Thanks to the Naked Pastor.

I’ve had a number of questions in the comments and in private emails asking me to explain the differences among the three terms for elder:

* Shepherd or pastor (same word in the Greek)

* Elder or presbyter (same word in the Greek)

* Overseer or bishop (same word in the Greek)

For those of us who grew up in the Churches of Christ, it’s common knowledge that these three words are used of the same office in the New Testament, even though many denominations separate them today.

In fact, the Church of Christ view is shared by nearly all New Testament scholars. It’s nearly universally conceded that the separation of elders from bishops as two distinct offices happened after New Testament times.

This conclusion is reached based on such passages as –

(Act 20:17, 28 ESV) 17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. … 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

(1Pe 5:1-3 ESV) So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:  2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;  3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

The three words carry different meanings with different histories. Each tells its own stories, as explained in the earlier posts in this series. But all three apply to the same office.

(I know it just freaks some readers out to say “office,” but it’s a fair interpretation. We just have to remember that the office doesn’t make the man. Rather, we ordain to the office those men gifted by God for the task. Thus, it really should be God’s decision who is ordained.)

What’s the scriptural method to ordain an elder?

The Bible gives precious little guidance. Implicit in Paul’s instructions to Titus is that the evangelist is to do the ordaining.

(Tit 1:5 ESV)  5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint [KJV: "ordain"] elders in every town as I directed you–

1 Timothy is bit more vague –

(1Ti 5:19-20 ESV) 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.  20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

Paul certainly anticipated that Timothy might allow the church to charge and rebuke an elder, but it’s not altogether clear here or in 1 Timothy 3 that Timothy himself was expected to do this. Paul could easily have been giving instructions for how these things ought to be done. He wasn’t necessarily treating Timothy as a superior of the elders.

In his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders, Paul declares –

(Act 20:28 ESV)  28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Paul says the decision belongs to the Holy Spirit — which is not how we usually think of things. We Americans tend to think in terms of Roberts Rules of Order and democracy rather than the mystery of the Spirit.

But we see the same concept in –

(Act 6:3 ESV) 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.

The apostles charged the congregation to (somehow) pick to oversee the church’s benevolence program men “full of the Spirit.” Thus, the selection of deacons was by the church — but by the church recognizing the work of the Spirit within certain of its members.

Those who want to find a “pattern” will not have much luck. Those who seek the work of the Spirit in God’s church will find ample evidence of his work.

In a mission church, such as Titus’s churches in Crete, it makes sense that the missionary — who is better trained and has greater experience in the gospel than his converts — would ordain the initial elders. He’d be foolish not to hear from the church first, as they may know some things about the men he is considering that he does not. Thus, Paul’s instructions refer to, among other things, the reputations of the men being considered.

However, where the preacher is hired by the elders, he is not the “evangelist” in the same sense as a Titus. After all, he can be fired. He may even be new to the church.

Therefore, in the case of second and later generation churches, the selection process has to be by the congregation, as in Acts 6, based on spiritual giftedness — as described in previous posts — but with the wisdom that comes from having the process overseen by older, wiser men.

Who is the second-generation equivalent of a missionary? Who has the greatest training and experience in the gospel in a given church? Well, in theory, the elders. Indeed, when elders are appointed without the consent of the existing elders, the church misses the benefit of their knowledge of the men to be appointed and their knowledge of the office. After all, who understands what it takes to be an elder better than a serving elder?

The problem with the elders being involved in the ordination process is that domineering and unspiritual elders can hang on to power and continue their ungodly rule if they are given a veto over good, new men.

I’ve seen it both ways. I’ve been involved in an effort to appoint the Spirit’s chosen elders when the men in place rejected them in a brutal, arrogant fight over control. And I’ve seen successive generations of good elders appoint their own successors, based on congregational nominations and input – and I’ve seen the congregation thrive under the leadership of wisely chosen men.

And I’ve seen the harm that one poorly chosen elder can bring to a church and the heartache he can cause his fellow elders. Trust me, nothing would be more unfair to good elders and dangerous to a congregation than to impose an elder on a good eldership without their blessing.

A proper solution is to insist that the worldly elders resign by charging them before the congregation based on the the testimony of two or three witnesses (1 Tim 5:19). And I’ve seen that done, too — well, actually, threatened – with the result that the right men were ordained and the church’s leadership set right.

As noted before, I think churches have the freedom to set up other solutions. Some require all elders to stand for re-ordination every few years. It’s not a bad practice, but not as good a solution as you might think. You see, in a larger church, the membership often has little way to evaluate the elders. As a result, even in churches with formal re-affirmation processes, bad elders often remain in office.

But re-affirmation does get rid of notoriously bad elders. It helps, but it’s no cure. The best cure, of course, is to be very, very careful of whom we select — and to then insist that an elder resign if requested to do so by his fellow elders. They’ll know.

How do we avoid ordaining bad elders?

The traditional selection process is nearly guaranteed to produce bad elders. It goes like this –

* Ask for names from the church.

* Interview the nominees as to their willingness to serve and their “scriptural qualification” found in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3.

* Announce those who survive the process and ask for any “scriptural objections” in writing signed by a member.

* If there are no objections, ordain the candidate.

Seriously. That’s how we normally do it. Notice what’s missing –

* Asking the church whether these men have been selected by the Spirit by gifting them for this task. (Evidently, we’ve written Acts 20:28 out of our Bibles.)

* Asking the existing elders whether these men are gifted for the task. Some churches appoint men without even consulting existing elders, presumably to limit their power. But shouldn’t they at least be asked?

And so, dear readers, what’s the solution? Is there one?

Some suggest placing a bishop over the church, serving in the shoes of the evangelist. And that works if the bishop is wise and knows the congregation very well. But who appoints the bishop? Who keeps him accountable? And how well has that system worked for those that have tried it?

Is there a simpler solution?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination due to a disability. However, the courts hold that the First Amendment prohibits any governmental interference in the employment of “ministers” by a church.

In this case, a private school teacher was treated as a minister by the school, and as a result, the Supreme Court held that the minister has no right to sue for discrimination.

The EEOC and teacher challenged the propriety of calling the teacher a minister, as her job duties were primarily that of a school teacher, but the Supreme Court refused to even consider the merits of the claim.

The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.

Thus, the Supreme Court affirms for the first time that the First Amendment makes employment discrimination laws inapplicable to ministers. In short, a minister may not sue in state or federal court for discrimination.

The court declined to offer a rule for just how broadly “minister” may be defined, but found that the minister in this case certainly qualified. Although her job duties were very similar to a non-ministerial teacher, even at the same institution, she had to apply for and pass exams to be a minister. She was held out to the public as a minister.

It took Perich six years to fulfill these requirements. And when she eventually did, she was commissioned as a minister only upon election by the congregation, which recognized God’s call to her to teach.

She claimed the “housing allowance” that the Internal Revenue Code provides only for ministers of the gospel.

In fulfilling these responsibilities, Perich taught her students religion four days a week, and led them in prayer three times a day. Once a week, she took her students to a school-wide chapel service, and—about twice a year—she took her turn leading it, choosing the liturgy, selecting the hymns, and delivering a short message based on verses from the Bible. During her last year of teaching, Perich also led her fourth graders in a brief devotional exercise each morning.

The Supreme Court did conclude, however that the mere title “minister” is not enough.

Although such a title, by itself, does not automatically ensure coverage, the fact that an employee has been ordained or commissioned as a minister is surely relevant, as is the fact that significant religious training and a recognized religious mission underlie the description of the employee’s position.

Moreover, the fact that other “lay” teachers performed the same job functions does not change the conclusion –

We express no view on whether someone with Perich’s duties would be covered by the ministerial exception in the absence of the other considerations we have discussed. But though relevant, it cannot be dispositive that others not formally recognized as ministers by the church perform the same functions—particularly when, as here, they did so only because commissioned ministers were unavailable.

And the court found that it did not matter that her secular duties took up all but 45 minutes of each day. After all, most ministers have some secular duties.

Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion to declare that the court had no business looking beyond the church’s designation of the teacher as a “minister.”

Justices Alito and Kagan wrote a separate opinion to affirm that “minister” is broader than ordained clergy and not limited to Christian ministers. However,

What matters is that respondent played an important role as an instrument of her church’s religious message and as a leader of its worship activities.

Moreover, they opined that the courts could not question the decision of her employer to fire her for filing suit in violation of the church’s doctrine opposing going to court!

Given that this concurrence is from authors reflecting both the left and right wings of the court, their concurring opinion may well be followed by lower courts, even though not technically precedent.

Now, what does this decision mean for the readers here? Well, several things –

1. If you’re a minister, you can’t sue for discrimination. Of course, 1 Corinthians 6 already says that, so it’s no loss of rights — not really.

2. If you claim a housing allowance as a minister, the courts may have little sympathy for a claim that you aren’t really a minister and so should be allowed to sue. But then, you weren’t going to sue anyway.

3. The Supreme Court grants very broad leeway for a church to designate who is a “minister” for First Amendment purposes. It’s probable that much the same considerations would apply to determine who is a “minister” for housing allowance purposes.

4. However, contrary to some press reports, the discretion is not unlimited. While the Supreme Court will clearly grant great deference to a church’s decision, the designation is not enough all by itself. The main opinion suggests (but doesn’t hold) that the test is “significant religious training and a recognized religious mission.”

The concurring opinion of Alito and Kagan probably sets the practical rule — a minister must be somehow significantly involved in teaching the church’s religious message and in leading worship.

Those who recall the earlier posts on the housing allowance (an exemption from income tax for money paid to provide housing for a minister) will recall that one key element of who is a “minister” is whether the minister performs “sacerdotal functions,” that is, corporate worship.

In the Churches of Christ, this is a challenging test because all male members can and often do lead communion services and baptize converts. Many churches allow women to perform private baptisms.

As a result, some of our universities allow faculty members to claim the housing allowance on the premise that “every member is a minister.” They accept a letter from the home church of the professor and reduce his tax withholdings.

It’s a tough question, but seems too good to be true, to me. In one sense, this case strengthens the argument for such an easy exemption, but it also places some serious constraints. After all, the teacher before the Supreme Court had to undergo a six-year ordination process to become a recognized minister. And she led her students in worship and in Bible instruction.

(Many of our preschool teachers come closer to meeting this test than many college professors!)

Finally, we’re dealing in a very gray area here. The IRS has not historically followed the exact analysis the Supreme Court does here. The Supreme Court was not directly addressing the tax issue, which is driven by a statute, whereas the Supreme Court was interpreting the First Amendment — which is not precisely the same question.

In short, don’t blithely assume that you have a free pass to claim a housing allowance just because you attend church, you have a letter from your elders, and your college is willing to cut your withholdings. It’s a much more subtle question.

I think you need to do something more minister-like, something that distinguishes you from the typical church goer, such as (a) being on a church’s staff as a minister or (b) regularly going into the mission field to spread the gospel or (c) preaching regularly for congregations, such as by preaching gospel meetings.

But those are not the only ways to be a “minister.” I just don’t think merely being a member in good standing gets you there — and that’s no disrespect to us members in good standing.

Disclaimer

All legal discussions are informational only, do not create a lawyer-client relationship, and may not be relied on.

Unless expressly stated otherwise on this website, (1) nothing contained in this website was intended or written to be used, can be used by any taxpayer, or may be relied upon or used by any taxpayer for the purposes of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; (2) any written statement contained on this website relating to any federal tax transaction or matter may not be used by any person to support the promotion or marketing or to recommend any federal tax transaction or matter; and (3) any taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer’s particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor with respect to any federal tax transaction or matter contained in this website. No one, without our express written permission, may use any part of this website in promoting, marketing or recommending an arrangement relating to any federal tax matter to one or more taxpayers.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This video has had over 17 million views! Several bloggers have already reviewed it, some with positive comments and some with negative.

Let’s look at it another way. As Christians and leaders in congregations, what can we learn from this presentation and its wide reception?

The Tulsa Workshop schedule has been posted, by the way. I’m speaking for three consecutive classes on Friday afternoon. I’m hoping to meet and visit with several people I’ve only met electronically here at One In Jesus.

(Given the feelings of Oklahoma State fans toward UA lately, well, let’s just say I’m glad it’s in Tulsa rather than Stillwater. Reckon I should leave my Alabama shirt home?)

They have me opposite some truly fabulous speakers. I’m seriously tempted to skip my own classes to hear them! But that’s the nature of lectureships. Maybe someone will show up. Maybe.

Speaking of Wineskins, Keith Brenton has re-invigorated New Wineskins, and the magazine has an improved, cleaner look.

And (oh, wow!) it has links to blogs by Edward Fudge, Al Maxey, Rubel Shelly, Matt Dabbs, Keith Brenton, Mike Cope, Greg Taylor, and … me! I’m “below the fold,” as they say in the newspaper industry, but I made the front page.

I have a new angle now, but now I have to start over entirely.

You see, we’re in between preachers and so, in utter desperation, the elders have to fill in.

Bad elders

No elder is perfect, and all elderships will make mistakes. But sometimes a man is ordained when in fact he has no business being an elder. He simply is not gifted to serve in that role — at all.

He may be domineering. He may act without concern for the flock. He may undercut the other elders. What should the church do?

Sadly, the Churches of Christ have very little teaching on how to deal with truly bad elders. We just let them get in the way, running off members and destroying God’s congregations. After all, there’s no denominational hierarchy to remove them, and the church has no right of recall.

In my congregation, we require new elders to sign a pledge to quietly resign if the other elders ask him to do so. We take that pledge with the utmost seriousness, and we’ve never had an elder even pause before signing. So far, the men we’ve ordained have so respected the other elders with whom they serve that they gladly make such a pledge. And this pledge makes the elders truly accountable to one another.

Other congregations adopt a rule that elders must stand for re-affirmation every so often, maybe every five years. In fact, some churches require an elder to take a year off every so many years and then be re-nominated and re-ordained to serve again.

Dub McClish, a Memphis preacher, has declared elder re-affirmation apostasy, but it’s an absurd argument. He says the practice is unauthorized because the scriptures are silent on such a process. But McClish thereby makes elders into monarchs, with lifetime appointments, regardless of conduct.

After all, elders must meet certain qualifications — not just those in the lists but also those denoted by the terms used for them — shepherd, overseer, and elder — and by the Spirit’s gifting of these men. If a man ceases to be qualified or is shown to have never been qualified, what’s the process to remove him? There’s no authority for leaving him in place! Indeed, to do so is to violate the scriptures — which is far worse than violating a silence — as though such a thing could be done. It’s a strange doctrine indeed that overrides specific instructions with a silence!

Another alternative is found in the scriptures –

(1Ti 5:19-20 ESV)  19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.  20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

The church has the power to try an elder for a sin persisted in. Domineering is a sin, because it violates the very words of Jesus. Not all decisions that the congregation might disagree with are sin, but where the sin is evident and not repented of after proper warning (see Matthew 18), the church may well formally rebuke an elder.

Indeed, under Matthew 18, the church could go so far as to disfellowship him. And if the church can disfellowship him altogether, surely the church can take the lesser step of removing him from office.

But this is a rare and very difficult thing to do. Speaking as an elder, I’d far rather be asked to quietly resign than be charged with sin before the entire church.

Now, what does Jesus say about elders? Quite a lot, actually.

First, Jesus himself is referred to a “shepherd” several times, most importantly in –

(Joh 10:11-16 ESV)  11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.  12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.  14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,  15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.  16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Jesus is alluding to Ezekiel 34. By calling himself the “good shepherd,” he is claiming to be God, because God is the good shepherd in Ezekiel 34. And Jesus is paraphrasing that chapter.

But in so doing, he defines his own role as shepherd. He cares for the sheep, he defends them from wolves, he lays down his life for his sheep, and the sheep listen to him.

(Mat 20:25-28 ESV)  25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.  26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,  27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,  28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Finally, Jesus describes the nature of leadership in the church. True leadership is to do the work of servant, even that of a slave. Like washing feet filthy from walking on the roads behind farm animals.

Leaders in the Kingdom cannot be like secular leaders. They cannot domineer, that is, impose their will on the unwilling.

I’m on the managing committee of my law firm. I’ve successfully avoided the job for decades. My first act was to advise the younger partners that management is a job, not an honor. I refuse to put “managing partner” on my business card. It’s like cleaning bathrooms — you spend your days cleaning up other people’s messes.

A proper manager works for the firm, not himself. He seeks the good of the whole, not himself. He has to make personal sacrifices to set an example for others, because no organization can operate effectively if everyone is selfish. Therefore, the managing partners must be the least selfish. That’s the nature of leadership — in the secular world — when done right.

The same is true in church, of course, except times 10.

Conclusions

Many use the term “servant-leader” to describe the concept of leadership within the church. But coining a term hardly explains the full nature of the ministry of elders. And so, let’s start with some boundaries.

1. There is a strand of thought in the Churches of Christ that “elder” and like terms do not constitute an office and that the only authority held by elders is the authority of a good example.

I think a serious study of the words and the history of the church as recorded in scripture utterly contradicts that notion. The apostles chose words indicating positional authority in that culture. Acts shows them having positional authority.

The early church used “elder” at a time when the Jews were ruled by the Sanhedrin, made up of “elders.”

They used “overseer” in a culture where an overseer was a supervisor.

They used “shepherd” in an agricultural culture — and so the listeners knew that a shepherd not only cares for the flock but he cares for the flock by first leading them where they should go. Sheep follow the shepherd, or they die. They don’t get to vote. Sheep herds are not democracies.

More broadly, churches are said to have had “leaders,” “governments,” and even “administrators,” and the members were instructed by the apostles to honor and follow them. After all, these are people equipped by God’s Holy Spirit to lead God’s people.

2. There is a strand of thought in the Churches of Christ that makes elders into overlords. Rather than selecting men based on their giftedness, we seem to want to select men based on their domineering personalities. We look for worldly leaders (in the worst sense), and so we have worldly leadership.

Or we pick untalented men who are not objectionable, resulting in good-hearted men making bad decisions just because they’re not equipped for the task.

Indeed, so many have been abused and traumatized by bad elders that we sometimes contort our doctrine in an effort to destroy their authority. The elders are often seen as the enemies of God’s church!

But all groups of people need leadership, and so God supplies leadership. It’s just that we often do a very poor job of discerning the equipping of the Spirit. Sometimes we pick the sheep, or even the wolves, instead of the shepherds.

This is, I’m convinced, because of the seriously deficient theology taught in the 20th Century Churches of Christ. If we see God as harsh, quick to judge, and unloving, we’ll pick leaders who are like the God we worship. They’re the ones best equipped to help us obey that kind of God!

But if we learn about God from such passages as Ezekiel 34 and from the life of Jesus, well, we’ll pick leaders who remind us of Jesus. After all, it’s the men most like Jesus who are best equipped to show us how to be the same.

Tragically, we’ve drifted into a pattern of selecting elders based on the men who are least objectionable. If someone is nominated and he meets the very low thresholds of 1 Timothy and Titus (you know, “not a brawler”), we ordain him. We insist that any objection be a “scriptural objection,” meaning that the objection has to be in the qualifications list, even if the man is utterly lacking in the gifts required to be an elder, overseer, and shepherd.

You see, the terms themselves suggest certain qualifications above those found in the qualifications lists. But rarely is that sermon preached! And the churches are suffering because of it.

And in a fellowship where the Spirit is considered retired by many, it’s hard to preach that elders must be equipped by the Spirit! And we’re paying the price for that false doctrine in leaders who don’t have the necessary gifting.

Moreover, by insisting that we divide into tiny congregations (average size is 75 in the US), we so dilute the pool of gifted leaders that a given church may not have a man equipped by the Spirit to lead — because God’s chosen leader is attending across the street at the other church in town that split off for reasons that no one cares about any more. (Merge!)

3. Some complain that their elders are too imperfect, too lacking in the complete array of gifts. But that’s the nature of humans. We’re weak, and none of us has the full compliment of gifts needed to be the perfect elder.

Some can teach. Some can rebuke. Some can lift up the weak. Some can mend the broken. Some can administer and govern. Few can do all well.

The key, you see, is to have the full array of gifts at the table. There are no 15-talent men, but there are plenty of 15-talent elderships.

4. The ultimate model of church leadership is Jesus. Jesus is the Good Shepherd. And Jesus demonstrated his servant heart by in fact serving others — by healing, by teaching, by washing feet, and ultimately by giving his life for us.

But the servant heart of Jesus does not change the fact that we are to submit to him. He is not only a servant-leader, he’s a servant-king.

He’s not a normal kind of king. He’s a king who serves. But still he’s a king.

Our submission to Jesus, our willingness to obey, is a gift of God. It comes from the Spirit. And it’s not out of fear, but love.

Think carefully: why do we follow Jesus? Well, for the immature, it’s sometimes fear, which is entirely legitimate, you know. But for the mature, it’s love.

For the very mature, we never leave love, but love no longer drives us to do what we don’t want to do. Rather, love and the Spirit transform us: we become so much like Jesus that we find joy in the same things that give Jesus joy. We thus become deeply united with Jesus and so with God.

Why do we follow our elders? Well, the Bible tells us to do so. But that’s for the immature. For the mature, it’s because they’re on the same road that we’re on, headed in the same direction. And we follow because we recognize the work of God’s Spirit within them.

We follow because we know that imperfect leadership is better than no leadership. The mature believer knows that a refusal to submit will undercut the efforts of the leaders and make them ineffective.

The mature Christian follows because he loves his congregation, and knows they need leaders, and their leaders need the support of the most mature. After all, the most mature have followers of their own, and if they refuse to follow, the elders are rendered impotent.

We therefore follow whether or not we happen to agree with them. To refuse to follow a leader with whom we disagree is to claim the role of leadership for ourselves above God’s chosen leaders. But it does mean we can call them to account if they stray from the path toward God.

There are boundaries, but if we don’t give our leaders considerable leeway, they can’t lead at all.

5. But what if our churc has bad elders? Or great elders who are making a foolish decision? [to be continued]

Why do you think there is so often such a blind spot that insists that elders MUST HAVE authority when there is nary a word in the NT about such a thing???

Amazed and amused and saddened into seriousness

Grizz,

As I said in my first post of this series, I’d get to Jesus last — to properly emphasis the importance of his words. That’ll be tomorrow morning.

Regarding authority, let me make two points.

First, a verse doesn’t have to say “authority” to be about authority. It could also say, for example, “submit” or even “obey.”

(Heb 13:17 ESV)  17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Second, the text says quite a lot about authority. For instance, Paul told Titus,

(Tit 2:15 ESV)  15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

“All authority”? Really? That sounds a lot like –

(Mat 28:18 ESV) 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

Is this a contradiction? The Titus passage uses ἐπιταγῆς· (epitagēs), meaning “an injunction, mandate, command,” according to Thayer’s. It’s used by Paul of the commandments of God himself!

(Rom 16:26 ESV) but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith–

The natural conclusion is that, while Jesus has all ultimate authority, he delegates authority to others — including the evangelists, such as Titus, and the apostles –

(2Co 10:8 ESV) For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed.

(2Co 13:10 ESV) For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.

Therefore, it’s no objection to the elders having authority that Jesus has all authority. Jesus chooses to exercise some of his authority through gifted men.

Moreover, Paul makes it clear that the authority delegated to the apostles may be used in “severe” ways — even though the authority is given to build up the church, not to tear it down. And therefore the apostles are servant-leaders, because they use their authority to serve the church, not themselves!

If Jesus’ words mean that elders have no authority over anyone, then Paul and Titus had no authority either, as they were just as subject to Jesus’ words as are elders.

(I realize that Grizz’s comment does not argue that Jesus is the only one with authority, but others have made that argument, and the arguments intertwine.)

Now, as the authority of the apostles and evangelists is clear, we might properly ask whether God intended for there to be anyone with authority in the third generation of the church and later. Does it require a special measure of inspiration to have authority? Well, again, we go to the text itself.

In addition to the texts previously mentioned, consider –

(Psa 23:1 ESV) The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. 3 He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. 4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

Surely, the several references to elders as “shepherds” is intended to mean that elders should shepherd the flock after the model of the Great Shepherd.

Notice the references to “rod” and “staff.” This is explained in Barnes Notes thusly –

Thy rod and thy staff – It may not be easy to mark the difference between these two words; but they would seem probably to refer, the latter to the “staff” which the shepherd used in walking, and the former to the “crook” which a shepherd used for guiding his flock. The image is that of a shepherd in attendance on his flock, with a staff on which he leans with one hand; in the other hand the “crook” or rod which was the symbol of his office. Either of these also might be used to guard the flock, or to drive off the enemies of the flock. The “crook” is said (see Rosenmuller, in loc.) to have been used to seize the legs of the sheep or goats when they were disposed to run away, and thus to keep them with the flock. “The shepherd invariably carries a rod or staff with him when he goes forth to feed his flock. It is often bent or hooked at one end, which gave rise to the shepherd’s crook in the hand of the Christian bishop. With this staff he rules and guides the flock to their green pastures, and defends them from their enemies. With it also he corrects them when disobedient, and brings them back when wandering.”

In short, these tools of the shepherding trade involve both protection, guidance, and discipline. The sheep don’t get to make their own decisions — not when it comes to whether to follow where the shepherd wants to lead. They are required to follow the shepherd, because they’ll die in the desert if they do not.

That the staff and rod are used of discipline (as well as protection and guidance, of course) is clear from –

(Isa 9:4 ESV)  4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.

(Isa 10:5 ESV) 5 Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury!

(Isa 10:24 ESV)  24 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: “O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did.

– which refer, of course, to an ungodly use of these tools. But the passages tell us that “rod” and “staff” weren’t limited to protection. The comfort the sheep receive from a rod and staff includes the comfort of discipline.

David speaks ironically in Psalm 23. Although God disciplines him, he trusts God to do so for his own good, and so he finds comfort.

(Psa 94:12-13 ESV)  12 Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD, and whom you teach out of your law,  13 to give him rest from days of trouble, until a pit is dug for the wicked.

James E. Smith, in The Wisdom Literature and Psalms (1995), comments,

It is the rod or club with which he defends his sheep from attack; and the staff with which he draws the straying sheep back to safety.

Notice that the sheep are compelled to return. The shepherd’s crook is not a mere suggestion — it’s a hook used to draw the sheep back to safety — even against its will!

Returning to Psalm 23, notice that the Good Shepherd “makes” the sheep lie down (Hiphil voice in Hebrew). He doesn’t merely recommend. Yes, he also “leads,” but the sheep must follow the shepherd.

Now — and this is important — the words of Jesus do indeed place severe constraints on the authority of an elder (or even an apostle!). But they don’t eliminate all authority. I’ll discuss some of the limitations tomorrow.

I have this theory. I’m not surprised that many readers are outraged at the thought that some group of elders might actually have honest-to-God authority over them. After all, many a church has truly awful elders. The Churches of Christ have often ordained unqualified men, and the results have been truly horrendous at times.

Moreover, we live in a culture steeped in individualism. Submission and obedience do not come easily to us. We prefer individual autonomy. And therefore we often struggle to keep even the commitments we make voluntarily, and resent efforts to keep us in step with the flock and its leaders. We take no comfort in the shepherd’s crook, because we think our path is our path and not the business of the shepherd’s.

Ask any elder what happens when he gently and lovingly speaks to a mother about her parenting. He’ll be told in no uncertain terms that how she raises her child is none of his business! Many want the benefits of church membership but will have little to do with the submission the Bible insists on.

The solution to this problem is not to read the authority of elders out of the Bible, turning them into merely a group of wise suggesters. That is simply not what the words of the text say.

Rather, as a community discipline, we must learn to submit to one another. Indeed, Ephesians 5:18-21 says,

(Eph 5:18-21 ESV)  18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,  19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,  20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,  21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

To be filled with the Spirit — which surely means (among other things) to become closer to God – we must learn submission to our brothers and sisters, indeed, to the church. We do this out of reverence for Christ, because he is the ultimate example of submission.

So that a congregation isn’t left in chaos, God equips certain of our members to be administrators, governments, leaders, shepherds, overseers, elders, and leaders. We are instructed to submit to and obey these people.

But what if they are bad, incompetent, or even ungodly elders? Or what if we disagree with their decisions? Well, posts on those questions are coming. But it is clear from the passages quoted here and in earlier posts that the authority of an elder must be exercised for the benefit of the sheep. The shepherd doesn’t get to eat mutton.

Our poor job of selecting elders makes it very hard to teach the text. But the solution isn’t to weaken the leaders. It’s to discern the work of the Spirit more accurately and select better leaders. And we need to do a better job of training the men we have. After all, many an elder errs simply for lack of instruction.

Watch a video of a shepherd leading a flock of sheep and goats. The sheep huddle closely behind the shepherd, following each step. The goats roam in front of, behind, and around — obviously figuring they can find a better path than the shepherd’s. They seem hardwired to refuse to follow the shepherd. They are a stubborn species.

But we know how that story ends.

Don’t be a goat.

Peter was an elder. Evidently, the apostles of Jerusalem came to adopt “elder” as their own title, indicating their leadership over the city of God on earth, I suppose. Or perhaps they wanted a more equal relationship with the non-apostles elders in Jerusalem.

We really don’t know. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that Peter chose what to us would be lesser title.

(1Pe 5:1-5 ESV) So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:  2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;  3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.  4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.  5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Here Peter uses “elder,” “overseer,” and “shepherd” as virtual synonyms, but also meaning that the three words describe differing facets of the elder’s work.

They have “oversight.” The word is the verb form of “overseer,” hence “supervise” or “oversee.”

Peter finds it necessary to warn them not be “domineering,” meaning the position has the potential to domineer. (You don’t warn against the impossible.) The meaning of “domineer” is to “subdue” or “master,” that is, to impose unwilling obedience.

Peter urges the overseers to be examples to the flock. Some argue that, therefore, the only authority the elders have is as examples. That argument,  doesn’t fit the evidence or the grammar.

The verb is “shepherd.” It’s followed by a series of participles that explain the how the shepherding is to be done: “exercising oversight,” ”not domineering,” “being examples.” You can’t take “being examples” to repeal “exercising oversight.” It’s all of the above. The idea is that if you’re example of what you ask of the church, you won’t be domineering.

Hebrews

(Heb 13:7 ESV)  Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

(Heb 13:17 ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

“Leader” translates ἡγέομαι (hēgéomai), meaning, according to Thayer’s,

1. to lead, i. e. a. to go before; b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over:  in the N. T. so only in the present participle ἡγούμενος, a prince, of regal power (Ezek. 43:7 for sמֶלֶךְ; Sir. 17:17), Matt. 2:6; a (royal) governor, viceroy, Acts 7:10; chief, Luke 22:26 (opposed to ὁ διακονῶν); leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, ἐν τισί, among any, Acts 15:22; with the genitive of the person over whom one rules, so of the overseers or leaders of Christian churches:  Heb. 13:7,17,24

The same word is used in –

(Eze 23:12 ESV) She lusted after the Assyrians, governors and commanders, warriors clothed in full armor, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men.

(Dan 6:1-2 ESV) It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom 120 satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom;  2 and over them three high officials, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss.

(Acts 7:10 ESV) and rescued him out of all his afflictions and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household.

Now the word can also carry the meaning of “leader” rather than “official” or “ruler,” but Hebrews does not avoid the use of a word that connotes positional authority. This is not the word used to say that someone is only a good example.

The Spirit

Any New Testament exegesis that ignores the Spirit is bad exegesis. How does the Spirit figure in?

(1Co 12:28 ESV)  28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

Notice that Paul explicitly ranks gifts: first, second, third, etc. This seems to suggest a community that is not strictly egalitarian. There are five-talent men and one-talent men. Some are gifted to lead, but not all.

“Administrating” means, according to Thayer, “governing, government.” The Spirit specifically equips some Christians with the gift to govern God’s church.

(Rom 12:6-8 ESV)  6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;  7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching;  8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

We also see that the Spirit equips some to “lead” and that they’re instructed to do so with zeal.

Friberg defines the Greek as –

(1) middle put oneself (responsibly) at the head, lead, direct, rule

Louw-Nida defines the word –

to so influence others as to cause them to follow a recommended course of action – ‘to guide, to direct, to lead.’

We next turn to Ephesians –

(Eph 4:11-12 ESV)  11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,  12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

Paul lists “shepherds” as gifts from God, surely meaning that God equips men to be shepherds by a special gift from the Spirit.

Now, we see that those qualified to be leaders in the church are qualified by special gifting by the Holy Spirit. And this giftedness should be visible to the church. After all, in Acts 6, the apostles called on the church to select men “full of the Spirit” to serve the widows (likely as deacons). How did they know?

Speaking in tongues hardly makes one qualified to run a benevolence program. The church surely looked at the hearts and talents of their members to select the ones best equipped by God for the task.

The Pastorals

(Tit 1:9-11 ESV)  9 [An overseer] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.  10 For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party.  11 They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.

We often read Titus for its list of qualifications, but we often overlook what Paul says they’re to be qualified to do: teach and rebuke — even to silence those who teach a false gospel.

(1Ti 5:17-20 ESV) 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.  18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”  19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.  20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

“Rule” in verse 17 is the same word we encountered in Romans 12:8. The NIV paraphrases with “direct the affairs of the church.” The NET Bible translates “lead.”

“Honor” refers both to respect and to payment. The text anticipates that some elders may receive their support from the church, as v. 18 makes clear.

But elders are not above criticism. If they “persist in sin,” the evangelist — Timothy — is charged to rebuke them before the entire congregation. But this requires witnesses. “Persist” implies that they been warned privately before the public rebuke, as Matthew 18 would insist.