also believe that the translation “obey” is way to strong. To read the English translation makes it sound like churches are to “obey” their leaders like children are to “obey” their parents. That’s pretty bad I think in the light of what the word actually means.
Kevin:
Wouldn’t this also fit better into the idea of spiritual leaders equipping the congregation to do ministry(Eph 4:12) (as opposed to the idea of spiritual leaders always having to run ministry)? Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of pastors come out of seminary only prepared to turn what few people in the congregation who are interested in ‘ministry’ into mini-pastors (Mini-Me’s?) – essentially trying to mold them to the same mold that he was trained in. It seems to me that the idea of the spiritual leaders ‘equipping the saints’ is going to involve something more along the lines of discerning what the callings and gifts of those in their congregations are (which may be wildly different from those of the pastor), and providing teaching, encouragement, and support for putting those callings and gifts into ministry. To put it another way, sometimes it may be spiritual leadership’s job not to ‘lead ministry’, but to provide the tools, teachings, and support that will enable the congregation to lead in ministry (which may very well go far beyond the reach of those who are ‘spiritual leadership’). This doesn’t mean the pastor has to become expert in all of the different ways those in his congregation might minister – he can’t. It means he learns to supply the core of what will enable his flock to discern what ministry(or ministries) they’re called to and put it into practice.
Of course, doing that is going to involve getting across to the congregation that 1) all of the saints, not just the pastor, are called to ministry; and 2) ‘doing ministry’ may involve doing things that aren’t just copies of ‘what the pastor does’ (or, Ministry is more than what the pastor does). Am I wrong in my impressions that that’s the direct opposite of what a lot of church congregations seem to believe?
Brother Ben,
Very good remarks (at #51) IMHO!
-Chris
Benji, that was kind of the idea I came to in my brief and cursory study. I want to read more.
In the NT, there are several authority/obedience relationships, and English makes them all seem alike. But different Greek words are used to describe children obeying parents, wives submitting to husbands, and Christians listening to their leaders.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Ben Coleman,
I agree with Chris.
Dave:
It’s interesting to note that the word for children obeying parents (in Eph 6:1 and Col 3:20) also has a ‘listening’ connotation (hupakouo. from hupo (which usually carries a ‘down’ or ‘under’ connotation, and akouo (to hear or listen)). I suspect part of happens here is that (for example), if you’re persuaded of what someone is saying, you’ll do what they say; you’ll obey. The expected end result of listening to someone who is right is that you’ll obey. Given how human language works, I can see how a word or phrase carrying a basic connotation of listening or being persuaded can come to have a connotation of obedience (though I don’t think it would be a connotation of thoughtless obedience).
Where’s CB?
Big Ten whooped the SEC once today. And if Northwestern had a field goal kicker, we’d have been 2 for 2 against the weak football conference from the south.
Ben, agreed. Great insights.
Benji,
No argument with your comment (#45). I looked up the Greek word for “obey” in that verse and found “persuaded,” “trusted,” and “believed” pop up a lot. Oddly, the word “submit” as used in Heb. 13:17 didn’t show up at all in the rest of the NT.
I agree that this verse can be used inapprobriately to support all manners of authoritarianism, but in my limited experience it has mostly been the opposite of that in churches. People often believe the pastor has some selfish ambition or hidden agenda. He’s put on trial at business meetings when he suggests we get a new podium.
While I don’t think the pendulum should swing back to blind obedience (like the papal edicts in the Middle Ages), some swinging must take place if we are to balance congregational authority with pastoral authority. The movement I’m looking for is a movement towards more confidence and trust in our leadership, which makes “listening to” and “submitting to” much easier.
There is a balance here. There is a movement among Christians (and some in Baptist Bloggerville) who say that all authority is ungodly, that authoritarian structures of any kind are contrary to the way of God.
I reject that. God does seem to establish lines of authority in human relationships. Parents hold authority over their children. Wives yield authority to their husbands. We are to all submit ourselves to the governing authorities. And within the church, leaders are to lead with a servant heart. That authority is easily and often abused, but it does not abrogate the reality of lines of authority.
Dave:
I agree wholeheartedly. I’m not sure if I’m coming across as one of those who say that all authority is ungodly (I hope not, because that’s not my position). I do think there’s a message in Phil 2:6 that is largely ignored, but lately when I go over it, I’m reminded that that message is not about the presence or absence of authority structures, but about the attitude we take when we exercise authority. I think Jesus teaching focuses more on that attitude than on particular structures, and that our teaching should follow suit, but Jesus is by no means silent on the issue of obeying authority, even authority that’s out of order (see Mat 23:2,3 for an almost frightening statement).
My own position isn’t against authority structures, it’s against the tendency to think there is a one-size-fits-all structure that every church must follow, and against the tendency to focus more on structure than on having a godly attitude in exercising authority. The attitude issue is actually the harder issue, and therefore the one which needs the most attention. There are times when I wonder if it’s almost the one which gets the least attention (an exaggeration, probably, but not too much of one).
I can see where this is going to be difficult to teach in the current culture. The way I see it is that, in part due to a past where the teaching on structure was emphasized over teaching on attitude in authority, we live in a culture that tends to reject authority structures (they blamed the structure rather then blaming the attitudes). That puts us in the position of having to simultaneously encourage people to exercise the valid authority that God has given them (in the face of a culture that would tell them to back away from it) *and* give a stronger emphasis on Christ’s teaching and example on our attitude i exercising authority. Not only is this difficult, but our tendency is to merely try to get back to the old teaching, emphasizing structure and giving lip service to the attitude teaching. The goal shouldn’t be to get back to where we were, it’s to recapture a Biblical balance on authority that we’ve probably missed for a long time.
I think we are in agreement. My concern was to balance the overall discussion a little. In this comment line, we have talked a lot of the dangers of power-hungry leaders. I just wanted to make sure people understood that I do not align with those who denigrate human authority structures.
Brother Ben,
I think you have given the proper perspective. When you said, “My own position isn’t against authority structures, it’s against the tendency to think there is a one-size-fits-all structure that every church must follow, and against the tendency to focus more on structure than on having a godly attitude in exercising authority.”
There is not a one-size-fits all structure, but I do believe there are bedrock principles within the body, no matter the size. When those bedrock principles get replaced through redaction or reduction or poor translation,… then the church can only suffer or build programs to hide the suffering.
A godly attitude is bound up in a leader that meets the qualifications set forth by the Apostle Paul.
Blessings,
Chris
I think we’ve been given the examples of proper authority already. Husbands are to lay their lives down for their wives, as Christ did for the church. The Son of Man came to serve, not to be served.
A very wise, very old preacher said to me once, “Authority demanded is authority lost.” Man, that is true every time. Just try it with your wife once and see how well it works!
A very disturbing trend I’ve seen, and I’m afraid to even tread on it, seems to stem from a lot of the “other” stuff Martin Luther said and did. He had a lot of laws (35, I think) passed that made preacher slandering, gossip against authority, etc. a capital offense. He might have had a problem with a man telling him what to think about God, but he sure didn’t like being questioned, either.
He also is quoted to have said something along the lines of, “the pastor’s words are the very words of God, his voice is the voice of an angel.” and “the congregation is to be the ears of the body of Christ.” I’m sorry I can’t reference that more exactly, but I’ve loaned my book to a friend right now. I know the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola makes references to it as well, though.
I’m just afraid that when it comes to anything biblical, we have some people that know a lot and a lot of people that know next to nothing. And, if the reformed influence has anything to do with it, it is being kept that way intentionally (but, hopefully, subconsciously). Kind of like the virtual version of that bar that kept the laity away from the clergy in the old Catholic churches back when they weren’t even allowed to take part in the Communion.
It’s the exact opposite of the leadership model Jesus presented when He washed Judas’ feet at the Last Supper.
Jeremy, that is the other side of the leadership balancing act. I believe, as you said, leadership is earned, not demanded. When people see integrity, character, perseverance, a sense that the leader is seeking their spiritual prosperity, etc, yielding to leaders is much easier.
Dave Miller,
All of this discussion has some merit of worth I guess, but I want to ask you something that pertains to real life and human existence.
Now that your BUZZARDEYE NATION is going to play in a “real” Bowl game are you ready to deal with it? Especially, are you ready to play a Southern Football Nation such as the YELLOW JACKET NATION?
I realize that GT is not part of the BIG LEAGUE CONFERENCE, THE SEC, but GT is of the Southland and they do play a higher degree of football than do Yankee teams. I mean, they actually play on a real field and not in a cow pasture like any Iowa team would.
I am just wondering if you are up to it? I know you have your hopes up and I don’t want you to be hurt too badly when GT stomps a hole in the BUZZARDEYES.
After all, even though you know nothing of football on a lager than life scale as do Sabanites, I still count you as a brother.
Your friend of the SABANATION,
cb
AND ROLL TIDE
I’ve been watching games, and seeing a LOT of those SEC teams going down to defeat. And, if Northwestern had a kicker, Auburn would have joined the SEC losers.
Big-10 has looked pretty good in bowl games so far. We’ll see.
I will admit that Florida looked good (and is the only SEC team I cheered for – Timmy T turned me from a Gator-hator to a fan, at least this year).
I doubt I will even watch the Texas/Alabama game. Alabama is the only team I hate more than Texas (though USC comes close).
Dave,
How can a sane man hate the SABANATION?
What is wrong with you Dave?
Tell you what, we have some very good doctors down here at the UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA-BIRMINGHAM for people with messed-up heads and emotional problems. Foreigners like you come from all the world to get their heads straight here in Alabama at our fine medical centers. This is where all the doctors from Duke, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns-Hopkins, etc, come to get help when they need it.
Dave, I realize all the doctors in Iowa specialize in hogs and cows, one-eyed birds and depressed corn farmers and you probably feel your situation is hopeless to rid yourself of such a problem as hating the SABANATION. But we really can help you. We are a benevolent people other than on the football field.
Another thing that will help you is some good B-B-Q.
You come on down here and let our head doctors work on you and I will feed you at several good B-B-Q places.
You will go back to Iowa a healed man with a BAMA tag on the front of your car, a SABAN sticker on you back window, wearing a Bear Bryant houndstooth hat and yelling ROLL TIDE all the way home.
It was 22 below zero here last night, CB, and we may not see temperatures above zero for several days. I have 5 foot tall snow drifts in my front yard.
With all that, I’d still rather be a Hawkeye!
(And it looks like East Carolina’s kicker has the same disease as the Northwestern kicker – SEC is lucky it doesn’t have 2 more losses).
This conversation is done I am sure but I needed to add just one more thing/challenge. The point has been made, agreed upon, and repeated that positional authority need not change, what is needed is an attitude change. This is true. But what if the only way for our Lord to purify His Church and make it- and its leaders- who they are called to be is to change our system? What if our traditional Pastor/CEO role will only die when the way we use the term pastor dies? 15 years ago I would have said no to this. I liked being a pastor and the positive things that this meant. Today is different. Today the term pastor means the same as ‘snake oil salesman’ to more than half of the Western world. The majority of actual church goers think of the position as the ‘guy who we hired to do all the work for us’. Are we capable as a society or even as a community of the redeemed of thinking about this position differently? If we can not then must we not change the way we refer to church leaders entirely? If we adopt the term elders, make the position plural, and utilize the gifts of each without giving them an authoritarian title is this not more biblical in the short term and a way to overcome our attitude problems in the long run? These are questions for us to consider. 15 years ago I would have said no. I would have argued for the status quo. 15 years later I am convinced that the Kingdom of God hates the status quo. Are we willing to change?
I have to think about this one a little, Strider. I agree in principle with much of what you say. We are always caught between what is ideal and what is real.
I pastor a fairly traditional church. To make the kind of structural changes you suggest would be a shock to the system, and frankly, I am not sure if the gain is worth the pain. I don’t know.
If I were starting something new, however, I would try to move closer to the kind of thing you are talking about – a shared ministry responsibility.
I have not completely given up the idea of a “chief elder” amongst the elders – something akin to the pastor role we have today. In my studies (which I do not present as authoritative) the concept of the chief elder arose pretty early, even within the apostolic era. What was Timothy’s role? Titus? If the “angel” of each of the churches of Asia Minor was a human representative, does that not suggest some sort of chief elder role.
Basically, I have a lot of questions and few answers. But, while I agree with the need for multiple leaders within a church, I am not completely convinced that we must reject the role of the pastor to get there.
This is an area I am still working through.
[...] illustrious Baptist theologian Dave Miller :-) recently wrote the following on a post on church leadership: “There is, I believe, more than one way to accomplish biblical church governance … Some of the [...]