Paul’s farewell discourse
Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders in Ephesus speaks to their duties —
(Act 20:28-30 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. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”
(Act 20:35 ESV) 35 “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.'”
Paul refers to the congregation as the elders’ “flock” and speaks of “fierce wolves.” Obviously, he is speaking of the elders as shepherds.
“Overseer”
But he also calls them “overseers.” The equivalent word, with Latin roots, is “supervisor.” Thayer’s defines the word —
a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly
Gingrich gives —
The usage in the N.T., in reference to officials, appears to be less technical than a rendering such as ‘bishop’ would suggest; thus superintendent, supervisor
The fact is that Paul chose a secular word, used of middle management, to refer to the work of an elder.
And we can’t ignore the use of “overseer” in the Septuagint —
(Num 31:14 ESV) 14 And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
(Neh 11:21-22 ESV) 21 But the temple servants lived on Ophel; and Ziha and Gishpa were over the temple servants. 22 The overseer of the Levites in Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, son of Hashabiah, son of Mattaniah, son of Mica, of the sons of Asaph, the singers, over the work of the house of God.
(Isa 60:17-18 ESV) 17 Instead of bronze I will bring gold, and instead of iron I will bring silver; instead of wood, bronze, instead of stones, iron. I will make your overseers peace and your taskmasters righteousness. 18 Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise.
“Overseer” is used in parallel with “taskmaster”! However, Isaiah makes clear that in the Kingdom, everything will be turned upside down. The overseers will serve peace and righteousness — things won’t be the same.
“Shepherd”
Paul, of course, also chose to refer to elders as shepherds. And we have to take “shepherd” in its cultural context, and so we begin in Ezekiel —
(Eze 34:1-6 ESV) The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. 6 My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.”
Who were the shepherds to whom Ezekiel refers? Plainly, the community leaders — in government and at the Temple. After all, it’s the king, the city elders, and the priests who were charged with teaching and ruling wisely.
The leaders are charged with several sins, but the most prominent is a failure to lead. You see, the first role of a shepherd is to take the sheep to where the water and grass may be found. He is, first of all, a leader that the sheep must follow to live. Sheep can’t find water and grass on their own in the Judean wilderness, where water and green grass are in very short supply.
Without leadership, the sheep scatter, because that’s the nature of sheep. And scattered sheep become easy prey for wolves.
Thus, a second task is to fend off predators.
Finally, there’s a third task given: to strengthen the weak, to heal the sick, to mend the injured, and to seek the strays.
It’s become popular to emphasize the third task of the shepherd to the near exclusion of the first and second. But all are God-given tasks. Indeed, later in the chapter, God promises,
(Eze 34:23-25 ESV) 23 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. 24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken. 25 “I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.”
Thus, to refer to elders as “shepherds” is to anoint them as under-shepherds, serving under the Great Shepherd to help him do his work among his people.
Now, I readily admit that elders have, over the years, often failed in these tasks, especially the third. Lynn Anderson, in his excellent They Smell Like Sheep: Spiritual Leadership for the 21st Century has pushed Church of Christ elders to honor their third obligation. Seminars are being taught on the “shepherding model.” But some of these seminars focus solely on the third task — in over-reaction to our previous failure to honor that obligation.
However, Paul emphasizes all three tasks. His choice of “overseer” rather than the more obvious “shepherd” emphasizes the authority of the elders to lead. His warning against fierce wolves emphasizes their obligation to protect the flock. And his admonition to care for the weak reflects the third task. It’s all three.
Paul was unquestionably thinking of Ezekiel 34 when he gave his talk, just as is true of Jesus when he spoke of being the “Good Shepherd.” But I’m getting ahead of myself.
Jay;
You make a good point that the “shepherding” model has overshadowed the “overseer” model. I continually hear the analogy of shepherding to the point of absurd allegory. Sheep do this, and shepherds do that…(I’ve never heard the analogy reach the obvious end that the shepherds dine on mutton.)
One item which always strikes me is that the wolves were going to arise out of the number of the Ephesian elders. Corruption in the eldership is always a factor in the apostasy of the church.
GATidwell
My view is that Elders in the churches of Christ have become position of authority, rather than positions of authenticity. I find the role of “elder” is a description of the role, not a title.
Just because a congregation has, following some non-biblical process (and there is no biblical process for selecting elders except appointment by an itinerant evangelist … not a local preacher), to select someone as an elder, does not grant to that person legitimate wisdom or authority that warrants blind obedience.
The wisdom and advice of elders should be tested, just as the wisdom and advice of any spiritual advisor should be tested.
Is the influence of any given individual elder or any group of elders consistent with the teachings of Jesus? That question should be considered for any spiritual teacher or advisor … and elders are no exception.
In the Gospel of Thomas, saying 102, Jesus said, “Woe to the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat”. The same can be said of some elders.
Yes, there are many elders that are good overseers and feed their congregations well. But it is my belief that there simply has been too many stunted elders who starved their congregations to death. The idea that too much “knowing” leads to dangerous innovations has been, and is, the base of many elder’s governing.
The key to having elders of spirit, intelligence, and integrity, is education. I have seen these emphasized in this blog. I pray that the same understanding is taking over in other areas.
“Corruption in the eldership” is a way of saying “some of the elders are operating out of the flesh.”. It may be pride, selfishness, envy, or whatever, but it is not because Jesus is Lord. If elders are not accountable to one another (or if they don’t recognize how the aspirin works today because of cessationism) this creates chaos and division. If the eldership is divided, the congregation will be to the same percentage. If the eldership is divided 7 to 4 on everything, sides form and when the split occurs about a third of the congregation will leave. “Keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” must be first maintained in the eldership, or else the eldership has no “authority” to hold the congretation to any expectations.
Amusing typo. “if they don’t recognize how the aspirin works…” should read “Spirit works”. iPad spelling autocorrect is obviously secular. But, then, maybe elders need some aspirin, too.
Superficially at least, aspirin and spirit seem to have the same root…
I see the allegory that compares people to sheep as perhaps a little true but mostly false. People are, for the most part, a little smarter than sheep… certainly not all the time and especially not under undue stress but still for the most part smarter. They can recognize when they are being properly overseen and shepherded. If they are only being overseen and never shepherded, they know that is the case and the question to me becomes “what do I do now?”. What does a sheep do when their sheperd only knows how to be the CEO of XXXX Church of Christ and has no idea how to be the Shepherd of XXXX Church of Christ. Are we suposed to still stay in the pen? Going around bleeting seems useless but some do that. Do we jump over the fence and find another group of sheep who have a different shepherd?
Greg wrote: “I’ve never heard the analogy reach the obvious end that the shepherds dine on mutton.”
>>
Greg, as I recall, Ezekiel made that exact analogy in Ezekiel 34. As I read his scathing diatribe against the shepherds of Israel, I read nothing about too much personal care and not enough supervisory capacity.
In my experience, I don’t think I have ever met an elder who was SO involved in the day-to-day caring for the people to whom he was called, that he was not an effective overseer of that flock. When one understands enough and cares enough about the sheep and their needs– and sees them as the Shepherd sees them– we will find him to be caring, corrective, protective, and instructive. This shepherd may not be a very good debater of Baptists, or able to write a skilled treatise on how the word “psallo” should be interpreted, or be skilled in investing the congregation’s cash holdings, but those shortcomings do not bother me so much.
Here is a concept that seems obvious to me, but seems nonsensical to others: One does not become a shepherd by being appointed an elder. When I was appointed as an elder, the two wise brethren who ordained me visited my home the day before the ordination service. One asked me, “What are you going to do if we DON’T lay hands on you tomorrow?” My reply was instant: “The same thing I was doing before you got here.” One smiled and said, “That’s what we thought. That’s why we are here.” We may publicly recognize elders, but if we have any wisdom at all, they are shepherds beforehand.
Sadly, this has often not been the case. We have chosen elders by Saulish criteria, or by age or influence or wealth or profession or family or raw leadership skills. Or even by, “these are the two guys who would take it”. And we have hoped those men would morph into true shepherds by virtue of an ordination service. Seldom works out. This is because we have reversed the order of things. It is easy to teach a shepherd to use a rifle to defend the sheep he loves. He is already willing to defend those sheep with his own life. OTOH, it is not so easy to take a rifleman and teach him to be a shepherd. Target practice is not good preparation for caring for sheep.
WE are to obey the Elders where we worship. Period!
Our only choice if we disagree with them is to leave their oversight and go under another Eldership. To stay and disrupt and cause strife is wrong of you.
There is no authorization for a business meeting. That makes everyone present an Elder even if he shows up drunk.
The drunken Elder! How would that be received as he could easily say, I good as you is!
Charles … there is one new thing a newly appointed elder often has to begin doing differently … attending meetings of elders!
Alabama John … no elder warrants blind obedience … and “disrupt and cause strife” is not the only option, if one chooses to stay at a congregation where you disagree with elders.
The only meeting of elders I recall was with the apostles. Were there others?
Shepherding is not generally a group activity. Let’s be honest and acknowledge there is not near as much support in the NT for our manifestation of elderships as we’d like to believe. There is a lot about the kind of people elders should be, and their accountability. But no where in the NT text is there anything describing elders which corresponds to how we “select” elders; or how they “oversee” congregations.
If fact, clearly, in the NT, elders served whole communities or towns, not just a single assembly. So, we’re off base on that point alone.
Doug asked: “Do we jump over the fence and find another group of sheep who have a different shepherd?”
>>>
Well, the first answer is, of course, to pray and get the mind of God. But the second answer is the one which sounds a bit shallow. “By all means, jump! Jump!”
How do I defend such advice? First, by remembering that these discrete sheep-pens were not built by God, but by lesser men. Fencing off one part of the local flock from another part of the local flock was not something God did. Such willful partitioning of the Body of Christ is artificial and false and deserves not one second of recognition which might legitimize it. I am not suggesting that a believer refuse to submit to godly oversight, not at all. But I am suggesting that the elders of a single congregation are not somehow entitled to the control of anyone who happens to fill a pew in their edifice. That’s not relationship, that’s jurisdiction.
Doug’s example essentially raises the question, “Can a believer voluntarily change his relationship with a shepherd?” Well, we have always believed so. After all, when the believer moves from one city to another, we send him and bless him. The local elders do not try to continue to exert oversight by long distance. So, this is all a matter of jurisdictional radius. How far does Doug have to move to be simply “a sheep in search of a shepherd” instead of a “rebellious church-hopper”? Two miles? Ten? Thirty? The whole idea reveals its fundamental absurdity.
Bottom line is that the shepherds do not own the sheep. I see a lot of branded sheep, but that does not make the practice right.
Interestingly, Jay proposed a reform previously that would obviate this problem; elders in a city would function as a single team. This would allow sheep/shepherd relationships to be flexible while allowing the elders to watch for traveling troublemakers, and to intervene to help repair wounded relationships. I have seen this in action.
My good brother Leo, who has been a shepherd to me for many years, once had a visitor to his office. This visitor was a member of another local congregation and was mad at the pastor there. He wanted to know if he could join Leo’s congregation, and brought an offering of $10,000 which he said he had planned to give his former congregation before things went sour. Leo told the visitor that he would not consider it until he could meet with both the visitor and the other pastor together, and try to reconcile them by prayer and wise counsel. Leo picked up the phone to call the other pastor and he told the man to keep his money in his pocket.
That action has always impressed me, both by the level of wisdom, and the commitment to the integrity of the Body of Christ in the city. And it reminds me of the joke about the modern elder transported back in time just in time to hear the argument between Peter and Simon. Just about the time Peter says, “Your money persish with you!”, the new guy intervenes and says, “Wait, wait, just how much money are we talking about here?”
Do we sometimes build too much on a comparison? Elders and hired elders (pastors, preachers) are servants who should be particular types of persons. They may well be leaders. They never should be bosses, expecting others to “obey” them as sheep must be submissive to the shepherd. Christians are free rather than slaves who are required to obey others in order to remain in fellowship with other believers. Any elder who feels members must obey him should be removed from his “office” at once. Elders should be teachers, not dictators. Elders should lead rather than drive. In God’s family, the ones who serve humbly should be most respected and followed. Once again, I point to the church where the “preacher” is Rick Atchley as a church where there are many leaders but not apparently any one who feels he must dictate what members think or do.
We can debate and discuss, but when it comes down to the final decision, we should shut up and let the Elders decide and we obey. No more discussion and surely no negative comments. Roll up our sleeves and get-ur-done!
This is nothing new as its been the practice for thousands of years in every military and business. It works!
Sorry, Alabama John, we are neither in business nor the military. And, we are individually responsible for loving others the way Jesus loved us. I certainly believe in cooperation and collaboration, but not blind obedience to anyone except Jesus.
Jay, I wonder if you’ve run into this approach to the term “overseer.”
Russell Boatman, in his book “What The Bible Says About The Church” (College Press), says this: “The Greek word episkopeo carries the idea of a visit of mercy and compassion. It commonly implies looking in upon someone with a view to helping. In classical Greek literature it describes a mother keeping a vigil throughout a long night over a sick child, or a nurse looking upon a patient with a view to help in any way possible.”
Using this understanding of the word, or at least using it as a strong component of the role of overseer, seems to be supported by the way the word episkopoeo (and its forms) is used in the New Testament:
Matt 25:36 — I was sick, and you VISITED me
Luke 1:68 — He has COME (VISITED) and redeemed his people
Luke 1:78 – by which the rising sun will COME TO us
Acts 6:3 – CHOOSE seven men from among you
Acts 7:23 – he (Moses) decided to VISIT his fellow Israelites
Acts 15:14 – God SHOWED HIS CONCERN by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself
Acts 15:36 — Let us go back and VISIT the brothers in all the towns . . .
Hebrews 2:6 – or the son of man that you should CARE FOR him
James 1:27 – to LOOK AFTER orphans and widows in their distress
Hebrews 12:15 – SEE TO IT that no one misses the grace of God . .
Thoughts?
AJ, what kind of “final decisions” are we talking about here? It makes a big difference, IMO. If the elders want to have the “final say” about whether the club paves the parking lot or not, by all means, please do. Let them take the heat for the color of the new carpet or the next church van purchase. However, on any subject of any real significance, I am not so comfortable being required to submit unconditionally to men who themselves submit to no one.
It is this sort of unfettered autocractic rule that has believers constantly voting with their feet. When the only mode of redress from questionable leadership is leaving the group, we better keep the hinges of the church-house doors well oiled. “Why did they leave?” we ask. “What choice did they have?” is the reply. “Well, they could just sit down and shut up and do what we say!” No, that sounds bad…
If, on the other hand, there was someone to whom a congregant could go to express concerns about actions or decisions made by his elders, someone to whom the elders would submit (or at least take VERY seriously), the members would feel much more safe.
Why are we more afraid of the idea that our elders will receive some sort of spiritual oversight than of the fact that they currently don’t? Jay and I differ on this, as he feels mutual submission among a group of elders is sufficient. I have seen this concept fail, and fail spectacularly. So, I remain dubious of its efficacy. Among consistently wise and honorable men, Jay’s idea probably works. However, among such men, it is probably not necessary anyway.
I am put to mind of something I think Todd said elsewhere about “borrowing someone else’s elders”. Perhaps it could be as simple as that to begin with. An individual elder in the CoC at the corner of First Street and Frogleg Avenue develops relationships with other elders in the city and individually chooses to submit to the spiritual watch-care of another mature believer in another congregation. (Need not even be another elder…) Think of the fresh eyes and additional wisdom and different vantage points that would benefit good ol’ First And Frogleg. It would seem reasonable that our elder at F&F CoC might also find himself giving oversight to a couple of elders from across the way. I can see nothing but good here.
All it would cost is a little humility.
Good points Sam. My opinion is that…
The word Elder(Presbyteroi) emphasizes the wisdom of the leader.
while Overseer(Episcopoi) gives attention to the position they have to tend the flock.
and Shepherd reveals the tending itself(as he leads the sheep beside still waters).
Charles said; “Bottom line is that the shepherds do not own the sheep.”
That is right Jesus asked Peter to look after his sheep, most sheep owners in Texas now use barking dogs, and braying donkeys — I don’t see that either put more value on the keeper of the sheep, than that of the sheep.
The barking dogs, and the braying donkeys would protect their wards with their life, how many human elders/pastors would be as committed.?
Try leading in anything if the folks won’t follow.
Elders are appointed and when they agree to take this thankless position we, those not voted on and appointed by the congregation, must agree to follow.
How confusing it would be as an Elder to put your sincere effort to lead for the betterment of all and have some that will not follow because they, behind the scenes, want to lead. Many times, no, most times, it is jealously and to all others it is obvious and that is the unspoken reason YOU were not appointed. That is a flaw in your personality observed by the members that you do not see.
A person that cannot obediently follow authority well is sure not someone I would want leading!
This is true in the military, business, Boy Scouts, and the church or any other organization.
What those that will not follow miss, is the other members realize your fault and resent instead of admire, and feel you are putting their salvation in danger. I’ve seen and heard this many times. Its an old story.
I posted this one under part one, but i think it is even more fitting here:
(quote from myself:) As a production leader in our printing company …
Today I “summoned” my colleagues for a demonstration. I proved to them how much can really be done when you do things efficiently and without to much talking. I am responsible to the owners of our company that the work we do is done swiftly and correctly. That’s true for leaders in Christ’s church as well: We are accountable to our Lord, and things can be done more or less fruitful. Since our Lord likened the Kingdom to relationships like these (among others) I think it is not a far stretch that elders/leaders of a congregation …
a) know their duty as slaves of Christ
b) know what is at stake spiritually (as in a competing economic setting)
c) have to be able to prove and demontrate how it really works
d) are able to communicate the vision
Alexander
Fact is, if they aren’t following, you may be their boss, but you aren’t their leader. No matter what it says on your business card.
When I used to hire people, I always inquired about their present job and how they were doing at it. I wonder, when whatever machinery we have starts up to appoint elders, if anyone asks a candidate, “Exactly who among your brothers and sisters are you caring for NOW? Who looks to you for wisdom and guidance and help? And how is that going?”
In this day of ubiquitous opinion surveys, what if we used something like that in finding elders? Instead of starting with “nominations”, we could start with a survey. (Hey, it’s just as biblical!) We could ask the members seven questions:
“Your teenager just got arrested for selling drugs. Name three people in the church you would be comfortable with calling for effective help and support.”
“Your daughter has announced she is marrying a man you have never met. Name three people in the church you would call for advice on how to handle this new situation.”
“Your college freshman comes home and declares that he no longer believes in God. Who in your church would you call for help in talking with your son?”
“A friend comes to you and says he has a serious problem and does not know who to trust with it. He won’t even tell you what it is. Name three people in the church you believe he could trust with his problem, whatever it is.”
“Jack and Joe are partners in a large local business and have a very serious dispute with one another. The dispute is about to destroy the business. They both agree to let a panel of three people mediate their dispute. Their decision will be final. Recommend three people from your church for this panel.”
“You are facing a major life decision, and you want help in praying about what God’s will is for you in this. Who do you call?”
“A stranger and his family are stranded on the side of the road in your town in the middle of the night. One of your church members happens to be driving by. For the sake of this family, which of your fellow church members do you hope is driving by?”
Now, just list the names that most frequently appear on these surveys. Anyone doubt that you’ll find your best elder candidates on that list? Actually, I think you’ll find a lot of similarities between my survey and Paul’s advice to Titus…
The more I think about this, if I were back in the church business, I could sell this concept. Ah, well, my best stuff I give away.
Charles,
I have a similar vision of how to identify elders in a local congregation … I have been a little surprised at the resistance I’ve received to such an approach. Don’t truly understand why … but I continue to hold out for that approach.
Sam Loveall is on the right track. There is not as strong a difference between the shepherd and the bishop as some are suggesting. Without the inspection that occurs in sympathetic visitation, how can anyone “superintend” a group of people? If he is seeking their greatest good, but does not know them through continuous interaction, how can he go about finding that greatest good?
The problem I have is with elders (including myself when I was one) was that I was expected to “make decisions” about people whom I barely knew. I know. I know. This is not the way it is supposed to be – but it is the way it is far too many times.
I see the authority of the elder as being more moral than constitutional. That is, his authority springs more from his character than it does from his position. What say ye?
A good shepherd, who knows well the condition of his flocks, is in a position to be an effective, benevolent overseer (bishop). Without the shepherding, there can be no effective oversight. Yet, too many see the elder as first the overseer – and if there is any time left over, he might do a little shepherding on the side.
While I believe in spiritual authority residing in men, I find that nowadays most of the “overseers” I know are not really shepherds at all, but ranch managers. Or, perhaps more accurately, ranch owners who live in town and who have delegated the actual sheep-raising operation to the foreman and lesser hands who actually feed and water and doctor the sheep.
The main thing that ranchowners do with the sheep is to drive out to the place once a week and count ’em.
Okay, I have to get away from this analogy before I get all Ezekiel 34 about it…
Why is it that when we see Paul talking to elders about their responsibilities, we almost always assume authority for anything more than taking the assignment?
We certainly avoid such generalizations when it comes to evangelists teaching with all authority a la Titus 2:15. Still, we never see elders being told they have all authority … no matter how often we might assume it goes without saying.
What is said is that Jesus claims to possess (to have been given) ALL authority in heaven and earth.
When did He give that up?
Just wondering …
Grizz
Sam,
I was not familiar with that interpretation of “oversee.” So I looked up the verses. The verb is episkeptomai. It’s not the same root as episkopos. The verb equivalent to episkopos is episkopeo.
Thayer’s translates episkeptomai,
But episkopeo does not carry quite the same sense. It appears in —
(Heb 12:15 ESV) See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;
(Est 2:11 ESV) And every day Mordecai walked in front of the court of the harem to learn how Esther was and what was happening to her.
(2Ch 34:12 ESV) And the men did the work faithfully. Over them were set Jahath and Obadiah the Levites, of the sons of Merari, and Zechariah and Meshullam, of the sons of the Kohathites, to have oversight. The Levites, all who were skillful with instruments of music,
(Deu 11:12 ESV) a land that the LORD your God cares for. The eyes of the LORD your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year.
As the Deuteronomy passage indicates, the verb can indicate care (Heb: darash), but the overriding sense is oversight.
Mordecai exercised oversight over Esther because he cared for her. But the musicians in 2 Chronicles exercised oversight to be certain the jobs were done right.
In short, the word can refer to oversight exercised out of love and compassion but can also refer to oversight because of positional authority.
Of course, the verb is also used in —
(1Pe 5:2 ESV) 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;
Now, I’m not at all arguing that elders shouldn’t care for the flock! No, the point is that the word itself simply means “oversee” or “overseer,” and any meaning beyond that must come from the context. In fact, I’d certainly agree that the oversight of an elder is for both the good of Jesus and the good of the people being overseen. It’s never for the good of the shepherd!
But that conclusion comes from the use of “shepherd” not “overseer.” Contrary to a comment made here, the shepherd doesn’t eat mutton, because they aren’t his sheep. The owner might, but never the shepherd. The shepherd’s job is to protect, feed, and water the sheep, and ultimately to bring them home.
Greg wrote,
Actually, shepherds don’t eat mutton. They don’t own the sheep! Their job is to bring the sheep safely home, well fed and watered, in good health.
I do entirely agree that it’s the elders who are charged to protect the church against apostasy. Sadly, we often ordain elders who are not well taught in the scriptures.
I don’t blame the elders or the preacher so much as our insistence on dividing into small churches, which greatly dilutes the pool of giftedness, education, experience, and wisdom. Merge all the churches in town, and we’ll find that God has given us all the leadership we need.
Jerusalem was a church of thousands, and yet it was one congregation overseen by a single eldership.
@ Charles
We did surveys before appointing our leadership. In two stages: First we asked for suggestions who was fit for several areas of ministry (finances, children, teaching, counselling, evangelism, communication, administration ….). We got a pretty clear and unanimous answer, since many were already doing these things who now got some recognition. We worked this way for a bit more than a year (as we said we will reevaluate after some time) and went a step further: We again asked the congregation whom they saw as leaders – still based on the scriptural qualifications, but also on their experience with us. Again this led to a quite unanimous “result”. So our leaders are not simply “appointed” but “recognized”.
I am absolutely with you on your statement: “If they don’t follow, you may be their boss but not their leader.” This is essential. A brother, many years ago said: “If you want to know whether you are a leader, look back and see if someone is following you.”
Alexander
Jay;
I think you are exactly right.
A lack of biblical understanding is why elderships at Progressive congregations have been willing to accept women leading in worship, and have been willing to reject the essential nature of baptism by immersion, the regulative principle concerning the work and worship of the church, and (obviously based on many of the posts on this blog) the full deity of Christ.
I find the Progressive movement among churches of Christ is defined largely by what it does not believe. I feel a lack of qualified elders is the prime offender.
GA Tidwell
By that same logic, the elders with the greatest biblical understanding would then be those elders who resisted innovation the most. When does Greg then contact the nearest non-institutional congregation in Ohio in order to surrender his flock to their elders or to otherwise transfer his membership?
It also requires an edition or two in the Gospel Advocate to explain why B.C. Goodpasture was all so wrong back in the 1950s.
I believe many of us here would be more than happy to purchase those editions when published.
Gregg,
The Church of Christ, especially since its split with the Christian Church in 1906, spent nearly its entire evangelistic fervor on what it does not believe. I am one who can remember listening to sermons on Sunday and gospel meetings before I was big enoughfor my feet to touch the floor. These sermons were STRONGLY presented in what we did not do or believe. I listened to them in awe, and watched the adults walk out the door, shake the preachers hand, saying “Lay it on them brother ___”.
To accuse people who love the Bible of being negative because they see the regulations regarding women in worship and leadership roles as cultural passsages is unfair. Cultural passages do exist, whether they be the ones dealing with the length of a person’s hair, praying with head covered or uncovered, or the relationship of slave and master. If it is true that a person must be totally obedient once a slave, then does that not mean that a person cannot fight in a war to keep from being enslaved? And as far as there being “Christian masters”, there can NEVER be any such thing again.
Certain passages were written for their time. One of the reasons for study is to sort through, undertanding it to be a challenge, yet to be done with grace. Many in the CoC do not accept either; they find it easy to determine every “thus saith the Lord”. So which certainty, which branch of the CoC, do we follow?
Jay said; “I don’t blame the elders or the preacher so much as our insistence on dividing into small churches, which greatly dilutes the pool of giftedness, education, experience, and wisdom. Merge all the churches in town, and we’ll find that God has given us all the leadership we need.”
And by the nature of the large church, there is greater need for leadership.
and a propensity for those who can lead to get lost in the shuffle.and a more attainable cleft in which to hide for those who are not credible leaders.
Big fish in a pond, or minnow in the ocean.
Maybe Mr. Tidwell could elaborate upon the “lack of biblical understanding” in relationship with “the regulative principle”? I don’t understand how biblical understanding affects a man-conceived methodology for biblical application. As far as posters on this blog rejecting the “full diety of Christ”, I am unaware of anyone who posts regularily on this blog who can be accused of doing that. Maybe Mr. Tidwell could direct us to those posts which lead him to that conculsion?
@ Charles McLean, “mutual submission among a group of elders is sufficient”
The model as I understand it is mutual submission, period. Not merely among the elders, but among the entire flock. I don’t remember who pointed it out in some of our discussions lately, but it seems to be true that our entire societal zeitgeist is contrarian in nature. We don’t like to submit. We have been conditioned in just the opposite direction. From the “free love”, do your own thing that was heavily promoted during my formative years, to the anarchy being promoted today – two sides of the same coin. Remember what King Saul was told? Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…
I am learning, as I reflect on my own situation and as I hear others’ accounts of theirs, that until God gets my attention, I can’t be reasoned with. I readily see this in child rearing for example. Sometimes a bit of a slap on the bottom is effective in breaking through active resistance to dialog. Then, when attention is given, teaching (aka discipline) can be done. Reasonable dialog is then possible. But reasonable dialog can only happen when each person gives his or her attention to the other. This is a form of mutual submission.
It has been my experience that God sometimes gives me a bit of a slap on the bottom, in a sense, in order to focus my attention on Him. As I said, I have heard this from many others as well. It is certainly a biblical concept. Sometimes it is more than a slap on the bottom, and it always results from our own stiffness of neck…
I like your survey/questionnaire. I shall archive that list for future reference/refinement.
@Greg Tidwell
As C. S. Lewis pointed out, advancement in the wrong direction is not progress, and sometimes it is necessary to retrace our steps (i.e. regress) in order to rejoin the path towards our goal. I rejoice to see the renewed emphasis on getting back to our restoration roots as we acknowledge the contributions of the Campbells, Stone, et al, and study what they actually taught. But even more so at the acknowledgement of the Comforter’s presence with and within us. How in the world did we get so far off course?
… and even preach or become elders. That’s – in my eyes – one of the major issues. And here I can only sheke my head in disbelief, but I realize it is a hermeneutical division. The approach to scripture – allowing to regard apostolic order as mere cultural (when unfitting to our culture) – is a soft version of historical criticism (even if Jay once denied that), because it follows the same thought patterns.
I wish they’d repent from these errors and remove female-elders from their office (in all dignity). There were other denominations who already did that, and their example encourages me.
Alexander
Doug, Greg is just determined to be divisive. In this instance, he wants to equal those who would not make the Anathasian doctrine of the Trinity mandatory as denying the divinity of Jesus outright. He’s wrong, of course (even Arius believed that Jesus was divine), but he comes here spoiling for fights with little success. Now he would misrepresent those with whom he disagrees.
Grizz-
Just a note on authority: as any of us who have managed businesses recognize, authority can be -and often must be- delegated. When I delegate a particular measure of authority to a subordinate, I do not in any way “lose” that authority. Your question misses this reality. Has the Father abdicated his throne, having given all authority to the Son? No.
I have been given eleven beautiful children. God has graciously delegated to me the authority of a father over his children. Does that make God any less their father?
What one cannot delegate is one’s responsibility. When I delegated authority to operate our plant to a plant manager, I was still wholly responsible for the results of my plant manager’s actions. If he mistreats his workers, I personally will be the one to “remove his candlestick”. I do not leave it to the workers to be forced to revolt and throw off his irresponsible rule.
Charles,
With more than 25 years of experience running businesses I am well aware that some would like to transfer authority by delegating or abdicating, hoping to find some relief. Authority does not transfer.
Authority gained by position stays with the position.
Authority gained by influence stays with the one who is influential.
Authority gained by achievement stays with the achiever.
Did the Father give all authority to the Son? YES! Matthew 28:18 is emphatic about that.
Your children are your stewardship before God, brother – not your pawns to order about. They are God’s children given into your care as your responsibility before God to bring Him honor.
Managers delegate assignments, Charles. Masters assign responsibilities.
Servants simply do as they are asked/instructed to do by their Masters (not necessarily to the satisfaction of other servants).
Jesus has all authority. Has that changed?
Grizz
Greg,
Forgive me if I take this personally, but “the full deity of Christ”? Are you saying that I deny the full deity of Christ? Based on what?
Bob,
I will not hi-jack this thread and rehash the Trinity issue, but for the sake of historical facts, from my reading of Arius’ own letters, he taught that Jesus is not co-eternal with the Father and was simply a created-divine-being. From what source do you conclude that Arius believed Jesus was divine?
Well, your own statement above for one. Stop being a pedant.
Bob,
We have discussed my statements in the past (a non-eternal god is no god at all), now I am asking about your statement. I could not see a source in your response; perhaps you forgot to list it because you were more focused on insulting me? (James 4:11)
Grizz, I am trying to be careful in the use of my terminology. I never said authority is “transferred”, although it may be at times. I spoke of “delegation”. Delegation is not transfer. When I delegate the management of my plant to the plant manager, I do not relinquish my authority over either the plant or its manager. I share my authority with a subordinate, and while I retain entire responsiblity to my own superiors, my plant manager now has some responsibilities to ME.
You seem to be advocating the position of Israel in Judges 17:6; that is, that we do what is right in our own eyes, acknowledging no authority over us to be present in any man. I cannot reconcile your anti-authoritarian view with Paul, who felt quite comfortable “commanding” other believers, and telling Timothy to do the same. If either man had no authority from God, such “commanding” was nothing more than bluff or bullying.
Charles,
When you instruct a subordinate to do an assignment, upon whose authority (positional) is that instruction given?
And if tomorrow you retired and another were given your position, would they have the same authority to give someone an assignment based on positional authority? That is, does your authority go with you because it is intrinsic to you as a person? or does it accompany whoever is functioning in the position you formerly held?
Brother, I am not anti-authoritarian. I am very pro-genuine-authority, which in the Kingdom of God is seated on the throne of heaven. When any king sends a message via a messenger, the message carries the king’s authority – not the authority of the messenger, which does not exist. In Ephesians 4 there is a list of messengers with various functions intended to help the body of Christ grow and thrive and reproduce. In their separate functions each of them functions under the authority of King Jesus. None of them has any authority of their own.
Far from being anti-authoritarian, this view recognizes the authority being wielded in the most legitimate and most complete sense of the word. The king’s servant may wield the king’s authority when assigned by the king to do so, but the seat of authority does not thereby become the servant’s authority. And the servant has no standing to exceed the parameters of the assignment to add his or her own flair to the task. The servant is still a servant and has no intrinsic authority of his or her own.
The servant should be respected for being in the service of the king – particularly as it is assigned by the king for him or her to do that task. But if the servant is sent to bring back a chef’s report about the lunch menu, that does NOT give the servant authority to ask for financial reports and shopping lists nor does it give him or her authority to adjust or edit the menu being reported on or to adjust or edit the report that he or she is to take back to the king from the chef.
Paul could and should tell Timothy to speak with authority … as one who is speaking in the name/authority of the one on the throne of heaven. Within the instructions given are parameters for speaking with authority from the Lord. Timothy was not instructed concerning the color of the carpets and rugs at the assembly of the saints. He had no authority to make any such decision. It is not that the silence concerning the carpet or rug was restrictive, but rather that such a decision lay outside the reaches of the authority granted by the Lord for delivering HIS message. He could certainly voice an opinion if asked, but it would exceed his authority to decide the matter as though his status as messenger gave him the privilege to do so.
Blessings,
Grizz
Delegated authority:
Grizz, you keep introducing conditionals that I have never offered. “Positional” authority is authority. And all authority is positional. That’s inherent to the nature of how it relates from one person to another. Authority does not exist in a vaccuum. It is meaningless unless there is someone or something under that authority. Just as service is meaningless unless there is someone to serve. Authority, like it or not, relates to one having a position “over” another in some way. Whether that position comes from physical or spiritual power, or from a convoluted legal system, it is always positional. Power may be intrinsic, authority is positional.
Grizz, I sense in your posts a real aversion to another person having power over you, and I can understand that, and an aversion to the abuse of power, which I share. But you seem to have so little confidence in God’s operation in another human being that you have reduced the idea of God’s authority in a human being to that of a functionary. A tool, a device, a vending machine. That is the idea you posit, that a person with delegated authority can only do exactly what he has been instructed to do, no more, no less, with no individual discretion. Under such a case, if I tell my subordinate, “You are in charge of fire prevention,” he may thus not organize fire drills, or call the fire department if a fire DOES break out. Neither of these actions actually prevent fire, so he has no authority to do them. They are outside his portfolio, so to speak. The fundamental idea that I wanted him to keep my building from burning to the ground is lost in a technical interpretation intended to limit his actions as far as possible. Your interpretation of Paul’s counsel to Timothy renders Timothy a mere functionary, who was limited to pitifully waving Paul’s letters at the Ephesians (“Look here, it’s on page two, so you have to do it!”) and who had nothing from God himself. You say that such an interpretation is not “restrictive”, but your assumption about narrowly-construed “parameters” (which are not indentified as such by Paul) creates the exact same results. Same song, different title.
Grizz, I guess the real question is, “Who decides whether a person with delegated authority is acting outside what God would have him do? WHO regulates the king’s servant? Is the final judgment in the hands of the person who is being instructed? If so, then we have moved beyond even self-rule into the place of naming ourselves the “king’s counsellor”, declaring our own judgments as to what God has said or has not said to a person he set over us. We have paid only lip service to authority while keeping the actual power for ourselves.
The line of reasoning you present here, Grizz, is very American. It is government by the people– or more accurately, by the individual. It is a constitutional view, not one which has its roots in divine monarchy. For Americans, our human authorities are ruled by Law, our law, and thus indirectly they are ruled by US. But as believers, we are not ruled by a book, but by a true King. In the kingdom of God, the King is law. But not to worry, as long as one considers himself free to ignore anything the king’s servant says –based on his sole judgment as to that servant’s parameters– he need not fear abusive rule by other men, for no such rule will apply to him.
Charles,
I understand your confusion. You think I have a real problem with others having authority over me. Truth is, I do not have a problem with that.
Did you catch that? I have no problem with anyone having authority over me.
What I DO have a concern about is the way YOU and MOST folks ASSUME that authority exists within a preacher or deacon or elder or teacher … when the only authority WITHIN any person in the body of Christ is only intrinsic to JESUS.
Jesus was given ALL authority in heaven and earth. How much does that leave for anyone else?
And why is this not a simple answer for you, Charles?
Think about it.
Blessings,
Grizz
Alexander,
When a steward accepts an assignment, by whose authority does he accept that responsibility? To whom is that steward accountable? Is it not the one who gave the assignment who still has the authority? Or can he or she do whatever they will once the assignment is given?
The human factor is real and it is problematic, but it is covered by the grace of him who makes the assignment. As long as one receives the assignment with a clear sense of who retains authority over him or her, this problem is resolved. When one begins to think that they now have authority of their own, the seeds of disaster are sown.
Humans tend to see power in authority. The temptation to then exercise that power and test its limits is great. The cure for that is to remember whose authority it is that governs the assignment and its execution … and to not imagine that the authority has become their own to control or exercise independently.
I am currently blessed to serve under the watchful care of elders who appreciate that the authority under-girding their function belongs to Jesus and NOT to them as either individual elders or as a group. They are stewards of Jesus with an assignment that makes them responsible to Jesus in everything they do. And they realize that we all have stewardships assigned by Jesus – our lives, our homes, our relationships, our possessions, our desires, and sometimes we also have special assignments for which we are responsible and accountable to Jesus.
I sometimes have a different opinion than do the elders under whose care I serve. I submit to them knowing that they care for me at the behest of our Master – and not because they have authority to compel me. They do not have that authority … Jesus does. I have nothing to offer them that Jesus does not already possess completely.
I serve as I do because Jesus has assigned me this responsibility. I will change that only when HE alters my assignment. Having a different opinion does NOT release me from my responsibility to Jesus to serve under the care of those whom He has chosen to be elders/shepherds/watchmen of His flock.
If one day I should ever be asked by our Lord to join their number and take on that responsibility, I pray that I will do it NOT as one with authority, but as one under the authority of our Lord. And if I ever have any inclination to think that I have somehow gained authority of my own, I pray that God will humble me and show me the error of such an attitude and belief.
I need no authority. Serving is a privilege far beyond what I could earn or deserve. I serve by the grace given by the One with authority to give it – Jesus. And I serve where HE calls me to serve … NOT where I find it desirable or convenient or pleasing.
It pleases me to please Him. And it is THAT belief and conviction that causes me to submit to others to whom God has also given assignments and responsibilities, so that together we may serve as HE has called us to and bring Him glory.
Authority only seems to need to be exercised by mankind when we doubt that Jesus is already completely and irrevocably Lord of our existence in every way. Even that perception of authority in a man or woman is an illusion. Jesus has all authority … which is and always will be just how it should be.
Blessings,
Grizz
Well said, Grizz.
Certainly, the word “authority” has a different cultural connotation today, in the USA, than it did during the first century. After all, in my experience, Americans, generally, do not appreciate the significance of saying Jesus is King. In NT times, the king had absolute authority over the people. So, saying Jesus is Lord or Jesus is King means much more than we grant it.
Regrettably, most of us have experienced Elders who sought to “Lord it over the flock” rather than serve the flock. And I cannot help but think that colors the unspoken concerns about the use of the word authority.
And as Grizz points out, if an elder (or anyone else) is truly serving others, as we are called to do, few us have difficulty in listening and following such an example on spiritual matters.
And certainly, as elders have been manifested in the US, there is a necessary organizational component to the elder role … to which I respond, not the best role in my view, but whatever works. Given the institutionalization of churches, organizational administration is necessary and prudent.
However, what I seek in elders, in spiritual mentors, in spiritual leaders, is someone who genuinely seeks to love others and Jesus loved us … which is a radical level of service and submission.
Jesus had all the authority, yet he gave it up to save us from our wretchedness. Who among the elders is doing that?
Mother Teresa is a better role model than most, if not all, the elders I’ve ever known. Yet, is not that what Jesus calls the elders to do?
My view is that elders do warrant me following them because someone has “appointed them”, but rather because they are obviously devoted to emulating Jesus, that I can learn and grow spiritually by seeking their counseling.
“Follow me, as I follow Christ.” But, didn’t someone already say that???
Grizz wrote: “What I DO have a concern about is the way YOU and MOST folks ASSUME that authority exists within a preacher or deacon or elder or teacher … when the only authority WITHIN any person in the body of Christ is only intrinsic to JESUS. Jesus was given ALL authority in heaven and earth. How much does that leave for anyone else?”
>>
You say you have no problem with a human having authority over you, Grizz, and I am prepared to take your word for it. But you then say no one has any authority but Jesus. I wasn’t confused before, but perhaps I am now. In light of your latter statement, the former is moot and meaningless. Or are you arguing for a separation here; that while you submit to human authority in the secular realm, you do not believe that any human being has God-given authority in the church?
We appear to be at something of an impasse here, my brother. I have already addressed your “simple” answer, but you don’t buy it. If the fact that “all authority” is given to Jesus then means that no one else has any authority, then I hope to steer clear of you at the next four-way stop; for while I accept the four-way stop as an expression of authority, your statement would seem to free you from doing so. No authority can exist in that stop sign, so why stop? Now, if your argument is that delegated authority does exist among men in the secular realm, but that such delegation ends at the church-house door, I don’t find that dichotomy in scripture.
I would agree that human rule sometimes masquerades as divine delegation, and that such men need not be recognized at all. But this readily gets turned into the “counterfeit dollar” argument. To wit: since there are clearly counterfeit bills in circulation, the dollar bill cannot be trusted and should not be accepted as payment. Likewise, as there exist religious leaders who are not really given by Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ does not delegate authority to leaders in the Body.
I agree that the basis for all authority rests in Christ. In God we find all of what you call “intrinsic” authority. But then, it is often delegated in various means and measures to men. This includes kings, priests, policemen, elders, parents; the list is long and multi-faceted. You seem to disagree, retreating to your “simple” statement, which offers reasoning which does not seem to bear out either in scripture or real life. I have not made the assumption that any preacher or elder has any intrinsic authority at all; kindly detach that barb from me at your next opportunity. I continue to speak generally of delegated authority. I find it almost impossible to reasonably discuss attributions to me of things I have not said. It suggests that my interlocutor is not troubling himself to understand my position or even to read it carefully, choosing rather to lump me into a group with whom he apparently already has a long-standing disagreement.
Grizz, it may be that I am simply missing your point. I have tried to reflect above what I think you might be saying. I may be all wrong about that. But I am not incapable of understanding, and I have enough change on my life resume to demonstrate that I am willing to listen to folks who don’t see things as I do. If you feel I am missing some salient point of your argument, please do explain.
Tossing the same aphorisms at me again probably won’t help, though.
Charles,
If I have unfairly grouped you with others inappropriately, please forgive me.
I am not certain that I have done so, but am open to the possibility. Here’s why …
You wrote: “I agree that the basis for all authority rests in Christ. In God we find all of what you call “intrinsic” authority. But then, it is often delegated in various means and measures to men. This includes kings, priests, policemen, elders, parents; the list is long and multi-faceted. ”
The first statement is one I agree with wholeheartedly and was cheered to see you made it. Then came the qualifying statement that began with “But…” and I was immediately reminded of someone who once said that when you hear someone say “but” you can usually be sure that whatever they just said they did not really mean. That goes too far by itself and really only leaves one with a warning to be wary of what comes next and how it might modify what went before.
Would you do me a favor, Charles? Would you explain why you think responsibility assigned equals authority given? In what sense? To what extent?
Perhaps this will help me to understand where I might be confused with your message.
Personally, I do not see how responsibility assigned demands accompanying gifts of authority. Imagine:
You and I stand before God. He gives you an assignment. I can assist you by submitting to you and offering to you my talents in ways that will help you fulfill your newly assigned responsibilities. Why would I hold back if I truly want God to be glorified in all things, including in the assignment He has given you? I do not need to submit to your supposed authority in any way … for what that might achieve has already been achieved when I gave myself completely and without reservation to the One who gave you your assignment. The availability of my assistance is no more affected by your claim of authority than by a leaf falling off a tree limb. It is already assured because of my surrender to the Lord.
You are no more obligated to accept my help than I am to submit to you, but to glorify God, you accept my help as an assistant to aid you in fulfilling your assignment. Did it require you submitting to me in any way? Or was our working together for the same purpose a foregone conclusion because we have both surrendered to God and HE has positioned us to be able to work together for His glory?
To say you have authority is uselessly redundant. What you have in that scenario is an assignment … and an assignment that I can assist you in fulfilling. I desire no credit, but only to be useful in helping you … hopefully with the result of glorifying God.
Perhaps I am just a crummy communicator. I am what I am by the grace of God and will grow until He tells me to stop. He is not finished with me. In fact, I hope He never gets finished working on me, in me, and through me in His service and to HIS glory, not mine. My glory is seeing Him glorified. Being there is enough for me and more than I deserve.
May God bless you richly and teach me more,
Grizz