Biblical Qualifications of Elders (Continued)
“ 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:3-7, NASB)
Verse 3 continues with the qualifications of elders with “not addicted to wine”. Not only must an elder not be given to drunkenness, but he should not even be seen as a drinker. He needs to be careful where and with whom he associates with. If he is a man who frequents bars he can easily be accused of being a drinker. His thinking must never be distorted by alcohol, and must lead a lifestyle that is distinctly different from that of the world. His life should set an example for others, inspiring them to lead a life of holiness.
He should also not be “pugnacious”, meaning that he should not be constantly ready to fight and engage in physical violence. He should be “gentle” and “peaceable”, which means that he should be gracious and not desire to hold grudges, not quick to fight and avoids disharmony. He should also be “free from the love of money”. His motivation should come from a love for God and the people under his care. The opposite trait, covetousness, is a character displayed by false teachers, not those who are genuinely committed to God. Being peaceable and gentle does not mean that there are not occasions where elders should not be tough. There are times when the elder must be tough on false teachers and take action against the spread of false teaching. (Titus 1:10-13; 2:15) He must also confront other sinning elders. (1Timothy 5:20) He must at times be confrontational and authoritative. But there must be balance and the elder must also maintain an attitude of warmth and compassion.
It is important that the elder demonstrate leadership in his own household. If his leadership cannot be modeled there, it certainly will not be demonstrated in the church. It includes everything that would be associated with his household. His children must be respectful, under control and display a reverence for God. And this should be carried out in such a manner that those observing his home life could say that it is managed excellently. And this is where the issue of divorce can come into play. If a man is divorced, it illustrates a major flaw in his spiritual leadership. It is obvious that the home was not managed well. And even if there were biblical grounds for a divorce, there would need to be a long period of time elapsed to demonstrate strong family leadership. This may not seem fair in the case of a biblically permitted divorce, but remember, the overriding principle for qualified elders is that they be blameless. There must not be anything that could be used against them that would incur blame. If a man cannot take care of his home, he certainly will not be able to take care of the church.
The last qualification is that he is not to be “a new convert”. The danger here is that his pride would be a stumbling block. Pride caused Satan to fall. (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:13-15) I have observed that in some churches, there seems to be too much eagerness to promote men to positions of leadership who simply are not ready for it. This is tragic and sets him up for a fall and also in the long run hinders the church. There needs to be a great deal of consideration of the qualifications of the man. And it takes time to build leaders. There is definitely a maturing process that must take place before they are fit for spiritual leadership. (1 Timothy 5:22) He must also have an excellent reputation with those outside the church. Remember the key issue is that the elder must be blameless.
Well this post marks the end of the series on Biblical Church Leadership. Leadership is extremely important in the church and the men who are chosen to lead the church can affect the spiritual health of the congregation in a positive or detrimental way. If you want to read an excellent resource on this subject, I recommend Alexander Strauch’s book, “Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership”. Another excellent resource is the 9marks website.
Showing posts with label Church Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church Leadership. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership - Pt 10
Biblical Qualifications of Elders (Continued)
"2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, "
The candidate for elder must display a “hospitable” attitude toward others, displaying a welcoming and generous spirit. The Greek is composed of two words that essentially mean to love or show affection to strangers. In the early church, believers had to depend on each other’s hospitality for their survival. This included helping other believers who were strangers who perhaps needed to flee their homes in another town due to persecution. I can’t help but wonder, in our society that stresses individualism where self-sufficiency is highly prized, if it does not make this concept more difficult for people in the church to truly grasp today. Christians who are heavily persecuted in other countries probably have a greater appreciation for this.
The next trait is “able to teach”. The elder must be skilful in his teaching ability. This is extremely important, since this will be one of his primary duties. This is more than merely being able to teach, but more importantly, the content of their teaching. There are those who can teach, but they are teaching the wrong things. 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us that that leadership must be proven skilful handlers of God’s Truth. Elders are to be able to lead the church in matters of doctrine and practice, and unless he is able to handle the Word of God with precision and accuracy, he will be unable to accomplish this task and is unqualified to lead. Furthermore, any who display a sloppy careless attitude toward Scripture should not considered for eldership and any who are already in leadership displaying this trait should be dismissed. Sad to say, this is seldom taken into account in evangelicalism at large. Much of the problem lies in the fact that churches do not understand the Scriptural mandate for church leadership, so they follow the world’s standard, not God’s. Too many leaders are chosen simply because they display considerable charisma and can garner a wide following. Just because people are following someone does not mean they are fit for biblical leadership.
Let’s take a brief look at 2Timothy 2:15.
"15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV)
I quoted that passage from the NKJV, because I think it captures the meaning with a little more sharpness. The phrase “rightly dividing the word of truth” literally means to cut it straight, and it denotes the precision and accuracy that God demands in the handling of His Word. It is unfortunate that a large majority of evangelicalism places little emphasis on this important quality. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on the eloquence of speech and mere communication skills. This is not to say that strong communication skills are not important, but that the content of what is said is even more important. Scripture, in references to leadership in the church, places great emphasis on the accurate handling of God’s Word. Let’s look at another passage, 1Timothy 5:17.
“ 17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”(1 Timothy 5:17, NASB)
Elders who serve with a greater commitment and strive for excellence are to be held in high esteem, and deserve to be paid more generously. In particular, those who work the hardest and seem to be more prominent should be acknowledged with greater honor. What is implied in this text is that there are elders who are particularly driven to work harder at studying Scripture for preaching and teaching. The phrase “work hard” literally means to labor to the point of exhaustion. This further underscores the premium Scripture places on the importance of preaching and teaching by the elders in the church. Preaching involves the open proclamation of biblical truth, with the intention of exhorting and admonishing the congregation to take heed to God’s Word. Teaching emphasizes instruction in doctrine and is essential to protect the flock against heresy. Preaching and teaching are essential to the health of the church. And this desperately needs to be emphasized, especially in the current climate in the evangelical church.
Paul also exhorted Timothy to “preach the word”, whether it was popular or not. This was to be done regardless of what people wanted.
" 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2, NASB)
I hope to finish up this series in part 11. Hopefully I will be posting it early next week. It is a little difficult right now to post with any great frequency. There are too many things going on, especially during the summer months.
"2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, "
The candidate for elder must display a “hospitable” attitude toward others, displaying a welcoming and generous spirit. The Greek is composed of two words that essentially mean to love or show affection to strangers. In the early church, believers had to depend on each other’s hospitality for their survival. This included helping other believers who were strangers who perhaps needed to flee their homes in another town due to persecution. I can’t help but wonder, in our society that stresses individualism where self-sufficiency is highly prized, if it does not make this concept more difficult for people in the church to truly grasp today. Christians who are heavily persecuted in other countries probably have a greater appreciation for this.
The next trait is “able to teach”. The elder must be skilful in his teaching ability. This is extremely important, since this will be one of his primary duties. This is more than merely being able to teach, but more importantly, the content of their teaching. There are those who can teach, but they are teaching the wrong things. 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us that that leadership must be proven skilful handlers of God’s Truth. Elders are to be able to lead the church in matters of doctrine and practice, and unless he is able to handle the Word of God with precision and accuracy, he will be unable to accomplish this task and is unqualified to lead. Furthermore, any who display a sloppy careless attitude toward Scripture should not considered for eldership and any who are already in leadership displaying this trait should be dismissed. Sad to say, this is seldom taken into account in evangelicalism at large. Much of the problem lies in the fact that churches do not understand the Scriptural mandate for church leadership, so they follow the world’s standard, not God’s. Too many leaders are chosen simply because they display considerable charisma and can garner a wide following. Just because people are following someone does not mean they are fit for biblical leadership.
Let’s take a brief look at 2Timothy 2:15.
"15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV)
I quoted that passage from the NKJV, because I think it captures the meaning with a little more sharpness. The phrase “rightly dividing the word of truth” literally means to cut it straight, and it denotes the precision and accuracy that God demands in the handling of His Word. It is unfortunate that a large majority of evangelicalism places little emphasis on this important quality. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on the eloquence of speech and mere communication skills. This is not to say that strong communication skills are not important, but that the content of what is said is even more important. Scripture, in references to leadership in the church, places great emphasis on the accurate handling of God’s Word. Let’s look at another passage, 1Timothy 5:17.
“ 17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”(1 Timothy 5:17, NASB)
Elders who serve with a greater commitment and strive for excellence are to be held in high esteem, and deserve to be paid more generously. In particular, those who work the hardest and seem to be more prominent should be acknowledged with greater honor. What is implied in this text is that there are elders who are particularly driven to work harder at studying Scripture for preaching and teaching. The phrase “work hard” literally means to labor to the point of exhaustion. This further underscores the premium Scripture places on the importance of preaching and teaching by the elders in the church. Preaching involves the open proclamation of biblical truth, with the intention of exhorting and admonishing the congregation to take heed to God’s Word. Teaching emphasizes instruction in doctrine and is essential to protect the flock against heresy. Preaching and teaching are essential to the health of the church. And this desperately needs to be emphasized, especially in the current climate in the evangelical church.
Paul also exhorted Timothy to “preach the word”, whether it was popular or not. This was to be done regardless of what people wanted.
" 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2, NASB)
I hope to finish up this series in part 11. Hopefully I will be posting it early next week. It is a little difficult right now to post with any great frequency. There are too many things going on, especially during the summer months.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt 9
Biblical Qualifications of Elders (continued)
“1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” (1 Timothy 3:1, NASB)
In verse one, the terms “aspires” and “desires” are used to describe the attitude of the candidate toward the office of “overseer” or elder. Aspires means to “reach out after”, and denotes an external action, not just internal motive. The second word, “desires”, means to “long for”, have “strong passion” which refers to an internal desire. This describes an individual who is driven to externally pursue the position of leadership because of a strong internal desire to do so. This is important because unless the man is strongly motivated to fulfill this role, he will not have the drive necessary to succeed in carrying out his God-given duties. Pastors should not be coerced into such a position. When you think of all the pressure one will be under in this position, the only thing that will sustain him will be the heart’s desire to see people respond to God’s Truth and grow spiritually. The last thing that a congregation would want is a man who stands in the pulpit only because he feels he has to. That type of man will never make the kind of leader necessary to fulfill the obligations of pastoral leadership. In 1 Peter 5:2 elders are exhorted to serve with a sense of divine calling and an urgency to fulfill the task at hand. This should be with eagerness, not indifference or laziness. Elders should be self-motivated and should not need to be constantly prodded along to fulfill their tasks.
“2shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;” (1 Peter 5:2, NASB)
In addition to having the desire for the office of elder, a man must meet certain qualifications. The overarching qualification is that he must be “above reproach”, meaning that there is no wrongdoing that he can be legitimately charged with. In other words, he must be blameless. This is crucial since he is to be an example to the people under his care. The remaining qualifications expand on the requirement to be “above reproach”.
"2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (1 Timothy 3:2, NASB)
Next in the list, “the husband of one wife”, literally means “a one-woman man”. This really isn’t speaking of his marital status, but his moral purity. While issues such as divorce do indeed factor into the fitness of a man for eldership, the focus here is on his sexual purity. I will discuss the issue of divorce as we proceed further in the list of qualifications. But this matter is crucial since this tends to be a weak point that often leads to failure in the life of many leaders. Unfortunately, we witnessed the tragedy of this occurring in the life of the pastor of the church we were members of for several years, where he became involved with another woman in the church. The key concern with this qualification is whether or not the man is what we would call a “womanizer”. Does he tend to be flirtatious, or is he dedicated to his wife and honor her in marital faithfulness. This is no small matter especially if you have ever observed the adverse effect the sexual sin of a pastor has on the congregation. This sin will obviously negatively affect his walk with the Lord. And it is inevitable that it will cloud his thinking and render him useless to provide spiritual direction to his flock. Having been part of a congregation where this took place, I can certainly testify that the consequences are terrible. If the pastor is in no condition spiritually to provide guidance to the congregation, the inevitable outcome is that the congregation will wane spiritually, and it won’t be long before sin permeates the congregation. As Alexander Strauch points out:
“If the elders are not faithful, one-woman husbands, they will subtly encourage others to be unfaithful.” [1]
This leads into the next qualification that he is to be “temperate”. The word in the Greek is “nefaleo”, and it means to be sober, abstaining from wine or at least its excessive use. However, used in the context here, it means to be “sober-minded” (as it is translated in the ESV), especially since the very next verse deals specifically with the subject of consumption of alcoholic beverages and states that he is not to be “addicted to wine”. "Temperate" here means that he is to be “alert”, “watchful” and “clear-headed”. It is vitally important that elders display the capacity to think clearly so that they can keep vigilant watch over their own life and the congregation. This is why it is so important that the elders take great care to be sure they are not allowing their minds to be distorted by material filled with warped doctrine. You can learn a lot about where a man is headed theologically by the types of books and materials he utilizes and claims have had the most impact on his life. I am not referring to books of a questionable nature that he may be reading to discern how false teachers are twisting the truth, but the books that he relies on for theological guidance that are making an impression on his life. In essence, the elder must not allow himself to be intoxicated by teaching that will distort his thinking, whether it is false doctrine or worldly philosophy. Paul in Acts 20:28 warned the elders in Ephesus to “be on guard” for themselves and also “for all the flock”, knowing that the “savage wolves” were just waiting to come in among them and devastate the flock.
The elder must also be “prudent” and “respectable”. The term “prudent” comes from the Greek word “sofron” and means to be “self-controlled” and able to restrain his desires and impulses. In other words, he does not react impulsively, but he is to be disciplined in his life, especially spiritual matters and is able to prioritize spiritual matters making them the utmost importance. This leads into the next quality, “respectable”. This means “well arranged” or “orderly” (from the Greek “kosmio”). This means that they are able to order their lives in such a manner as to not be in a state of constant chaos. If they are not able to accomplish this in their own life, how will they be able to keep order in the church? The ability to maintain order is extremely important to keep the church from degenerating into a state of chaos.
(To be continued...)
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 71.
“1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” (1 Timothy 3:1, NASB)
In verse one, the terms “aspires” and “desires” are used to describe the attitude of the candidate toward the office of “overseer” or elder. Aspires means to “reach out after”, and denotes an external action, not just internal motive. The second word, “desires”, means to “long for”, have “strong passion” which refers to an internal desire. This describes an individual who is driven to externally pursue the position of leadership because of a strong internal desire to do so. This is important because unless the man is strongly motivated to fulfill this role, he will not have the drive necessary to succeed in carrying out his God-given duties. Pastors should not be coerced into such a position. When you think of all the pressure one will be under in this position, the only thing that will sustain him will be the heart’s desire to see people respond to God’s Truth and grow spiritually. The last thing that a congregation would want is a man who stands in the pulpit only because he feels he has to. That type of man will never make the kind of leader necessary to fulfill the obligations of pastoral leadership. In 1 Peter 5:2 elders are exhorted to serve with a sense of divine calling and an urgency to fulfill the task at hand. This should be with eagerness, not indifference or laziness. Elders should be self-motivated and should not need to be constantly prodded along to fulfill their tasks.
“2shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;” (1 Peter 5:2, NASB)
In addition to having the desire for the office of elder, a man must meet certain qualifications. The overarching qualification is that he must be “above reproach”, meaning that there is no wrongdoing that he can be legitimately charged with. In other words, he must be blameless. This is crucial since he is to be an example to the people under his care. The remaining qualifications expand on the requirement to be “above reproach”.
"2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (1 Timothy 3:2, NASB)
Next in the list, “the husband of one wife”, literally means “a one-woman man”. This really isn’t speaking of his marital status, but his moral purity. While issues such as divorce do indeed factor into the fitness of a man for eldership, the focus here is on his sexual purity. I will discuss the issue of divorce as we proceed further in the list of qualifications. But this matter is crucial since this tends to be a weak point that often leads to failure in the life of many leaders. Unfortunately, we witnessed the tragedy of this occurring in the life of the pastor of the church we were members of for several years, where he became involved with another woman in the church. The key concern with this qualification is whether or not the man is what we would call a “womanizer”. Does he tend to be flirtatious, or is he dedicated to his wife and honor her in marital faithfulness. This is no small matter especially if you have ever observed the adverse effect the sexual sin of a pastor has on the congregation. This sin will obviously negatively affect his walk with the Lord. And it is inevitable that it will cloud his thinking and render him useless to provide spiritual direction to his flock. Having been part of a congregation where this took place, I can certainly testify that the consequences are terrible. If the pastor is in no condition spiritually to provide guidance to the congregation, the inevitable outcome is that the congregation will wane spiritually, and it won’t be long before sin permeates the congregation. As Alexander Strauch points out:
“If the elders are not faithful, one-woman husbands, they will subtly encourage others to be unfaithful.” [1]
This leads into the next qualification that he is to be “temperate”. The word in the Greek is “nefaleo”, and it means to be sober, abstaining from wine or at least its excessive use. However, used in the context here, it means to be “sober-minded” (as it is translated in the ESV), especially since the very next verse deals specifically with the subject of consumption of alcoholic beverages and states that he is not to be “addicted to wine”. "Temperate" here means that he is to be “alert”, “watchful” and “clear-headed”. It is vitally important that elders display the capacity to think clearly so that they can keep vigilant watch over their own life and the congregation. This is why it is so important that the elders take great care to be sure they are not allowing their minds to be distorted by material filled with warped doctrine. You can learn a lot about where a man is headed theologically by the types of books and materials he utilizes and claims have had the most impact on his life. I am not referring to books of a questionable nature that he may be reading to discern how false teachers are twisting the truth, but the books that he relies on for theological guidance that are making an impression on his life. In essence, the elder must not allow himself to be intoxicated by teaching that will distort his thinking, whether it is false doctrine or worldly philosophy. Paul in Acts 20:28 warned the elders in Ephesus to “be on guard” for themselves and also “for all the flock”, knowing that the “savage wolves” were just waiting to come in among them and devastate the flock.
The elder must also be “prudent” and “respectable”. The term “prudent” comes from the Greek word “sofron” and means to be “self-controlled” and able to restrain his desires and impulses. In other words, he does not react impulsively, but he is to be disciplined in his life, especially spiritual matters and is able to prioritize spiritual matters making them the utmost importance. This leads into the next quality, “respectable”. This means “well arranged” or “orderly” (from the Greek “kosmio”). This means that they are able to order their lives in such a manner as to not be in a state of constant chaos. If they are not able to accomplish this in their own life, how will they be able to keep order in the church? The ability to maintain order is extremely important to keep the church from degenerating into a state of chaos.
(To be continued...)
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 71.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt 8
Biblical Qualifications of Elders
Now that we have covered the biblical structure of church leadership, which consists of a qualified team of elders that are called to lead the church, we will look at the biblical qualifications of an elder or “pastor”.
The qualifications of the men selected for eldership is extremely important and cannot be emphasized enough. To appoint the wrong man to this type of position will ultimately spell disaster for the church. As Strauch points out:
“The most common mistake made by churches that are eager to implement eldership is to appoint biblically unqualified men. Because there is always a need for more shepherds, it is tempting to allow unqualified, unprepared men to assume leadership in the church. This is, however, a time-proven formula for failure. A biblical eldership requires biblically qualified elders.” [1]
We need to keep the following crucial points in mind:
- Eldership is not to be treated as an honorary position in the church, open to those who are merely faithful in church attendance, or who are advanced in years.
- Elders are not to be chosen based on good friendships, wealthy people who give generously, or those who exhibit a great deal of charisma.
- Elder positions can be filled by anyone exhibiting the biblical requirements; NOT just seminary graduates. [1]
Paul gave Timothy a specific list of qualifications that all elders must meet in 1 Timothy 3. This not merely a wish list, but a must have.
“1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:1-7, NASB)
Notice in this list of qualifications, many of the personal character qualities are listed before “able to teach”. It is not that teaching ability is any less important of course. In fact, if a man is unable to teach, he is automatically disqualified for pastoral leadership. But equally important is the personal integrity of the man being selected to serve in the capacity of leadership. To falter in any one of these areas automatically disqualifies a man from pastoral leadership.
So why are these character qualities important? Because he is to be an example to the congregation, and the possession of these character qualities makes the doctrine that is taught attractive to those who hear. Titus chapter 2 provides the reason that a Christian’s conduct is important, since it will “adorn the doctrine of God”.
“9Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.”
(Titus 2:9-10, NASB)
This of course is for all Christians, but it is vitally important that the leadership possess sound character, because they are doing far more than just teaching rote doctrine; they are providing an example to the congregation. (1 Peter 5:3) The term “adorn” means to make attractive, and our conduct should attract people to the Gospel.
Our actions speak volumes. Titus 2:7-8 tells us that our good conduct will leave our opponents with nothing that they can say against us. Our behavior is ultimately important, because if our actions do not line up with our words, it really renders meaningless whatever doctrine we supposedly believe.
It is interesting that when Paul introduces doctrine in his writing, he always backed it up with the “why”. In other words, he introduced the doctrine, then he explained that in light of that doctrine, this is the way we should conduct our lives. Look at the book of Romans. The first half outlines doctrine, and the remainder is the practical outworking of our faith, how it should effect how we live.
The lifestyle and personal character is foundationally important to the leadership of the church, since the pastoral leadership is to lead by example. And the congregation is to follow the example. These are not merely qualifications that only eldership team should possess, but the congregation should strive to achieve these character qualities as well.
I will expand on these qualifications in a future post.
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 68.
Monday, May 14, 2007
9Marks Interview – Feminism in the Church
Here is a great interview with Randy Stinson, Russell Moore and C.J. Mahaney concerning the biblical role of men and women in the church and family at 9Marks. This is no trivial matter, but it is an important subject that needs to be addressed more often in our churches. Even in churches that are essentially complementarian, lack of frequent teaching on this subject will eventually allow for a feminist viewpoint to subtly creep into the church. Especially since there is an attempt to obliterate gender role distinctions not only by society in general, but even by those who identify themselves as evangelicals.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Some Good Q & A on Male Leadership
Jim Hamilton has some good questions and answers on male leadership in the church posted on his blog. He deals with some major objections to the notion of a male only leadership in the church.
This issue, to me, is a little different than differing views on eschatology. I even have an easier time with those who hold differing views on spiritual gifts. As long as someone recognizes the error of the hyper-charismatic movement and the outright abuses of the “sign” gifts, and in particular, the error of the Word-Faith movement, I really don’t have a problem with the view of the possibility of the miraculous sign gifts being active in the church today. Even though I believe that they are not normative for the church today.
But the biblical evidence to support male leadership within the church is overwhelming. It is abundantly clear, and the only way someone can deny the evidence is by warping the text of Scripture to mean something that it simply does not mean.
If we just dismiss this issue as no big deal, then what else can we let slide? The same line of reasoning is utilized by the homosexual groups in their argumentation to justify the toleration of the homosexual life style. If we allow the convoluted teaching of the pro feminists to pervade the church unchallenged, what will we allow the door to swing open to accommodate? Will this allow pro homosexual groups an opportunity to use the same logic and reasoning to gain a foot hold?
The post on Hamilton’s blog mentions this in question # 10. He rightly points out that "what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do." This may ultimately determine our views such as whether we say that homosexuality is sinful since "many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate 'alternate lifestyles'".
Strauch also points this out in "Biblical Eldership".
I believe there is more at stake here than many may think.
This issue, to me, is a little different than differing views on eschatology. I even have an easier time with those who hold differing views on spiritual gifts. As long as someone recognizes the error of the hyper-charismatic movement and the outright abuses of the “sign” gifts, and in particular, the error of the Word-Faith movement, I really don’t have a problem with the view of the possibility of the miraculous sign gifts being active in the church today. Even though I believe that they are not normative for the church today.
But the biblical evidence to support male leadership within the church is overwhelming. It is abundantly clear, and the only way someone can deny the evidence is by warping the text of Scripture to mean something that it simply does not mean.
If we just dismiss this issue as no big deal, then what else can we let slide? The same line of reasoning is utilized by the homosexual groups in their argumentation to justify the toleration of the homosexual life style. If we allow the convoluted teaching of the pro feminists to pervade the church unchallenged, what will we allow the door to swing open to accommodate? Will this allow pro homosexual groups an opportunity to use the same logic and reasoning to gain a foot hold?
The post on Hamilton’s blog mentions this in question # 10. He rightly points out that "what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do." This may ultimately determine our views such as whether we say that homosexuality is sinful since "many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate 'alternate lifestyles'".
Strauch also points this out in "Biblical Eldership".
"Biblical feminists misuse the Galatians 3:28 passage by pressing the text far beyond its intended meaning and declaring the plain, literal interpretation of the headship-submission passages to be simplistic. Following the same methodology of interpretation as the biblical feminists, so-called Christian homosexuals claim the right to same-sex relationships. Because the Bible says "neither male nor female," they claim that all the specific biblical passages prohibiting homosexuality must be understood culturally and in the light of Galatians 3:28. But does Galatians 3:28 truly abolish all sexual distinctions? Can men now marry men, or women marry women? The conclusions that those who hold an egalitarian viewpoint draw from Galatians 3:28 are plainly at odds with numerous portions of Scripture."
("Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 65)
I believe there is more at stake here than many may think.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt.7
Male Leadership in the New Testament Churches
The practice of male leadership continuing in the New Testament is clearly evident in Scripture. It is interesting to note that approximately 70 percent of the New Testament was penned by the apostle Paul (or a close associate), who is the dominant figure – other than Jesus – in the New Testament. Furthermore, all the Old and New Testament writers were male, as well as the predominant characters were also male. Much to the chagrin of the feminists, the Bible appears to be overwhelmingly patriarchal.
It is simply mind-boggling that there are Bible-believing Christians who can claim that the New Testament teaches an egalitarian approach to gender roles. This approach to gender roles is referred to as Biblical Feminism or Egalitarianism. It is simply the teaching that the New Testament does not teach gender role distinctions between men and women in terms of headship and submission. But it is impossible to support this viewpoint biblically without engaging in what could be termed “hermeneutical ventriloquism”; making the Bible say what you want it to say. [Strauch, pg. 55-56]
But Scripture is very clear on the role of men being in leadership throughout the New Testament, including the marriage relationship. Paul made this point very clear in Scripture, emphasizing the divine order in the husband-wife relationship. Consider the following passages of Scripture:
It is clear that Paul admonished the Christian wives to be submissive to their husbands. The solid biblical basis for this is found in Ephesians 5:23. To further clarify the meaning of “the head of the wife”, Paul uses the analogy of the headship of Christ over the church. The term “head” is used in a figurative sense meaning, “authority over” and “leadership”. It does not mean “source” or “origin” as feminists would claim. [Strauch, pg.57] Colossians 3:18 is another passage that teaches the same principle in Ephesians 5. It should be clearly apparent that each Scripture that deals with the relationship of the wife to the husband, that submission to their husband is clearly taught (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).
The predominant teaching is that submission is to be “as to the Lord” and “as is fitting to the Lord” (Col. 3). Submission is therefore to be in the same manner as she would submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul consistently taught that the marriage relationship is to serve as a living picture of Christ’s relationship to the Church (Ephesians 5:23). There should be no question that the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. It should also be clearly evident from Scripture that the headship-submission is not culturally induced, but is an integral part of the marriage relationship by divine mandate.
The headship and submission roles also carry over to the local church. In fact, Paul used the household analogy when defining the order of the local New Testament church (1 Timothy 3:15). Male headship is to be the biblical norm for the local church (1 Timothy 2:8-3:7). With the family being the basic social unit with the establishment of male leadership, it should therefore not be shocking that men are to be elders or fathers of the larger local church family.
Just as there are certain codes of conduct set forth to govern the family, there are also principles pertaining to the governing of the church family as well. Paul wrote Timothy specific instructions on how the church is to be governed in his letter of First Timothy. Paul wrote certain instructions so that Timothy would “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God”.
Of particular importance in the church’s social structure is the behavior of women within the church. Due to the influx of false teaching, it appears that traditional gender roles were being challenged, resulting in the women behaving in a manner unacceptable for Christian behavior. In 1Timothy 2:9-10, Paul addresses the issue of modest dress. 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Paul deals with the issue of submission in the church.
“11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NASB)
That passage should alone provide the answer to the question of women being elders. The prohibition clearly prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Women were encouraged to learn, but to do so under submission to the leadership authority of the teaching male elders. Women were also specifically forbidden to teach and lead men in the church. It is not that women are not allowed to teach at all. Women are encouraged to teach in other situations, such as instruction to the younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). It is just that they were not to be publicly teaching men in the church.
Discussion on this topic inevitably stirs up heated debate. But the restriction on women elders is not the result of personal opinion or cultural norm. Paul supports his restriction on women teaching and leading men based on the original order of creation.
“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NASB)
The statement of the fact that Adam was created first, underscores that fact that God created man as “first among equals”. [Strauch, pg.60] God uniquely created man, equipping him with the physical, emotional and spiritual capacity to head the marital relationship. And it is also God’s design for the woman to complement Adam’s headship. It is no insignificant matter that God did not create Adam and Eve at the same time. God made the woman after the man, from the man and for the man. God brought her to the man and the man named her (Genesis 2:20-23; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
It is important to note that the Fall illustrates the necessity for preserving the distinctive creation differences between men and women. 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly explains that it was Eve and not Adam who fell into deception. Satan cleverly perceived that Eve was the weaker one who was vulnerable to being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:6). It should be profoundly apparent that men are more suited for leadership by God’s design. Men are better suited for battling against subtle deceptive false teaching and doctrine twisting. It is also noteworthy that immediately following the prohibition against women leading men in 1 Timothy 2, he immediately launches into a discussion concerning the qualifications of those responsible for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7). The phrase “the husband of one wife” (verse 2) and “one who manages his own house well” (verse 4) are clearly directed at men and not women.
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 55-61.
The practice of male leadership continuing in the New Testament is clearly evident in Scripture. It is interesting to note that approximately 70 percent of the New Testament was penned by the apostle Paul (or a close associate), who is the dominant figure – other than Jesus – in the New Testament. Furthermore, all the Old and New Testament writers were male, as well as the predominant characters were also male. Much to the chagrin of the feminists, the Bible appears to be overwhelmingly patriarchal.
It is simply mind-boggling that there are Bible-believing Christians who can claim that the New Testament teaches an egalitarian approach to gender roles. This approach to gender roles is referred to as Biblical Feminism or Egalitarianism. It is simply the teaching that the New Testament does not teach gender role distinctions between men and women in terms of headship and submission. But it is impossible to support this viewpoint biblically without engaging in what could be termed “hermeneutical ventriloquism”; making the Bible say what you want it to say. [Strauch, pg. 55-56]
But Scripture is very clear on the role of men being in leadership throughout the New Testament, including the marriage relationship. Paul made this point very clear in Scripture, emphasizing the divine order in the husband-wife relationship. Consider the following passages of Scripture:
Ephesians 5:22 – “Wives be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord”
Ephesians 5:24 – “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their own husbands in everything”
Ephesians 5:23 – “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church”
Colossians 3:18 – “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”
Titus 2:1,3-5 –
“1But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” “3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”
It is clear that Paul admonished the Christian wives to be submissive to their husbands. The solid biblical basis for this is found in Ephesians 5:23. To further clarify the meaning of “the head of the wife”, Paul uses the analogy of the headship of Christ over the church. The term “head” is used in a figurative sense meaning, “authority over” and “leadership”. It does not mean “source” or “origin” as feminists would claim. [Strauch, pg.57] Colossians 3:18 is another passage that teaches the same principle in Ephesians 5. It should be clearly apparent that each Scripture that deals with the relationship of the wife to the husband, that submission to their husband is clearly taught (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).
The predominant teaching is that submission is to be “as to the Lord” and “as is fitting to the Lord” (Col. 3). Submission is therefore to be in the same manner as she would submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul consistently taught that the marriage relationship is to serve as a living picture of Christ’s relationship to the Church (Ephesians 5:23). There should be no question that the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. It should also be clearly evident from Scripture that the headship-submission is not culturally induced, but is an integral part of the marriage relationship by divine mandate.
The headship and submission roles also carry over to the local church. In fact, Paul used the household analogy when defining the order of the local New Testament church (1 Timothy 3:15). Male headship is to be the biblical norm for the local church (1 Timothy 2:8-3:7). With the family being the basic social unit with the establishment of male leadership, it should therefore not be shocking that men are to be elders or fathers of the larger local church family.
Just as there are certain codes of conduct set forth to govern the family, there are also principles pertaining to the governing of the church family as well. Paul wrote Timothy specific instructions on how the church is to be governed in his letter of First Timothy. Paul wrote certain instructions so that Timothy would “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God”.
Of particular importance in the church’s social structure is the behavior of women within the church. Due to the influx of false teaching, it appears that traditional gender roles were being challenged, resulting in the women behaving in a manner unacceptable for Christian behavior. In 1Timothy 2:9-10, Paul addresses the issue of modest dress. 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Paul deals with the issue of submission in the church.
“11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NASB)
That passage should alone provide the answer to the question of women being elders. The prohibition clearly prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Women were encouraged to learn, but to do so under submission to the leadership authority of the teaching male elders. Women were also specifically forbidden to teach and lead men in the church. It is not that women are not allowed to teach at all. Women are encouraged to teach in other situations, such as instruction to the younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). It is just that they were not to be publicly teaching men in the church.
Discussion on this topic inevitably stirs up heated debate. But the restriction on women elders is not the result of personal opinion or cultural norm. Paul supports his restriction on women teaching and leading men based on the original order of creation.
“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NASB)
The statement of the fact that Adam was created first, underscores that fact that God created man as “first among equals”. [Strauch, pg.60] God uniquely created man, equipping him with the physical, emotional and spiritual capacity to head the marital relationship. And it is also God’s design for the woman to complement Adam’s headship. It is no insignificant matter that God did not create Adam and Eve at the same time. God made the woman after the man, from the man and for the man. God brought her to the man and the man named her (Genesis 2:20-23; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
It is important to note that the Fall illustrates the necessity for preserving the distinctive creation differences between men and women. 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly explains that it was Eve and not Adam who fell into deception. Satan cleverly perceived that Eve was the weaker one who was vulnerable to being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:6). It should be profoundly apparent that men are more suited for leadership by God’s design. Men are better suited for battling against subtle deceptive false teaching and doctrine twisting. It is also noteworthy that immediately following the prohibition against women leading men in 1 Timothy 2, he immediately launches into a discussion concerning the qualifications of those responsible for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7). The phrase “the husband of one wife” (verse 2) and “one who manages his own house well” (verse 4) are clearly directed at men and not women.
1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 55-61.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership - Pt. 6
Male Leadership
Contrary to what many in contemporary society think, excluding women from the role of church leadership is not a ploy to discriminate and dominate unfairly over women. To discriminate against women is a sin that grieves the heart of God. While it is true that there have been times when men have abused their authority and acted cruelly toward women, that behavior is inexcusable and anyone who truly seeks to adhere to Scripture would recognize that error and avoid making the same error. It is unfortunate that there have been times where male have unjustly and cruelly discriminated against women.
But unfortunately, the feminist approach in its attempt to carry out justice for the wrongful acts of discrimination, have gone too far and denied the complementary functions of men and women. These role distinctions were designed by God so that the sexes complement each other in order to perform different functions in society. The Bible teaches that both men and women are indeed equal in personhood and value, but have distinctly different gender roles designed by God. It is tragic that there is so much confusion concerning these distinctive roles. Women are in effect, being exploited by a false view of female identity.
I have seen so many attempts to contort Scripture on this subject, in an attempt to discredit the notion that the Bible emphatically teaches that men are to be in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. Yet if we take Scripture as it is plainly written, it teaches nothing but the fact that only men are to serve in the role of Spiritual leadership. The way I see it, attempts at undermining male leadership is just another sign of how the church is being unduly influenced by the culture.
Contrary to what many in contemporary society think, excluding women from the role of church leadership is not a ploy to discriminate and dominate unfairly over women. To discriminate against women is a sin that grieves the heart of God. While it is true that there have been times when men have abused their authority and acted cruelly toward women, that behavior is inexcusable and anyone who truly seeks to adhere to Scripture would recognize that error and avoid making the same error. It is unfortunate that there have been times where male have unjustly and cruelly discriminated against women.
But unfortunately, the feminist approach in its attempt to carry out justice for the wrongful acts of discrimination, have gone too far and denied the complementary functions of men and women. These role distinctions were designed by God so that the sexes complement each other in order to perform different functions in society. The Bible teaches that both men and women are indeed equal in personhood and value, but have distinctly different gender roles designed by God. It is tragic that there is so much confusion concerning these distinctive roles. Women are in effect, being exploited by a false view of female identity.
I have seen so many attempts to contort Scripture on this subject, in an attempt to discredit the notion that the Bible emphatically teaches that men are to be in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. Yet if we take Scripture as it is plainly written, it teaches nothing but the fact that only men are to serve in the role of Spiritual leadership. The way I see it, attempts at undermining male leadership is just another sign of how the church is being unduly influenced by the culture.
But it is impossible to get around the emphasis on male leadership in Scripture. The most obvious example of male leadership is the person of Jesus Christ. He was the Son of God, not the daughter of God. This was theologically necessary to His person and work.
- He was to be a first-born male (Luke 2:23)
- He was the “last Adam”, making Him the antitype of Adam, not
Eve, which mandated that He be a male. (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; Romans 5:14)
- He needed to be the first-born son of David and Abraham; He was the King, not Queen of Israel.
- In the created order, the male partner alone is charged with the authority and headship role. Therefore Jesus could not have been a woman, and He is the Head of the Church and the model for male leadership.
- Jesus appointed and trained twelve male apostles (Luke 6:12-16). His choice was after spending an entire night praying to His Father, indicating He was acting in obedience to His Father’s will.
It is interesting that in spite of these facts, there are those who claim that Jesus was just accommodating the culture. But since when did Jesus at any time in His life display an accommodating attitude toward the culture. It is clearly illustrated in Scripture that He stood in stark contrast to the culture, including the false rabbinical traditions. Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus showed no partiality to anyone (Matthew 22:16).
Another common argument is that the work of redemption by Christ did away with all male-female distinctions. But if this is the case, then why did Jesus not indicate this by appointing women to be apostles. It would stand to reason that He would have appointed at least one woman to be an apostle. Rather, Jesus continued with the Old Testament order of creation with male headship. And this practice was continued by both Paul and Peter.
The fact that Jesus maintained an all male apostolate does not take away from the fact that he sought to honor women, ministered to them and encouraged them in their service and devotion to God. This was distinctly different from the religious leaders of that time. However, Jesus still established an all male apostolate as the foundational office of His Church (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14).
We can also look at the example of the apostles when they appointed servants to care for the church’s widows. Seven men were appointed to the task, not women (Acts 6:1-6). It is also apparent when Peter addressed the churches in Asia Minor, instructing the Christian women to submit to their husbands, using the example of the women in the Old Testament. He also admonished the men to take care of their wives and consider them as “fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:1-7). In doing so, Peter was upholding both gender role distinctions and male-female equality. Those who want to find justification to allow women elders are at a loss to find valid examples used in Scripture.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 51-54.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt. 5
While there is a team leadership approach indicated in Scripture, there is also the concept of what is called a “first among equals” as well. Not all of the elders are gifted equally in the areas such as biblical knowledge, leadership and experience. There are some who seem to naturally stand out among the elders with their gifts of teaching or leadership. This is what was often referred to by the Romans as primus inter pares or the “first among equals” or primi inter pares meaning “first ones among equals”.
As with the twelve disciples, there was an inner circle of three, Peter, James and John, that stood out among the group. Out of those three, Peter stood out as the prominent leader of the group. This in no way implies that these leaders dominate or have sole authority, but that they seem to be gifted in their leadership ability.
On occasion, Jesus chose only Peter, James and John to join Him to witness His power, glory and agony.
-Luke 8:51; 9:28
-Mark 14:33
It is seems to be evident in Scripture that Peter stands out as a “first among equals”. Peter’s name is listed first in the list of the names of the apostles:
-Matthew 10:2-4
-Mark 3:16-19
-Luke 6:14-16
-Acts 1:13
In fact, Matthew even refers to Peter as “the first”. This does not support the Roman Catholic Church’s erroneous elevation of Peter, but merely underscores Peter’s outstanding leadership within the twelve. You should also notice that if you pay close attention to how often Peter is mentioned in the Gospels that Peter stands out as a prominent figure among the Twelve. It was also Peter who was charged with the command by Jesus to “strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32).
The book of Acts clearly demonstrates Peter’s leadership abilities.
Acts 2:14,42; 4:33,35; 5:12,18,25,29,42; 6:2-6; 8:14; 9:27; 15:2-29
You should note that it is Peter who stands out as the natural leader in the first twelve chapters of the book of Acts. It is interesting that if you do a word search on the name “Peter”, how often his name appears in contrast to the other Twelve. His prominence as the natural leader and key spokesman should be clearly evident.
Acts 1:15; 2:14; 3:1; 4:8; 5:3; 5:15, 29; 8:14-24; 9:32-11:18 (Partial list)
It is also interesting that you can split up the book of Acts between two central figures; Peter (Acts 1-12) and Paul (Acts 13-28).
When Paul wrote to the Galatians, he spoke of Peter, James and John as being the “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem, yet another example of the concept of the “first among equals”. (Galatians 2:7-9)
Peter’s giftedness was necessary to help energize, encourage and strengthen the group of Twelve. His ability as the natural leader and chief speaker proved to be the impetus that encouraged the group to take action. But what is important to note is the fact that Peter was surrounded by the other eleven apostles as his equals, keeping him well balanced, strengthening him and helped protect him from his weaknesses. What is important to recognize is that Peter’s prominence was not given as an official rank or title, but was more functional in nature.
We can also observe the principle of the “first among equals” in the relationship between Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey. Both were apostles, but Paul stands out as the chief speaker and leader. (Acts 13:1-13; 14:12)
The concept of the “first among equals” can be discerned by the way a congregation is to honor their elders. 1 Timothy 5:17 says “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” It is imperative in Scripture that all elders must be able to teach. But not all elders desire to work primarily at preaching and teaching. There are those who are particularly gifted in this area and have a strong desire to do so. These men should be recognized by the congregation and should receive double honor for their work.
The elders who are the “first among equals” do not rule by making all the decisions and controlling the rest of the group. To treat this individual as the “pastor” and the others as “elders” or “lay elders” has no biblical warrant, and will not result in establishing biblical eldership.
The key advantage of the “first among equals” structure is that it allows for drawing on the diversity of gifts within the eldership team, without creating a superior official ruling over subordinates. The leading elders receive no special title, and the difference is more functional rather than a formal position.
In many cases, it is necessary that the congregation provide the necessary financial support to allow the highly gifted elder(s) to focus their attention on their service to that local church body. Attempting to juggle full-time employment outside of the church may take too much time away from the needed focus and attention to the tasks of eldership. This in no way means that part-time elders are ineffective. There are many who are self-supporting or what would be referred to as “tentmaking elders” who are very effective leaders and teachers. But the time and effort that they can devote to the task of eldership is limited. This probably can also be affected by the size of the church; the larger the congregation, the more time is needed to devote to the task. As a congregation grows, the more beneficial it is to support some of the elders at least part-time.
1 Timothy 5:17 puts emphasis on the support of those whose primary work is to labor in the Word of God. It is essential that the flock be nourished through the preaching and teaching of God’s Word. This is so the flock can grow, be strengthened, and protected from false doctrine. This can only occur though the diligent study and handling of the text, with precision and accuracy, which God demands from those who are elders. It is vitally important that the congregation honor those men with their support.
Stressing the part “among equals” is important. Elders who are particularly gifted need to be encouraged to use their giftedness. But they also need the accountability of their fellow peers as a checks and balance to curb negative tendencies such as ego and greed. If a gifted elder seems resistance to that accountability, that should be a warning that he is headed down a self-destructive path.
But there is a danger with the concept of the “first among equals”, as there is with any form of governing structure run by humans. Elders can have a tendency to relinquish much of their responsibility to a couple of particularly gifted men. This arises due to the tendency in human nature for people to become lazy and allow others to do their work. But once this happens, biblical eldership disappears.
There is also the danger that a domineering, power hungry elder will abuse the concept of the “first among equals”, attempting to take over the key ministries and forcing his own agenda. These types could care less about having fellow colleagues. Instead they only want men who are loyal to them, the typical “yes men”.
To help combat these tendencies, leadership and the congregation must take the biblical requirements for eldership seriously. Self-willed, domineering men are unqualified for church leadership and should be removed from their position. (1 Peter 5:3; Titus 1:7) Those elders who do not carry out their God-given responsibilities need to be removed from their office. Elders should be ready and eager to carry out their task (1 Peter 5:2)
Elders also need to work closely together as a united team, building camaraderie of trust and encouraging one another to grow. It is important that the elders focus on ministering to one another as well as taking care of business. This needs to include spending considerable time in prayer. It is also important to include times of relaxed fellowship to build friendships and teamwork.
It is also important for elders to be active in building up one another. Younger elders need to be mentored by the more experienced elders. They need to challenge one another to continue to educate themselves. And they need to exercise discernment to recognize when their colleagues are growing weary and recommend that they take a time of rest. These things are vital to the spiritual health of the eldership.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 45-50.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt. 4
What Is Shared Leadership?
Contrary to what many may think, eldership is not a highly esteemed board position open to anyone who wants to join. But rather, it is team of qualified men who must meet certain qualifications that include spiritual and moral considerations before they may be chosen to serve (1Timothy 3:1-7). This process should also include public examination of their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:10) and they must also be installed publicly (1 Timothy 5:22; Acts 14:23). Their motivation and empowerment must come from the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). They must be acknowledged and loved by the congregation. Those who are particularly gifted at preaching and teaching need to be honored by the congregation through financial support, enabling them to serve full or part time. (1 Timothy 5:17, 18) This structure produces a team of qualified elders lead by the Holy Spirit to benefit the church family.
A council of elders was a form of government common in society in the ancient Near East. The evidence of this governmental structure is evident throughout the Old Testament and was as fundamental as the family. (Exodus 3:16; Ezra 10:8) And Paul utilized this basic pattern in the New Testament when he appointed elders for each church. (Acts 14:23) This is a collective form of leadership where each elder shares the authority and responsibility inherent with the position. Using more contemporary terms, this type of structure may be commonly referred to as a shared leadership or team leadership.
There are many benefits to this plurality of leadership. One of the most important benefits is the balancing out of personal weaknesses and flaws. All of us have weaknesses and flaws that we are blind to. These flaws have a way of distorting judgment, even to the point of destroying those in leadership. This is particularly dangerous in those who are particularly talented and exhibit a great deal of charisma. Without peers to call attention to danger signs, these leaders end up on a path of self destruction. Unfortunately, these types become so self-deceived that they really do not want anyone to confront them. Mutual submission to a team of leaders is crucial to curb egos and improper ambitions that particularly gifted leaders are prone to.
In a team leadership structure, the strengths that each individual brings to the table helps balance out each others weaknesses. Furthermore, the vast majority of men are not multitalented and can never possess the broad range of strengths that only a plurality of leadership can bring.
A shared leadership approach also provides a means of spreading out and lightening the workload of the ministry. True Biblical ministry does entail a heavy workload and a great deal of responsibility. Coupled with all the responsibilities that are inherent with the position, those in leadership also carry the burden of dealing with sin in the congregation, and endless complaints and conflicts between members. Moses was faced with this situation back in the book of Numbers in chapter 11 and it nearly overwhelmed him. Notice God’s remedy for the situation. The Lord instructed Moses to appoint seventy men from the elders in Israel, who would share the burden with him.
“16The LORD therefore said to Moses, "Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and their officers and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you.
17"Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take of the Spirit who is upon you, and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you will not bear it all alone.”
(Numbers 11:16-17, NASB)
The so-called single pastor model of leadership is in reality a very cruel burden to place on any one man. This is probably the easiest way to burn out and discourage a pastor by placing all the responsibility of shepherding squarely on his shoulders alone. If nothing else, it certainly wearies an individual to the point that they can no longer be very effective, despite the fact that they “hang in there”. In sharp contrast, in a plurality of leadership, each elder helps share the burden, enabling each one to minister according to their personal giftedness, rather than being forced to attempt to be an expert at everything. Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 eloquently describes the benefit of the mutual encouragement of the team leadership approach.
“ 9Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor.
10For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up.
11Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone?
12And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.”
(Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, NASB)
But more than just sharing the work load, a team ministry provides a balance of power and accountability. Placing an individual in a position of sole power and authority opens them up to succumbing to the temptations that lead to corruption. All men are subject to the passions and desires of the flesh, even Christians. And even Christian leaders can succumb to the evils of human pride and greed. The only way to help guard against this danger is through the mutual submission and accountability that only a shared leadership structure can help provide.
The shared leadership structure also provides for the mutual encouragement and accountability to carry out their responsibilities. Like anyone else, church leaders can become lazy and sloppy in the obligations of their work. Having fellow colleagues in the ministry to whom they are accountable for their work is a huge benefit. This concept can be clearly illustrated using the example of athletes engaged in various sports. To quote Strauch:
“Coaches know that athletes who train together push one another to greater achievement. When someone else is running alongside, a runner will push a little harder and go faster. The same is true in the Lord’s work. That is one reason the Lord sent His disciples out in twos.” (Strauch, p. 44)
This does not mean that there are not problems that can be encountered with the team structure. The process of working as a team can have a tendency to be slow and frustrating. And the plurality of leadership approach requires among other things, patience, prayer, love, trust and an appreciation for each others giftedness and viewpoints. This structure can also have the tendency to be prone to inaction. But to overcome this, it requires that there be clear organizational structure employed to prevent it from degenerating into disorganization and ineffectiveness. Clear expectations of responsibilities, communication and good management principles are imperative.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 38-44.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership - Pt. 3
I was going to begin discussing the qualifications of elders, but I have decided to discuss the team aspect of the leadership structure first. I believe this is vitally important for two reasons; 1) the NT teaches a team approach of church eldership, rather than one man wielding all of the leadership authority over the church, and 2) our church is currently in the process of researching the model of church leadership since the resignation of our senior pastor this last December. Then the decision will be made as to whether we should search internally or externally for the right candidate. I believe that our church is at a critical turning point and there is a golden opportunity to implement a more biblical approach to the leadership team which will be critical if we are going to be able to refocus and establish a more biblical approach to the ministry of the church. It all hinges upon whether we are going to follow God’s leading which MUST begin with following the principles that God laid out in His Word.
This does not mean that the qualifications of the individual who is selected for eldership is less important. But what I have found is, that while many may understand what the qualifications may be, the concept of a team leadership approach is misunderstood and more importantly, not always practiced in the church. I also believe that the lack of a plurality of leadership is detrimental to the overall health of the church. There are undoubtedly challenges with this approach, but I believe that it is the model given to us by God in the New Testament as a benefit to providing a spiritually healthy leadership approach for the church.
This does not mean that the qualifications of the individual who is selected for eldership is less important. But what I have found is, that while many may understand what the qualifications may be, the concept of a team leadership approach is misunderstood and more importantly, not always practiced in the church. I also believe that the lack of a plurality of leadership is detrimental to the overall health of the church. There are undoubtedly challenges with this approach, but I believe that it is the model given to us by God in the New Testament as a benefit to providing a spiritually healthy leadership approach for the church.
Plurality of Leadership
The concept of shared leadership is indicated throughout the Bible. The concept was present in the Old Testament institution of the elders of Israel. It was also found in the appointing of the twelve apostles by Jesus. The Lord did not appoint one man to lead His church; instead He personally trained twelve men to carry out the mission. The concept of a plurality of leadership was given to the church by Jesus. The twelve apostles were the first council of leaders for the first community of Christians and provide a great example of servant leadership, brotherly love and a shared leadership structure. The concept of a plurality of leadership is even displayed in the choosing of the seven for ministering to the needs of the church’s widows in Acts chapter six. These were the early prototype of what would later be the deacons in the church. It was a collective leadership format, with no indication that there was one man dominating the entire group, making the rest of the group his servants. Given the evidence available, the deacons in the church, just like the elders, served under a plurality of leadership. [1]
The evidence is abundant in the New Testament that the church was governed by a plurality of leadership.
- Acts 15 – Elders in Jerusalem united with the twelve disciples to form a collective council of leadership to judge doctrinal controversy.
- James 5:14 – Instruction is given to “call for the elders of the church” on behalf of the sick individual. The term “elders” is plural and “church” is singular, indicating that there was a collective body of elders in a single church.
- Acts 14:23 – Paul appoints a plurality of elders to each new church that was founded.
- Acts 20:17,28 – Paul calls for the “elders” plural, not a singular “pastor” for a final meeting.
- 1 Timothy 5:17 – This passages should indicate beyond any doubt that Ephesus was governed by a team of several elders. “Let the elders [plural] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”
- Philippians 1:1 – Paul greeted the “overseers [plural] and deacons”.
- Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5 – Paul appointed a plurality of elders to take care of the churches he established, as well as appointing others to do the same.
In fact, Paul did not consider a church fully functional until it had a team of qualified elders. (Titus 1:5) [1]
Here are some other NT passages that provide evidence of the shared leadership principle:
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 35-38.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt. 2
There are inevitably pitfalls to the use of any term used to refer to the leadership of the local church. Even using the term predominantly used in Scripture, “elder”, poses some issues. This is largely due to the fact that the term is so entrenched in the notion that elders are members of a church board or committee. As Strauch has noted in his book, it has become necessary to explain that the term is referring to “pastor elders”, “shepherd elders” or simply “pastors”. This is necessary in order to convey the biblical concept of elders as church leaders. There are very few churches that practice biblical church leadership and use the term in its true New Testament form, where the congregation understands that the elders are the spiritual leaders. In fact, many have needed to refer to their elders simply as “pastors” in their endeavor to implement biblical church leadership. [1] To illustrate the confusion and misunderstanding even when using the terms defined in Scripture, I myself have run across someone who thought that I was referring to deacons when I used the term elders! Deacons are a form of leadership in the church, but they function more in the role of servants to the church under the direction of the elders, the official leaders who are providing the overall direction for the church.
Another term that can be used that Strauch points out in his book is the term shepherd. The Bible also uses the term frequently to bring to mind the imagery of the role of a shepherd to describe the work of NT elders. (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 10:28) Shepherd seems to be devoid of much of the unbiblical associations that the terms pastor or elder have come to represent. However it is unfortunate that even the term shepherd can introduce problems as well. It is a word that has no religious association for people outside and even within the church. People may just associate the term with a literal shepherd who tends sheep and miss the association with the role of NT church leadership. [1]
As I wrote in my first post on this topic, the terminology used must closely mirror the terms and concepts described in Scripture. Unfortunately, many of the terms that have become traditionally used in the church are unbiblical and misleading. To quote Strauch, “words such as clergyman, layman, reverend, minister, priest, bishop, ordained, and ministerial convey ideas contrary to what Jesus Christ and His apostles taught." The adoption of such terminology is a severe hindrance to recapturing the biblical model of the church. [1]
In my next post, I will begin discussing the biblical qualifications of the local church leadership.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 32-34
Another term that can be used that Strauch points out in his book is the term shepherd. The Bible also uses the term frequently to bring to mind the imagery of the role of a shepherd to describe the work of NT elders. (1 Peter 5:2; Acts 10:28) Shepherd seems to be devoid of much of the unbiblical associations that the terms pastor or elder have come to represent. However it is unfortunate that even the term shepherd can introduce problems as well. It is a word that has no religious association for people outside and even within the church. People may just associate the term with a literal shepherd who tends sheep and miss the association with the role of NT church leadership. [1]
As I wrote in my first post on this topic, the terminology used must closely mirror the terms and concepts described in Scripture. Unfortunately, many of the terms that have become traditionally used in the church are unbiblical and misleading. To quote Strauch, “words such as clergyman, layman, reverend, minister, priest, bishop, ordained, and ministerial convey ideas contrary to what Jesus Christ and His apostles taught." The adoption of such terminology is a severe hindrance to recapturing the biblical model of the church. [1]
In my next post, I will begin discussing the biblical qualifications of the local church leadership.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 32-34
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Biblical Church Leadership – Pt. 1
1 Timothy 3:1-7
“1 It is a trustworthy statement: if a man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into the reproach and the snare of the devil." (NASB)
Biblical church leadership or “eldership” is a very important subject and I find it tragic that not only is it not practiced in a vast number of churches, but it is sorely misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians today. Unfortunately, many church members only recognize the office of pastor or senior pastor as one man presiding over a congregation, and relegate the office of elder to a select group of men who serve as some council or board of elders. These men are generally perceived as the pastor’s helpers or advisors who only assist him with some basic tasks associated with the governing of the church. Yet the New Testament paints a very different picture of the office of elder. There are basically two offices that exist in the local church as described in the New Testament; elder and deacon. This series will focus on the qualifications and duties pertaining to elders, who are responsible for leading the church. Much of the material will be taken from the book by Alexander Strauch, “Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership”, but other sources will be used as well. Strauch’s book is one of the best that I have found that handles the subject from a Scriptural standpoint.
There are a variety of terms used interchangeably to describe the office of local church leadership and includes, “elder”, “bishop”, “pastor” and “overseer”. The predominant term is “elder”. The term overseer used here is from the Greek word “episkopos” and was a common designation commonly used in the Greek culture in reference to a variety of officials. Nothing in the use of this term violates the character of the biblical office of the local church leadership, in terms of the humble servant nature of the office. This was in contrast to other priestly or lordly titles. The fact that the apostles saw fit to utilize a term such as “overseer” as a synonym for “elder”, gives indication to the flexibility that was used in communicating among the Greek speaking people. However, while there was flexibility employed in the use of terms, we must take note as to the carefulness that the apostles used, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in describing those with the responsibility of leading God’s people. This is also the same care applied to the terms describing the person and work of Jesus Christ and the Church. This is especially important because accuracy in the language used to describe the office of church leadership is critical to developing biblical thinking and practice. To get this wrong will place us in danger of drifting far from the biblical model of the church that Christ intended. And this is precisely what has happened over time as the church developed into a hierarchical model, far outside of the biblical model. The term “overseer” became known in a way far different from the usage in the New Testament, soon becoming known as the English term, bishop. This title of course came to refer to a high level church official who had charge over several churches and lower level clergy. Tragically, the original meaning of “episkopos” referring to a leader of the local church was lost. [1]
This is why it is crucial to teach the congregation the meaning of the terms chosen to describe those in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. It is imperative that the terminology reflect as closely as possible, the original terms and concepts described in the New Testament. As Strauch points out, “False teachers have had their greatest triumphs when they redefine biblical words in a way that is contrary to the original meaning.” These are sobering words that should provide a clarion call for the church to keep due vigilance and guard against loose interpretations and alternate meanings. This issue is true of many alternate definitions and redefinitions used to describe many other concepts and truths of the Christian faith as well. Strauch sites Greek grammarian, Nigel Turner:
The church would certainly do well to be careful with how terminology is defined and used.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 32-34
“1 It is a trustworthy statement: if a man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into the reproach and the snare of the devil." (NASB)
Biblical church leadership or “eldership” is a very important subject and I find it tragic that not only is it not practiced in a vast number of churches, but it is sorely misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians today. Unfortunately, many church members only recognize the office of pastor or senior pastor as one man presiding over a congregation, and relegate the office of elder to a select group of men who serve as some council or board of elders. These men are generally perceived as the pastor’s helpers or advisors who only assist him with some basic tasks associated with the governing of the church. Yet the New Testament paints a very different picture of the office of elder. There are basically two offices that exist in the local church as described in the New Testament; elder and deacon. This series will focus on the qualifications and duties pertaining to elders, who are responsible for leading the church. Much of the material will be taken from the book by Alexander Strauch, “Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership”, but other sources will be used as well. Strauch’s book is one of the best that I have found that handles the subject from a Scriptural standpoint.
There are a variety of terms used interchangeably to describe the office of local church leadership and includes, “elder”, “bishop”, “pastor” and “overseer”. The predominant term is “elder”. The term overseer used here is from the Greek word “episkopos” and was a common designation commonly used in the Greek culture in reference to a variety of officials. Nothing in the use of this term violates the character of the biblical office of the local church leadership, in terms of the humble servant nature of the office. This was in contrast to other priestly or lordly titles. The fact that the apostles saw fit to utilize a term such as “overseer” as a synonym for “elder”, gives indication to the flexibility that was used in communicating among the Greek speaking people. However, while there was flexibility employed in the use of terms, we must take note as to the carefulness that the apostles used, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in describing those with the responsibility of leading God’s people. This is also the same care applied to the terms describing the person and work of Jesus Christ and the Church. This is especially important because accuracy in the language used to describe the office of church leadership is critical to developing biblical thinking and practice. To get this wrong will place us in danger of drifting far from the biblical model of the church that Christ intended. And this is precisely what has happened over time as the church developed into a hierarchical model, far outside of the biblical model. The term “overseer” became known in a way far different from the usage in the New Testament, soon becoming known as the English term, bishop. This title of course came to refer to a high level church official who had charge over several churches and lower level clergy. Tragically, the original meaning of “episkopos” referring to a leader of the local church was lost. [1]
This is why it is crucial to teach the congregation the meaning of the terms chosen to describe those in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. It is imperative that the terminology reflect as closely as possible, the original terms and concepts described in the New Testament. As Strauch points out, “False teachers have had their greatest triumphs when they redefine biblical words in a way that is contrary to the original meaning.” These are sobering words that should provide a clarion call for the church to keep due vigilance and guard against loose interpretations and alternate meanings. This issue is true of many alternate definitions and redefinitions used to describe many other concepts and truths of the Christian faith as well. Strauch sites Greek grammarian, Nigel Turner:
“The Church today is concerned about communicating with the contemporary world and especially about the need to speak in a new idiom. The language of the Church had better be the language of the New Testament. To proclaim the Gospel with new terminology is hazardous when most of the message and valuable overtones that are implicit in the NT might be lost forever. “Most of the distortions and dissensions that have vexed the Church,” observed the late Dean of York, “where these have touched theological understanding, have arisen through the insistence of sects or sections of the Christian community upon words which are not found in the NT.” [1]
The church would certainly do well to be careful with how terminology is defined and used.
1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 32-34
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
