Matthew wrote in a comment,
I’m enjoying this series a lot – thanks. Would you be willing to analyze the historical trajectory/reasons in the Churches of Christ which keep Church of Christ preachers from being elders (as in other congregational churches)?
Ask and you will receive.
I don’t have the resources to do a detailed study of how this attitude evolved, but it’s certainly true that the Churches of Christ have a distinct bias against appoint preachers as elders. I’m not sure of the extent to which the attitude has made it into the literature. For example, I just reviewed the extensive sections on elders in G. C. Brewer’s The Model Church and Robert Milligan’s The Scheme of Redemption. I don’t find anything about preachers becoming elders — or not. But the prevailing attitude is highly skeptical of preachers becoming elders.
Here are the reasons I think that’s true —
1. The Sand Creek Address & Declaration of 1889 damned all who used the instrument, raised money other than by free will offering, or who used the “pastor system” — a reference to the located, hired preacher. That element of the Churches of Christ continued to oppose “hireling” ministers until the 1950s, and there continue to be many church members who oppose paid ministers.
2. Even though the Churches overwhelmingly came to approve a paid ministry, there’s always been a certain discomfort with the structure, both for historical reasons and because we don’t normally see “paid preacher” as a scriptural office — in contrast to elders and deacons and teachers.
3. The elders hire and fire the preacher. If the preacher is an elder, there’s an inherent conflict of interest as to his salary, benefits, time off, etc. Most churches deal with this by having the preacher not participate in discussions about his compensation, but there’s still a sense that the elders would be more objective when evaluating an employee rather than a fellow elder.
4. The pulpit is powerful. Even in churches where the preacher is not an elder, the preacher often has more power than the elders — not on the organizational chart, but in reality. The preacher may be more of a shepherd than the elders. He may be a better Bible student. He may work harder. And the elders may be timid. In such a case, the church is often afraid that the preacher will gain far too much power if he becomes an elder.
5. The preacher is often seen as only an employee — a hireling — and therefore not really one of “us.” The congregation is reluctant to be shepherded by someone from elsewhere — especially if he has a very different background.
Now, these don’t add up to a scriptural rule. There is simply not a biblical basis to deny the preacher a place among the elders if he’s otherwise qualified by the Spirit.
(1Ti 5:17-18 NIV) 17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”
Notice that Paul assumes that one or more of the elders is likely to preach. And he further speaks in terms of the elder-preacher being paid. You see, the idea of a paid elder-preacher is not unscriptural at all.
But there are any number of practical reasons why it may not be wise. It depends on the congregation, the elders, the preacher, and many more things.
I have to add a reason for a preacher not being an elder attributed to Lynn Anderson. The author of They Smell Like Sheep — a very influential book on the eldership — was asked why he’d never become an elder himself. He responded that he didn’t want to abandon the preacher’s “prophetic role” — believing he had more freedom to preach to the elders from the word if he wasn’t one of them.
In short, there’s no rule. I think the scriptures give us freedom to do what’s wise, whatever that may be.
Have you ever noticed, Jay, that in some letters the leadership is described as "prophets and teachers" and in others as "elders/bishops and deacons"? It is my observation and theory (also based on the Didache) that young churches were led by prophets and elders, but older (and more mature) churches would "grow" their own elders. The Didache shows this process of changig the leadership structure.
Alexander
The churches of Christ have their roots in the Restoration Movement which sprang up in the early days of American independence. To me, many attitudes in the coC make more sense in that context. I think the separation of powers in the US Constitution influenced thinking about elders and preachers. So we've viewed the scriptures as the legislative branch, the preacher as the executive branch, and the elders as the Supreme Court. You wouldn't want your president to be also on the Supreme Court, now would you? That would mess up the balance of powers. Of course that's a man-made, worldly perspective.
I am not a coC scholar, but I always thought that before we had paid preachers, members of the congregation, including the elders, took turns preaching (and song leading). Is that right?
Jay, Your conclusion is spot on! Context rules. What works in one location might not work well in another and I believe there is enough flexibility to do the same thing different ways and still not violate Scripture.
Royce
Jane,
Originally, the churches had a single elder who also preached. Alexander Campbell was his church's only elder and he preached for them. But he didn't take a salary, as he was independently wealthy.
They also had evangelists who traveled from church to church to preach — accepting love offerings, I assume. Most had a farm back home, run by their wives or employees or family.
The best I can recall (working from the beach so I don't have my books) Isaac Errett was hired as a located preacher in the mid-19th Century, triggering the controversy — which I assume was over paying him a salary.
The position of the Sommerite churches was that congregations should raise up their own preachers. The Sommerites were also the orgin of non-institutionalism — and have obviously decided it's okay to have preachers.
I think the churches without preachers did so poorly that the objection died out in a Darwinian sort of way.
Thank you, Jay! That is a very good answer from the beach.
p.s. I am fairly happy…don't know why I have a sickly looking purple profile!
I see the preacher as a "pulpit Pastor," if his work habits, preaching & teaching mirror his love of God, love of His word, is clearly led by the Spirit, is loved & loves the Shepherds under whom he serves & his love of the pasture of sheep he serves is clearly demonstrated in his hard work & the talented staff he assembles; AND he is held responsible & accountable to his fellow Shepherds of that sheep "pen." The preacher reaches people (seekers & members who attend irreglularly) that even Shepherds have a very difficult time contacting. With that said, if you have this type of man, make him an Elder! I believe that we have such a man.
Interesting re Campbell. I didnt know that. See, apparently the early restoration model was like what I think was going on in the first century. We have changed the model.
Enjoy the sand, surf, and shrimps. We have some in Panama City this weekend.
Campbell's example shows plainly, that even dedicated restorationists are limited in their understanding an accomplishments. So these early servants of the Lord broke loose from denominational traditions, and embarked on a journey they alone in their generation were obviously unable to finish.
So who are the ones today who follow into their footsteps? Who are the ones who ask the same questions as to whether we are truly doing what the apostles taught? You will recognize them by a simple sign: The would not point to other denominations, but to their own church and say: "We've got to return to the New Testament! We've got to forsake our manmade traditions!"
Strange enough: As soon as we believe we are a "completely restored New Testament church" we don't question ourselves anymore, and generation by generation we even lose what our ancestors have gained. So we lost practices that were Biblical and exchanged them for modern innovations (headcoverings have gone, female preachers have come, for instance). But since we believe we are a New-Testament church fully restored, we have to defend our innovations as Biblical and come up with very obscure and strange exegesis to do this.
This applies to leadership as well. I know of an elder, who passed away this week, who resigned to be an elder in order to do what elders need to do. He correctly understood that elders are not meant to be the "business administration" of a church, deciding on building programs, hiring preachers, and such things. But they are to be shepherds. Shepherds and teachers.
Reading the New Testament with a blank slate, we'll have a hard time finding a church-leadership structure that resembles the (more or less) one-man-show in most contemporary churches.
But restoring church leadership structures alone does and will not work, if we don't examine church as a whole again. A church of several hundred or thouasand crammed in one big entertainment hall; a programm-oriented worship with or without professional band; sermons held like public speeches … all of this is very questionable when you go back to the New Testament.
It will not work, if you restore church leadership "according to the pattern" but not the church itself, because NT-church leadership is based on NT-house-churches and not on 21st century mega-churches. It is family oriented not business administration.
The elder who resigned to do the work of an elder will be an example I will never forget. May our Lord receive him in mercy. Amen.
Alexander
This is very similar to the model that we use. Our senior minister [Pulpit "Pastor" (PP)] is responsible for assembling the staff under the oversite & final approval of we Shepherds. He does the initial screening interviews of the candidates & picks his top 3 candidates & he recommends the one he feels is best qualified for the specific ministry position. We then interview them, but we have found over the years that he has done such an outstanding job at selecting the right person that we seldom need to interview all three. Our "PP" is responsible for managing the staff & is held accountable for this freedom/priviledge. If we are made aware of any ongoing problems of a staff minister by the PP or by multiple members, we carefully investigate, including meeting privately with members if necessary, & then we go to our PP to address the situation (He is already aware). He is expected to address the situation & correct it & or fire that minister if necessary. If he doesn't take care of the problem we hold HIM accountable, but we will then take action of the problem. We have never had to do this! Our PP is a voting member of our Eldership, representing the views of the staff. He attends all Elder meetings except when we need to address staff issues. We then meet with him to address any issues. Shepherds must be very careful not to overreact, because no staff minister has 100% approval of the members. Our staff ministers meet once per month with we Shepherds to to discuss their ministry, but they can meet at any time with anyone of us individaully or collectively if requested. We lay hands on & pray individually for each staff minister & they pray for each of us individually on a regular basis. We & the sheep we serve together have been very blest with this model. Our decisions/direction are based on the mission & vision of our church & our mutual prayerful efforts to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is NOT our church nor our sheep. We all belong to & will answer individually to our Chief Shepherd who expects us to serve the ones He has brought under our care.
Jane,
This link will show you how to pick your own Gravatar (icon that represents you): /2009/09/gravatars-those-pi…
I don't know how common it is, but I know of at least one case of a preacher being asked by the congregation to serve as an elder.
In smaller congregations, finding godly men who have raised their families well and who are willing to serve the church as elders is a difficult job, and in this case, the preacher was esteemed enough to be asked to help shepherd the congregation. For that church family, it was a perfect fit and a good relationship.
I cannot understand why one would not desire the minister to serve as one of the elders. If you want to use a business model, and the church is not a business, would the president of the company be denied a seat on the board of directors as a matter of course? Please explain to me why the one who is likely the best qualified is denied a seat. Pay issues are irrelevant because the NT speaks of some elders being paid. He would simply recuse himself from a vote when his pay was being discussed. Are corporate presidents denied seats because the company pays them? What does that have to do with anything? If the congregation is afraid the minister would make some kind of power grab, he should be fired immediately.
What are we afraid of?
JD,
I know of several cases where a preacher has become an elder — and it normally has worked out well. As several have noted, the preacher is often the most qualified man in the church.