[Relocated from the comment section]
Jim asked,
We, as Shepherds, have and do struggle with this from time to time, especially when we first became Shepherds. I am interested in seeing the various opinions and suggestions that will be put forward. I have more questions than answers:
Me, too.
Should Shepherds/Elders/Overseers (E/S/O) delegate all business like decisions to the staff or lay committees? Does this include how contributions and ministries’ budgets are determined? Who has the responsibility for the final approval?
I think it depends on gifts — of the elders and those available to delegate to. There’s no absolute rule. But the elders have final approval authority always. But I think the wise eldership rarely overrules those to whom they delegate.
Who determines and administers/oversees staff raises (part of the budgeting process)?
At my church, the elders handle staff raises. I think this is the practice of the vast majority. A few churches delegate this to an administrative committee, often but not always with some elders serving on the committee. Even fewer delegate this to the preacher or an executive minister. Of course, in those cases, the elders have to decide on salary for the preacher and/or executive minister.
Who ultimately determines the spiritual direction of the local church, which again includes how the financing of the various ministries are determined to meet the church’s mission and vision in the local community (I believe the Sr Minister must be involved in this).
I think the direction of the church must be set by the elders. How can you be a shepherd and not decide the direction for the flock? That’s what shepherds do! But I think the wise eldership makes that a participatory process, including the staff and the congregation where possible.
In my church, we are about to embark on a series of meetings with church members to discuss the congregation’s direction. It’ll take a few months, but it’s important that the congregation be heard.
If the Sr Minister only decides staff raises is, or should he, involve the E/S/O in these decisions? If he has the delegated responsibility to hire & fire staff, should this be his final decision only (i.e., does he have any responsibility to share and involve the E/S/O? Who decides)?
I think the finality of his decisions is up to the elders. If they give him the final say so, then he has it — absent some horrible error in judgment, such as firing a woman for filing a harassment complaint — something stupid like that. The authority of the minister should be made clear up front — but any delegation can be withdrawn if he handles it poorly.
Our preacher does not have hiring and firing authority, but we involve the entire staff in hiring decisions, as they have to work together after we make a hire. We also involve those members who will be most closely involved, such as key adult volunteers when a teen minister is hired.
When we fire a minister (other than the preacher), we consult with and advise the preacher. We make sure we’ve heard his input and counsel, because we respect his views and advice, but we take full responsibility for the decision. It’s ours, not his.
There aren’t God-given spiritual laws, but I think they’re wise and prudent.
Does all spiritual counseling fall to the E/S/O only? Who decides this should be the responsibility of the E/S/O only? What if a member requests a visit from the Sr Minister or a staff member or teacher? Are they exempt from any spiritual counseling, or visiting the hospitals (many if not most E/S/O work full time)?
We have two elders who work on staff, both on a part-time basis. Counseling is divided among staff and elders. We are very fortunate to have semi-retired elders who can handle a large share of the visitation and counseling load, but the ministers carry a very large share due to their fulltime status. Those of us who with fulltime times jobs have limited time for counseling.
I would never require that all counseling be done by elders. After all, some of our best counselors are women, and every church has a network of informal counseling relationships that has nothing to do with the church office.
In larger churches, should E/S/O be a part of the paid staff in some way? Would that be biblical? Who would he/they report to, Sr Minister or E/S/O or both ? (I think both in a mutual collegial model).
There nothing at all wrong with elders being paid by the church. The scriptures anticipate that possibility.
(1Ti 5:17-18 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.”
But I wouldn’t have the elders report to the senior minister. He reports to them. An elder doesn’t have to be the preacher as well to be paid. He may be paid so he can dedicate his time to counseling and visiting, or to administrative duties, or otherwise work for the church as need be.
Of course, any one elder answers to the elders as a whole.
Should the staff and or Sr Minister be the ones who determine what they believe to be the appropriate roles of staff and E/S/O? Who decides this? Could this lead to the staff/Sr Minister only deciding the appropriate roles of the staff and E/S/O?
Wise elders would ask the preacher for his input on appropriate roles, but the scriptures vest doctrinal decisions in the elders, and the ministers should submit to the elders. “Submit” doesn’t mean they can’t express their opinions and even confront the elders in a loving, respectful way. They can teach the elders. But ultimately the final decision is with the elders — both the doctrinal element of establishing roles and the oversight element. Overseers oversee. They decide what to delegate and what not.
The preacher should be a collegial participant, but ultimately answers to the elders.
Can E/S/O who work fulltime adequately shepherd? Is it easier for them to just delegate everything to the staff? Is that Shepherding?
In a church of much size at all, it’s hard for men with fulltime jobs and families to also counsel and visit. When I was first ordained as an elder, I tried to make all the funerals — and it was impossible to do even that. But we have a church of 700+. Counseling, visiting, etc. for a large church is much more than a fulltime job.
Yes, it’s easier to delegate to staff, but it would be a mistake. We divide the work.
If the Sr Minister is given the responsibility to manage the staff (hire & fire) what responsibility does he have, or should have, in including the E/S/O in the final decision?
It depends on the terms of the delegation are. The elders can insist that they be consulted — or not. I’m sure different churches operate different ways.
If a staff minister is falling down on their job, but is a close friend of the Sr Minister, who decides the outcome if the Sr Minister only is given the responsibility to hire & fire?
All delegated authority can be withdrawn. It’s delegated, not transferred. Any eldership can always step in when delegated authority is being abused — they just need to do so as rarely as possible as a matter of wisdom and prudence. If they intervene too much, the person they delegated to will soon either quit or refuse to make a decision without asking the elders first — undoing the good the delegation was meant to accomplish.
What should be the Sr minister’s view of the role and responsibilities of E/S/O?
Following prayers, study, discussion, and discernment with the elders, the same view as the elders’ view.
Are Churches of Christ moving in the direction of one Pastor/staff rule?
We are not heading toward the Baptist model. In their model, the pastor has final authority for “spiritual” matters — subject only to the right of the congregation to fire him. I see no tendency in that direction at all.
Is this the right direction today since the first century church’s leadership role of E/S/O has arguably changed.
I would not argue in favor of the Baptist model. However, larger churches require that leadership be delegated to more people, or else what needs to be done gets bottle-necked because the elders, as part-time volunteers, just don’t have time to do it all themselves.
While your questions have focused on delegation to staff, it’s very important, I think, that the elders delegate much of the work to volunteers where possible. The congregation has to feel ownership of their own church.
It appears to me that denominational churches that have grown the most have a strong minister/Pastor as the leader, who it appears to me makes all the final decisions on budgets, ministeries, spiritual direction, hiring & firing (I could be wrong on this point)?
Some denominations are in fact organized that way, but many very large churches have an eldership. But the eldership delegates heavily to the staff, letting the preacher or an executive or administrative minister handle personnel, for example. This is sometimes call the Carver or Policy governance model.
In that model, the elders would set the church’s vision and direction — with input from many other — and then assign the task of running the church day to day to staff — holding the staff accountable for the results. http://www.carvergovernance.com/pg-np.htm describes an approach adopted by many large independent Christian Churches and others. The elders remain very much in authority, set broad policy, set limits, and then charge staff with making it happen. (The article linked is not about churches but nonprofits. Some adaptation would be required.) The point is that the preacher or an administrative minister can be given considerable authority and yet be fully answerable to an eldership that retains ultimate control — and it’s been shown to work in very large churches.
Here’s a discussion from a spiritual perspective: http://www.valuesdirectedbusiness.com/articles_view.asp?columnid=4792&articleid=48341
Can this lead to the Sr Minister and/or staff ultimately deciding what they believe to be the role of E/S/O? Is this biblical? Who decides?
No. The elders decide doctrine and policy. All authority that’s been delegated can be taken back.
If the Sr Minister/Pastor is no longer fulfilling his role & responsibility (R/R) who decides they must be replaced and who does this? Should the Sr Minister/Pastor determine his own R/R and who should evaluate him and determine his salary?
The preacher (even if an elder) must answer to the eldership and can be fired by the eldership.
We have a great relationship with our Sr Minister and staff. He is doing a great job, and we rely on him and give him a very prominent role in the spiritual direction and leadership of our congregation, as I believe it should be if you have the right Spirit led man. He is very conscious, considerate and protective of we Shepherds, as we are of him and the staff. But ultimately, who will stand before the Great Shepherd as responsible for the spiritual maturing and discipline of the church?
The elders bear ultimately responsibility.
I think that this consideration is the major reason the Sr Minister should also be a E/S/O, provided he has clearly demonstrated over time to the congregation and the E/S/O that he has been chosen by God, as demonstrated by his spiritual giftedness to serve in this capacity. Will he be judged much as the church’s E/S/O anyway, considering the role that they now serve in today’s church leadership? I think so.
Actually, the more authority you give the preacher, the more important it is that he be answerable to the elders and not be an elder. If the church follows the Policy or Carver governance model, the preacher cannot be an elder. You see, the elders have to be answerable to one another as a team of peers. If the preacher has too many unique powers, it upsets the ability of the eldership to work as a team — and makes it hard for each person to understand his role.
In short –
1. Elders should remain ultimately in charge regardless of the model or vision adopted.
2. But the elders may delegate to staff, a committee, to a subcommittee of elders or elders/staff, to volunteers, etc. — provided (a) they retain the right to un-delegate and (b) they delegate based on the Spirit’s giving of gifts.
3. Elders may be on the payroll if it serves the best interest of the church — and it often will in a larger church.
4. Elders may even go so far as to delegate day to day management to an employee under the Policy (or Carver) governance model, provided the elders retain ultimate authority and assure that the staff works for the elders and not the other way around.
If you’ve had much experience with nonprofit boards, the reality is that the board is often mere window dressing, doing whatever the executive director wants. That’s not the model. It’s not a good model for churches or nonprofits. Rather, the elders have to set the vision and doctrinal boundaries of the church — but must do so with input from as many people as they can manage. This is part of what it means to be a servant-leader. They don’t presume to know all the answers or to have all the wisdom in the church. And they should be humble enough to ask other churches, elderships, professors, etc. for advice.
One final note. In many presentations I’ve seen of the “shepherding model,” the role of the elders as vision-casters is omitted. It is my view that one of the most important roles of elders/shepherds/overseers is in finding God’s vision for the church — although with the input from many others. Indeed, you can’t travel long in sheep country and not see that it’s the shepherd who leads the sheep to green pastures. The shepherd decides when it’s time to move to a new and better location because that’s where God has placed the green grass.
Shepherds lead. And, yes, the bind wounds and protect and shelter the sheep, too. But they are the leaders and can’t delegate that entirely away. But they may (and should!) certainly involve others in the process of seeking God’s vision.
You see, if the elders do nothing but tend to the hurts of the sheep, the sheep will ultimately starve. The shepherd has to look outside the pasture to where the flock needs to go as well. An eldership that is overly inward looking may develop some very loving relationships, but they won’t lead the church anywhere.
But vision ultimately comes from God — not the latest seminar or book or what works so very well at the church in the next town. And wise shepherds would do well to spend considerable time looking for green grass and still water.
Or to change metaphors, the church is all about service and sacrifice. And elders should be looking for crosses to carry and leading the congregation toward crosses and away from self-indulgence — because crosses don’t look green and still to a sheep. But to a shepherd they should look like the greenest of green pastures and stillest of still waters — because the cross is where resurrection is found. And that leads to Paradise — which really is the greenest of green pastures and stillest of still waters.
Well the best answer is women elders and deacons and egalitarian rule. Then all questions go away.
A question: One way to view Churches of Christ in America today is this:
(1) Suburbs of a city, there are at least a dozen congregations within a convenient drive.
(2) Rural or small town, there is only one congregation available.
How does the Shepherd model differ in these different situations.
As far as I understand church history the development from a small church in a city to a city wide church involved some structural changes.
Many are very opposed to the system described in the letters of Ignatius, where one Bishop in a city presides over the eldership. But given that this system seems to have been introduced duringthe lifetime of John and the the area where this apostle spentthe last years of his life, I think we might reconsider our idea of "church autonomy" a bit.
I believe there should be only one church in a city, but they won't naturally all meet in the same building – so there is a leadership on the level of house-churches, and a city-wider leadership, over which one bishop presides. At least that's how I understand the situation in the second and third century.
And this might be an answer to you question, too. Because these churches/congragtions should interact and act as one body. Jerusalem is the best model for such a situation: The church met in different houses, but the apostles had the general oversight. When they left, there were still a number of elders in Jerusalem, but James seemd to have been the presiding elder/bishop of this city.
If we read the history of the Jerusalem-church in acts, we might find a pattern for these dozens of congregations in the suburbs.
If we read the history of smaller and younger churches (e.g. Thessalonica) we see examples that resemble smaller, rural churches.
In my opinion the bishop would also serve as a shepherd for the shepherds.
Alexander
The "main" preacher has substantial power inherently. A dynamic pulpit minister can win the hearts of the congregation, and has an opportunity to fortify their loyalty every time he enters the pulpit. Whether he sets out to use that power or not, that power influences discussions with elders. IMO that means it's extra important for the entire congregation to hear the elders preach and teach frequently.
It's important for all parties involved to keep a check on their egos. Humility is key to leadership. A church leader lacking in humility is a dangerous thing. The problem is multiplied if the prideful one is preaching to the congregation every week.
abasnar wrote:
The McGarvey article on Church Goverment which I linked previously addresses the Ignatius letters. Some of those letters are widely believed to be forgeries. Those that aren't create the impression that Ignatius was championing an innovation in leadership that was not generally accepted by others. Other contemporary and later writers such as Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome adhered to the biblical model of churches led by a plurality of elders, with no mention of a single bishop leading the others. The earliest indisputable evidence that a head bishop had become generally accepted comes from Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century — several generations after the apostles.
Quite clearly, the scriptures themselves don't teach a church organization with a head bishop. And the scriptures are where we must get our doctrine.
Alan,
I entirely agree. Even if the preacher isn't prideful, he has great influence. It's important that he be accountable — and it's just a whole lot harder for elders to hold a fellow elder accountable than to hold a non-elder accountable. It's a question of wisdom, not doctrine, but the greater the authority, the greater the need for accountability.
Now, this creates an issue with elderships, as they aren't very accountable the way we usually do things. Hence, it works better the more they delegate, as they are then holding those with authority accountable — being overseers rather than those in need of oversight. My experience is that things go better the more we delegate and the more we get out of the way — but without abdicating, that is, without failing to be overseers.
That stills leaves the elders unaccountable, but it's better than the usual approach of highly centralized power — which tends toward overlording. And delegation does create a level of elder accountability — as the elders come to rely on their volunteers and staff. When they disagree, they are more likely to sit down and talk through it rather than issue edicts when the volunteers and staff are actually more hands on and more familiar with the ministry than the elders.
It is my view that each individual elder is accountable to the eldership. That accountability extends to the elder's moral life, his shepherding responsibilities, his teaching responsibilities, his growth in the role of elder, and whatever other responsibilities the eldership may have delegated to him as an individual. IMO one of the most important roles of the eldership is to hold the individual elders accountable.
Dwayne,
I agree that smaller churches have different struggles from larger churches. For a small church, the struggle is just to find two or three genuinely qualified men. Moreover, if the elders would often struggle to find talented members to delegate the administrative work to. Sometimes the only man really good at budgeting happens to be an elder.
And yet, the principle is unchanged. The elders may and should delegate as best they can, freeing themselves for visioning and pastoral work. I think the biggest deficiency in most churches — of all sizes — is a lack of vision. If the elders' vision is to keep the doors open and make budget, that's all that's likely to happen. If they have a larger vision — the vision of church planters not church tenders — things might change dramatically. After all, every church plant started as a small church. There is nothing inherent in smallest that prevents growth.
For example, the elders of a small church might contact Kairos, Stadia, or Mission Alive and volunteer to receive and support a church planting team. Or they might send their leadership for church planting training. Vision can take even a small church a long way.
Alexander,
While I don't buy the single (or monarchial) bishop model, I do agree that the early church met in multiple locations under a single eldership in a given city. We are seeing an evolution back in that direction in multi-site churches and in small group programs.
If a church is small because it's worn out competing with other churches in town, the solution is repentance and merger. If a church is small because it's the only church in town, the solution is to adopt a church planter's vision — that is, get out of maintenance mode and work a plan to grow.
Alan,
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes the most gifted preachers are men of great egos. The solution is to fire the preacher — and the church will rarely stand for it. They enjoy the brilliant preaching too much too see that a personality cult leads to destruction. At some point, the brilliant preacher retires or dies,and the church can't replace him — and they find their entire vision left with the preacher.
The best preachers fit the mold described in Good to Great — a business book about servant leaders.
http://www.jimcollins.com/tools/diagnostic-tool.p…
Alan,
Oh, if only it were true! Somehow, we've managed to develop an attitude that elders don't answer to anyone. I know of several churches where the only way to get a lousy elder to quit was for all the other elders to resign, forcing him to resign so there wouldn't be only one elder!
In my church, new elders are required to covenant to step aside if asked to do so by the other elders. I was delighted to make such an agreement — because I wouldn't want to serve with men who felt otherwise.
Appointing the wrong kind of man as elder is a serious mistake and it is very hard to undo the mistake. "Don't be hasty laying on hands…"
But in a healthy situation, the accountability goes far beyond the question to resign or not to resign. An elder can be held accountable by other elders to shepherd / oversee a portion of the congregation, or a particular ministry or ministries. He can be held accountable to get ongoing training. He can be held accountable to be available to the flock between services. He can be held accountable for being hospitable. Etc… It's really about spurring one another on toward love and good works. A healthy eldership should be doing that.
Have you ever seen any situations where all of the elders (10) were asked to step down by the congregation because of concerns about the way they were leading the church?
There are concerns among the members that the elders have splintered into factions and this has led to our pulpit minister leaving – there is a lack of transparency on how they are leading.
Chris,
The elders have splintered? That’s a problem. They can’t lead a church if they are deeply divided. The church could certainly ask them all to step down, but without leadership, how would the church re-establish the eldership? That may be obvious in your case, but in most churches, it’s hard to move from a complete resignation to a new, healthy eldership. There has to be strong non-elder leadership to help the church heal and re-establish a more healthy eldership.
There may be a better solution: Call in a church conflict resolution expert from one of our universities — such as the ACU Conflict Resolution Center. http://www.mediate.com/ccr/pg62.cfm
There’s great power in the use of an objective, third-party facilitator to help the elders and the church proceed toward a healthy solution. And, you know, people often act better when there’s an outsider present!
There are good men at our universities with extensive experience in mediating church conflict. Many a church has been healed through their efforts.