It’s easy to criticize the current Church of Christ system of congregational governance. In many of our congregations, it’s plainly broken. It’s an important and worthwhile discussion.
But the discussion is ultimately useless unless a better system is put forward — and I find that very few critics are willing to suggest a better way.
I hardly blame them. Anyone who puts forward a proposal will be roundly criticized — and yet nothing will change until a better plan is put forward and shown to be consistent with scripture. Criticism, therefore, only has value if accompanied by a proposed better way to do things.
Now, anyone can propose a solution that works in a Utopian world. If you assume that all church members are wise and submissive and willing to follow leaders, then you don’t need a leadership structure that is robust enough to deal with rebellious church members, members who get caught up in sin, and worship controversies. But Utopia won’t come until the return of Jesus, and it’s a waste of time to talk about how to lead a sinless church with a united view on all doctrinal issues — such churches just don’t exist.
Let’s rather talk about a real church without assuming away the hard questions —
* This church has 500 members — enough so that it would practically impossible for a single elder to have a close, personal relationship with every single member.
* This church has no elders. Maybe the former elders all resigned and retired.
* This church has no deacons. After all, most Churches of Christ would oppose having deacons when there are no elders.
* This church has a preacher — a great speaker who just finished his M.Div. but is unmarried and only 26 years old. He was hired less than one year ago.
* The preacher has a half-time secretary, who is not a church member. The church has no other staff.
* Yesterday, the preacher received emails and visits from members making the following requests:
— To post a notice regarding a pro-gun control rally in the bulletin, to be followed by an announcement during the Sunday assembly, with a 1/2 hour video in support. This member is convinced that the Bible plainly supports — even demands — that the church support his views.
— To post a notice regarding an anti-gun control rally in the bulletin, to be followed by an announcement during the Sunday assembly, with a 1/2 hour video in support. This member is convinced that the Bible plainly supports — even demands — that the church support his views.
— To post a notice regarding opposing a local zoning ordinance increasing the legal height of buildings from 4 to 5 floors in the bulletin, to be followed by an announcement during the Sunday assembly, with a 1/2 hour video in support. This member sees the church as needing to be more involved in local politics because churches should care about their communities.
— To post a notice regarding a Sierra Club effort to clean up a local creek in the bulletin, to be followed by an announcement during the Sunday assembly, with a 1/2 hour video in support. This member is convinced that the Bible plainly supports — even demands — that the church support his views.
— To play a meaningful, life-changing video in the assembly that has an instrumental soundtrack. 30% of the congregation would consider this sin, but 35% of the church is frustrated at the lack of freedom in church to do such things. Some are threatening to leave is the worship remains so traditional and stodgy. But some of the more traditional members would leave if the video is played.
— To deal with an unmarried couple who are living together, engaging in premarital sex. They’ve refused to repent because they see no sin in their conduct, despite several conversations with fellow church members, who are deeply concerned for their souls. The couple has been shown all the passages on God’s will regarding sexuality, but they just don’t believe what their fellow members are telling them.
The preacher calls a meeting of the congregation to put all these issues before all 500 members. The meeting goes badly — so badly that the members ask him to bring in an outside consultant to advise them on how to organize to make decisions in a way that’s better than a meeting of 500 members. You are the consultant.
You are not hired to answer the questions put to the preacher. You’re hired to advise the congregation on how they should organize to resolve these questions themselves.
The church has placed these limits on your advice–
1. Most (not all) want to actively participate in God’s mission to redeem the world. They want the leadership structure to facilitate missional Christianity.
2. The proposed system has to be scriptural. They are a Church of Christ and won’t set up anything that violates the scriptures.
3. The proposal can’t be a Utopian pipe dream. This is a church that, like nearly all churches, has both mature and immature members, and members with traditional values and members with more progressive values. And they have problems. You can’t insist that history be rewritten and that they be better shepherded in the past so these problems don’t exist. They exist. In fact, they have far more problems than the examples given above. That’s just the problems from one Monday.
4. If elders are to be ordained, the preacher believes that, at most, the church has 5 qualified men who’d be willing to serve. These five men would be capable elders but not a one has all the gifts of an ideal shepherd. They are good but not perfect men. They all have families and jobs and so are limited as to the time they can commit to the church.
What do you advise?
No plan will ever work until leaders are chosen who are humble, Godly men who are servant leaders devoted to prayer and personal Bible study. Enough with nominating respected business men who don’t know flip about spiritual leadership.
How about casting lots for everything? Anything else seems to me to put man’s wisdom above God’s wisdom.
These situations should of been worked out before the church started or was built. Its a rogue congregation and the problems will never be worked out as its too divided. Its not a COC.
All the members need to leave and EACH go to a church that does have Elders whether that be one close to their home or far.
Sell the building to a denomination that is getting along and growing.
Not how we used to think, but sadly, it fits our actions today.
I think ole Jethro’s counsel to Moses is still pretty relevant today… He told Moses this… correct me if I’m wrong…. 1) Listen to God yourself and make sure of what it is that He wants you to do 2) Teach the people 3) Define the direction of the group 4) split up the day to day responsibilities between able bodied persons based on their capacity to oversee large assignments 5) assign other helpers who can oversee smaller projects to help the leaders. 6) get some helpers for the helpers to address even smaller assignments until everyone is getting the individual attention they need from somebody in a leadership role without over burdening any leader’s ability 7) Make sure that each person is accessible to their “upline” and to the direct reports and group of responsibility 8) If any leader has an issue that is beyond their comfort level to handle…take the issue upline until someone knows how to handle it.. Don’t let problems go unaddressed. 9) Keep listening to God for any change of direction.. Be ready to repeat steps 1-8 as necessary… According to Jethro, this individual attention will allow the people to go home in peace and quit disrupting the groups overall directional objectives… Exodus 18:17-27
Alabama John,
Would have given the same advice to the church in Corinth? They were far more divided and guilty of far worse sins than the examples I give.
Moreover, the demands made on the preacher were coming from only a tiny percentage of the entire congregation. You are awfully quick to judge the whole because a half dozen out of 500 are spiritual infants. Maybe others agreed with them. Maybe not.
The only instance I mention that involves more than a single complainer at a time is with regard to worship — and I dare say those statistics are typical of many Churches of Christ today. If churches that are 30% conservative have to shut down because they are beyond all hope, well, nearly all Churches of Christ should close their doors.
Of course, that solves nothing. It only relocates the problem to other congregations.
Price wrote,
Exactly. This is surely part of the solution.
Jon F,
Does God only speak through the casting of lots? Why insist on this method when he is already communicating with us in so many other ways?
And does God never ask us to use our own wisdom? What is the point of praying for wisdom and, if James speaks truth, receiving wisdom from God, if we should instead shortcut the process by rolling dice?
I think you’ll find that, in scripture, lots were cast by God’s people only when they had no other means of making a determination. I just checked the concordance. It was a rare practice among God’s people.
God gave man a brain. He hoped man use it. Some don’t.
Jay,
Corinth didn’t have a COC every few miles in each direction that differs on these issues like we have.
Any member can find a COC that supports their views more than others pretty easily.
Or, the advisor could tell all in a whole church gathering that this church is for worship of God and its emphasis will be worshiping and not outside politicizing or community problem solving or world problem solving which is proven to be disruptive and divisive. Just look around to see.
This churches whole emphasis will be on prayer, asking God to handle what we cannot. I have never been with an church group where any disagreed with all holding hands and praying together for help.
The simpler and more basic the services, the more will agree.
Where many have a problem with this thinking is seldom is simply a worshiping church 500 or more.
There is a way this church can please everyone and that is to become like we say in Alabama,
“I’m anyones dog that will hunt with me”.
There is not simple answer, nor even a sure fire strategy. Simply “appointing elders” without some broader strategy will not necessarily bring resolution. Here are my suggestions:
1. I’d elect a “board of trustees” to handle business and administrative matters, allowing anyone who is over 18 and considers themselves to be a member of the congregation to vote. These should have fixed terms and be subject to regular election.
2. I’d actively promote small groups and encourage those groups to discuss the problem of spiritual leadership — giving people a setting in which they can express their divergent views often relieves the “pressure” to do something congregation wide.
3. Eventually, I would ask each member, Whom do you look to for spiritual guidance? And openly share the results with the congregation.
4. Then, in a public meeting, I would ask all the people who were named if they felt qualified, able and willing to serve as elders.
5. Of those who say yes, I would, after a few weeks, have an election in which people could vote, yes, no, abstain, or object.
6. I’d recommend the elders serve for rotating, fixed terms and be required to take at least a year away from the role on a periodic basis.
7. If an prospective elders gets too many “object” votes, the objectors should be asked to discuss their objection with the individual person to resolve their objection
For starters, keep the politics and social issues out of the bulletin and the pulpit. (While you may say that the church is pro-life and would be willing to help a single mother take care of a child, instead of condemning her, please do not get caught up in the debate on abortion or gay rights. These topics are so volatile that they will split a group faster than you can blink. The major fear with restricting or opposing abortion rights is that it is a slippery-slope to restricting women’s rights to healthcare and even dr-patient confidentiality.) If you read the many blogs and reports (backed by data) on why 20-30-somethings left Evangelical Christian churches, the alignment with the Republican party and hard-line conservatism had a lot to do with it. Many people do not want to hear politics from the pulpit. You will not please everyone. Today, politics is a divider much like Alabama vs Auburn divides the state of Alabama. Woe be to the Ole Miss, or heaven forbid, Tennessee, fan. God should be above politics.
Also, please stay out of people’s private lives unless they ask you for help. While you may be concerned for someone’s soul, be glad the person has some belief in God and attends church. That “concern for your soul” has led to quite a few people being ratted out by the local townspeople for things that are not even misdemeanors with $10 fines, summoned to the Dean of Students and quickly expelled from Christian colleges. Some of the accusations may even be cases of mistaken identity but for some reason the sin of sneaking a cigarette is far more serious than the sin of “bearing false witness.” This type of behavior leads to resentment of the witness at best and, at worst, the making of a atheist.
3. Eventually, I would ask each member, Whom do you look to for spiritual guidance? And openly share the results with the congregation.
If they didn’t answer Jesus Christ, I would be astounded.
3. Let’s not forget about church fathers and pre-Christ prophets whose writings dealt with a lot of the problems we are having today. We seem to have forgotten those men. Much can be learned from Isaiah, though I can’t recall a sermon ever mentioning him.
I think Jay’s scenario unfortunately mismatches the root problems and the desired answers. This is a recipe for lasting frustration, as it leads us to continue to try solutions without ever really identifying the problems. It is the sort of thing which keeps the patient on life support while the doctors throw a drugstore full of meds at the frank symptoms of an undiagnosed illness. The result looks like “we are working on it” but in fact is anything but what a reasonable person would define as “work”. Activity and effort, yes, but not really work.
This group is operating under the assumption that everyone knows what the group is. But the problems which are manifesting indicate that there is not only no such agreement, but little basis for one. A well-designed organizational chart serves no purpose for a herd of cats. The only true commonalities I see here are a consumer mindset and some religious traditions which provide general consensus on a shrinking number of ideas.
To Jay’s scenario: I do understand the limited scope of answers here. You are being realistic about how unable most congregations are to bear real examination and life-altering change. We want radical improvement in our circumstances without any significant change. Except for significant change for OTHER people; we can handle that okay. We can’t for the life of us imagine you can’t help us accomplish this, but I’ll bet we can hire some smart guy from outside to do it.
The limited scope of the answers we will tolerate are tantamount to our going to the doctor and saying, “I hurt all over. I have lots of symptoms. Please help me. But don’t tell me how to eat or drink. Don’t ask stupid questions about my parents’ medical history, or mine. Don’t poke me; I hate that. Don’t trouble yourself about where I live or work or what I do there. And most important, I will absolutely NOT take my clothes off for an examination. Just listen to my litany of complaints and then give me a prescription. Pills only; I don’t take shots. I will take a few of your pills, and then go out and tell other people if they do not cure me.”
If this patient’s doctor is dedicated or hopeful enough to even take on this patient, my advice to him is to charge a high price and to collect the fee up front…
I totally agree with David Himes’s earlier comments. The only thing I would add is to stop trying to get a perfect elder. The image of perfect employees, grant proposals, legal arguments, etc. just makes it tough for everyone, who will never reach perfection. Give me a genuine, decent person any day of the week who will listen to suggestions and consider them without regard to who offered them.
Interesting.
When the apostles had thorny issues arising that might keep them away from or distracted from the ministry of the word, they began by calling the congregation together and began the gathering with a reminder of what their mission focus was and how it would continue (c.f. Acts 6). From there the apostles asked for the names of 7 men to appoint to the assignment of handling the issues that had been identified. They gave basic qualifications (not nearly as detailed as what Paul told Timothy and Titus about elders and deacons) and they continued to pray and to preach the word in Jerusalem.
I wonder why I did not read that among the answers and replies given above?
Are we better suited to answering issues than the apostles were? Are our issues more important than seeing to it that there was no prejudice in the ways supplies were distributed to widows? With more than 5,000 men plus women and youths numbered among the believers, and more being added every day, the 12 preachers/apostles asked the congregation to suggest 7 men to put in charge – Nope! to be appointed to an assignment – and told the congregation what they were looking for in these 7 men. Then they devoted themselves to prayer and preaching the word!
When they had received 7 names, they gathered the people again and prayed and then appointed the 7 to the assignment of safeguarding the distribution process from any prejudice or neglect.
The apostles did not dictate the 7 men. They gave the responsibility of finding the 7 men to the congregation.
Nothing was done independently about the situation by the apostles – not as individuals nor even as a group. Imagine that!
So my suggestion is to follow the apostles’ example inasmuch as they followed Christ.
Again, it is my suggestion, not any kind of edict. I have no authority to issue an edict. I only have a responsibility to answer a question asked of all who read this post.
Grizz
I agree with Grizz, and the apostles of Jesus.
Charles wrote,
Indeed. I see no point in discussing how to organize a church that’s already been led to be just like Jesus. There just aren’t that many of them. Rather, nearly all real churches have not yet arrived at the image of Christ and need to be led in that direction. That requires change — and lots of it. Not just attitudes about worship but attitudes about what Christianity is really all about and how each member needs to change.
But this is not because the modern church is radically different from the First Century church in terms of maturity. The church in Colosse was immature. So was the church at Corinth. The letters to the seven churches in Asia that begin Revelation reveal congregations with very serious issues.
Therefore, the presence of immaturity and other such problems in a church doesn’t make it exceptional. Hence, the leadership structure nearly every church needs is a leadership structure that can lead a church from immaturity to maturity.
The tendency of churches to be beset with immaturity and such like calls for spiritual leadership. Examples are critically important, as are personal relationships, but sometimes the elders/shepherds/overseers have to just say no. They have to set boundaries just so the church can get away from selfish agendas and work toward God’s agenda.
This is why we sometimes see Paul or John write letters insisting that they must be obeyed because of their authority. They were writing to the immature — and boundaries needed to be set for the good of the entire congregation. Certain members could not be allowed to set the church’s agenda when the members are so far removed from God’s agenda.
Of course, the immature should and would be taught better, but pending their learning better, they cannot have their way. Someone has to set healthy boundaries.
Mark wrote,
While I agree with your wisdom on this point, who decides? Do we call a church business meeting every time someone asks for something like this? Does the preacher decide? Do we work out bylaws that have a rule for every single possibility through a long series of meetings of members? Or do we ordain elders with authority to set boundaries? Or something else? Someone has to have authority to say yes or no.
David,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree with much you say, but disagree on a few points.
1. I see no scriptural basis for a board of trustees distinct from the elders. However, I’ve seen many churches organize the elders so that some focus largely on pastoral matters and others focus largely on administrative matters. The division of the elders is based on giftedness. Some matters remain a concern of the full eldership. Hence, the full eldership will typically handle doctrinal issues.
Churches have experimented with several variations on this model. Obviously, some administrative matters are delegable to deacons, committees, or otherwise, but some “administrative” matters don’t delegate very well. In particular, the scriptures charge the elders to teach the gospel and refute false doctrine. I don’t think the elders ought to turn doctrine over entirely to staff or members because the Bible speaks so directly to the elders having this responsibility.
Moreover, there’s just not a clear line between “business and administrative” and “spiritual” matters. I’ve seen churches invest $20 million in facilities and not spend a penny on the poor. I suspect they should have seen their budget as having more spiritual significance than they do! Budgets often tell us more about the spiritual health of a church than their doctrinal statement.
That’s not to question the value of specialization based on gifts, but to question taking the budget, for example, away from the elders’ spiritual oversight. I think the elders should make certain that the budget reflects the church’s (and God’s) spiritual priorities. However, they may certainly delegate pricing the workers comp premiums.
2. I think any objection to an elder should be for a stated reason — so that men don’t get blackballed due to false rumors or because some in the church don’t really want to be led toward Jesus. Hence, I’d prefer that all stated objections be dealt with. That gives a new elder a clean slate.
3. Some churches have adopted fixed terms or even mandatory years off. That requires a large enough pool of talent so that the church can be well led with many of your talented leaders sitting on the sidelines. Not many churches can actually afford to do with less than all the men called by God to the task.
The danger of such a structure is that as soon as a man really understands his job, and really sees some of the church’s hidden problems, he is forced to sit out a year and be re-qualified.
Moreover, if an elder has actually invested himself in the members, has close relationships, is working with families in trouble, he can’t sit out. He can only be kept out of the meetings — but he’ll still be involved in members’ lives. This structure therefore seems to be about limiting power as against the staff and the ministry leaders as opposed to maximizing investment in the lives of the members.
4. Couldn’t agree more with the recommendation of small groups. This is one very good way to invoke Jethro’s advice and create a system of sub-pastors to help the elders. Small group leadership is also a great way to train future elders.
I could see a set of by laws for most matters worked out one time. If it has to go up to the minister because it isn’t covered, (s)he can decide it. Last resort is it goes to the elders.
Price gave the answer, and many ignored it, even Jay with a brief comment and then on to other matters. But the answer is clear and applies to every Christian congregation. We so often have one man in control and his word is law for every member. The apostles knew a better way and pointed it out and went that better way. A church of ANY size will do well to follow the advice shared by Price.
Jay,
In your reply to David you say,
“1. I see no scriptural basis for a board of trustees distinct from the elders. However, I’ve seen many churches organize the elders so that some focus largely on pastoral matters and others focus largely on administrative matters. The division of the elders is based on giftedness. Some matters remain a concern of the full eldership. Hence, the full eldership will typically handle doctrinal issues.”
There is also no scriptural basis for churches owning property, having large payrolls, and having large debt, but in reality many do and the administration of such would seem to be a job for a “board of trustees”. I know many elders who have no interest nor aptitude for managing such. Would not a “board of trustee” model made up of gifted members be a good way of dealing with financial/business issues to free the elders to deal with spiritual/pastoral issues?
Having financial/business obligations is not the ideal, and few of us work from the ideal. The reality is that many congregations have these obligations. Any suggestions for effective ways of dealing with these realities in the absence of elders with the administrative ability to do so.
Our congregation tried the dual roles for our elders (administrative and pastoral) with lots of problems with communication among the two groups, and perception of the elders from the congregation. Not to say it can’t work, just to say it didn’t work very well for us.
Thanks.
I have seen deaconates which were supposed to work in part like David’s “trustees”. They served as the elders’ delegates. The hardest thing in practicality was that once day-to-day operational decision-making devolved to the deacons, the elders started feeling powerless and left out– even if nothing untoward was going on. An eldership without a checkbook is forced to become either focused on more important things, or to discover what its interests were all about to start with.
And in churches with over 50 deacons, I still wonder what they all do. Sometimes they are elders in training (since they are generally younger) or hard workers, and other times, that title seems to be an award for being a good male member (donor) with a volunteering wife and the requisite number of children.
Orion wrote,
We may be thinking of two different things. In some denominations, there’s a board of trustee independent of the elders, creating a jurisdictional fight over who decides what. (There have been lawsuits. Seriously.)
If the elders delegate certain tasks to a subset of the elders, to staff, or to non-elders/staff, that suits me fine. I’m all for delegation.
The main difference is that delegation by the elders can be undone. There should be no fighting over jurisdiction or power because the elders retain ultimate authority. No man can serve two masters, and no congregation can have two independent sources of authority. The church can only go one direction at once.
If the “board of trustees” serves at the pleasure of the elders, I’m fine with it. I’d call it something else, because of what the term means in some denominations (and under Alabama law, for that matter), but the idea is perfectly workable to me.
I’m saddened at the problems your church had with specializing the elders. Many churches are experimenting with that. To me, the key is clear lines of authority — having a solid, clear agreement about who decides what so that no one gets feelings hurt or surprised down the road.
Also, I would strictly limit the authority of the “administrative” elders so that role does not appear all powerful. Some key decisions should be reserved to the full eldership — esp. on doctrine and worship, I would think. Otherwise, the pastoral elders will feel impotent and out of control — which is a dangerous feeling to create.
But that’s just me thinking out loud. My experience in such a structure is fairly limited.