What’s the difference between a shepherd, overseer, and an elder?
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?
A few Evangelicals feel the Shepherd is a leader who dwells among the people or sheep and cares for them on a personal basis while the Elder is more of a distant, hands off, administrator.
As you believe the Elder, Shepherd and Bishop should be the same and be more connected with the flock and should be deeply in prayer and directing the teaching of the sheep in areas needed.
Far too many times the elder becomes involved in the work as a deacon and the deacons do nothing because the elders are doing it all or are poorly guided.
It is mildly interesting to note that the only pattern we have for recognizing elders is appointment by an itinerant evangelist whose only interest would be in appointing spirit-filled people to that role.
Whenever we select from among ourselves, we are increasingly subject to our own biases and prejudices.
Perhaps we should ask elders from other congregations to interview, evaluate and “ordain” new elders. Now that would be different, wouldn’t it !!
Jay:
It is true that most NT scholars agree that the separation of elder and bishop as two distinct offices was a latter happening. But most of these scholars do not see, as most in the CoC would, that this “snap shot” of the infancy of the church is authoritative.
After all, I see in many churches now a separation of ministry using titles we do not see in scripture. We see the pulpit minister, the family minister, the youth minister, and in some congregations, the worship minister. And while it would be pointed out by some that these ministers are a team, the truth is that in most cases the pulpit minister is seen by the congregation as “the leader”; and, they have become used to it, not seeing it at all as a diviation.
Other denominations see the office of elder in the same way; that it evolved to meet needs, yet still following the example of scripture.
Robert:
I do like your last line, “Far too many times the elder becomes involved in the work as a deacon and the deacons do nothing…”
But that is not entirely true; the deacons do cut the grass…if they can’t get the preacher to do it.
On my post above please forgive my misspelling of “deviation”. Monday morning typing.
A few questions:
(1) I think the only two places where the words for elder, overseer, and pastor are all used together in reference to an “office” is in Acts 20 and 1 Pet 5. Is that correct? I think also that in both Acts and 1 Peter, the words for elder and overseer are nouns and the word for pastor is a verb, not a noun. Is that correct? Does that imply that one thing an elder (description of person) does in being an overseer (description of Holy Spirit-called office) is to pastor (shepherd) the flock? (And the word translated flock is actually “flocklet,” as in “fear not little flocklet.” To me, being consistent with a local congregation.) Is “pastor” one of the functions of an overseer rather than a synonym for elder and overseer? We usually go to Eph 4:11 to get pastor as a noun, but this context is different. Pastor is in the list with teachers and evangelists, etc. with a common purpose of “preparing for works of service,” not specifically distinguished as an overseer.
So, is it correct that elder = overseer = pastor, or is it more correct that elder = overseer, one function of which is to pastor (action).
That would suggest that pastor in Eph 4:11 would be more general and include anyone who might do shepherding activities, including but not limited to only elders. Then the pulpit minister might even be a pastor.
Comments?
(I have more questions).
“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?”
This discussion has proven one thing (in my opinion) that when it was written that God favors no man over the other it was true then and now.
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Act 10:34 Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Act 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
No, I can’t see where certain men have been “called by God” to be overseer of “the flock” which is an outdated reference to other members who are seen as equal in the eyes of the Lord.(yes the eldership likes to call the rest of us “the flock”)
Yes any organization of any size needs workers to keep order, but that should not mean they have been given command over the majority. The majority that gave them their job. It is strangely like politics, hey it is politics- we elect a person to look after our interests in church or government and right away they assume we gave them control over the very people who elected them.
Jhn 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.
Elders or preachers have to claim to be sent by God, because if they admit they are chosen by the congregation, that leaves them without any power over the members.
My “guess” is that the Holy Spirit didn’t intend for the function of the church to be “easy.” There is a dynamic of humility, discernment, service, that is worked out in the “doing” and it is usually worked out differently depending on the dynamics of the people involved. I’m sure the dynamics of the church in Tuscaloosa is different from the church in Tanzania or Taiwan… Romans 12:5 says that we who are many are one body, and individually members of one another.
It is our ability to function as a whole and the lessons we learn along the way as we attempt to do that successfully wherein we receive a certain about of sanctification in our journey. If the Holy Spirit had wanted the selection and oversight process to function in every church the exact same way it is pretty obvious that He could have said so and given instructions. He didn’t and I believe that was on purpose…
As much as some look for a “pattern”, I’ve always wondered why the body didn’t “cast lots.”
David
The congregation will pick elders to do their bidding. A congregation who does not do evangelism will pick leaders who conform to their expectation.
Wow. I seldom have so many questions for EVERY person posting …
Jay, it looks to me (with a skeptical eye) as though the current elders being part of the process is problematic, but almost as much would be keeping them out of the equation. Certainly prudence would demand that they NOT be the central or approving group to whom the names would be submitted. David makes a good point about that.
David, so for you the new preacher is not an issue since he would be inclined to be guided wholly by the Spirit and the congregation’s interests? Right? I would like to hear more about your thought that neighboring elders might appoint new elders. I find no scriptural foundation for that, and i wonder just how close or far a neighboring congregation’s elders would need to be? And what would keep those elders from trying to recreate their own image in the congregation for which they would be asked to help appoint elders?
Robert, I agree that there is a lot of role confusion, but how would you resolve/address that issue?
John, your statement about what some would find “authoritative” seems to be at the heart of this entire thread. Why is it that we so often come back to this word? And if we dismiss the precedents we DO have as being from an infant church (what do we call an older congregation that has nobody to be elders, if not infant or immature?), where do we look at all for a precedent from a more mature congregation?
WHEW!!
Would be great to hear back from all or some of you…
Grizz
I remember when my father was first asked to serve as an elder, he declined. He felt that he was too young. I do not remember just how old he was at the time, but he was in his early to mid-thirties. Later, he accepted and served with distinction for many years.
The word πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros), usually translated as elder, “can be employed both as a designation of age and also as a title of office. The two meanings cannot always be distinguished with clarity….” (TDNT).
Yet, we need to keep both elements in view. I have become convinced that few who are much under the age of 50 have the life experience necessary in an elder. Why 50? Did the Jews who objected to Jesus in John 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” just pull that number out of the air – or did they attach some significance to that age? I think it was the later.
While the elder is to be older, it is not the age of the geriatric. The geriatric is in the decline of life when man is losing his powers. While such men can still be very good men, they do not have the stamina they had in earlier years. Hence, it is possible for elders to hold on too long. In the past week, while making calls on behalf of EEM, I have talked with two men whom I had as contacts in different churches who have resigned as elders because of age. They felt that it was time for them to go, since they were approaching eighty.
These ages should not be taken as absolute, that an elder should never be appointed before he is fifty and must cease to serve when he turns eighty. Individuals will differ. I know one man appointed as an elder before he was forty who serves with distinction. I have known others who were past eighty who still serve with distinction.
Why bring it up then? Simply because too often the requisite wisdom receives scant consideration in our appointing of elders. Let’s be serious about why these men are called elder in the first place – and quit appointing men who are too young.
I realize I was not considered a “person” by Grizz. But I will continue to state my opinion anyway, as long as I am permitted to do so.
I have a question for Jay, and any other “elder” here, Have you held the same view over the years you have been “elder” or have some of your views changed. In other words do you give the same advice as you did years ago, if not, have you gone back to those you have advised wrongly, and corrected that advise. There are many older people who see things greatly different from their younger days. That is why I agree with Jerry, a leader requires some age, and stability. Unless you know what you are going to believe next week, don’t preach on that subject this week. you might influence someone to believe what you used to believe. I will go farther than Jerry did, I believe elders should be between the age of sixty and eighty. you can do a lot of good in twenty years, a lot of damage too.
I’m not completely convinced the elder deacon model is the method we need today to lead the church. I understand why it has come to this point that we have such organization. But it does not completely describe the total organization of the universal church. Such methods seem equal to or comparable to just good people doing good things in a loving manner. Another thing is historically such organization has not existed. Such terms has Shepherds and sheep are cultural and have little meaning for us today. Our communities today and societal norms are far different from communities of first century church.
Jesus never seem to say anything good about the elders or leaders. Lk 22:24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Eldership and leadership and are not a position of authority. Take for instance hiring and firing where do get such thinking? Not from Lk 22:24-27. You see with what you measure out it will be measured back to you. Jesus never fired any one! Nor did he hire people. Instead he said, John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep.
This really is the best model of church. Its how Jesus wanted his church to be care for. In other words spiritually speaking the hired hand is the “leadership.” Do we really want a elder deacon model that is nothing more than a hired hand? Leadership that thinks they own the sheep. Or leadership that runs at the first sign of trouble.
My apologies, Laymond. You are definitely a “person” in my book. LOL. When I began writing there were only four who had posted. I did not realize there were more until AFTER I hit the “Post Comment” button.
Sincerely and with a bit of humor,
Grizz
While I agree with Laymond about experience and maturity being essential to the elder, the quality of that experience and maturity are even more important than the quantity. Remember that the early church did not have long-tenured Christians. It had some long-tenured Jews. Not sure how long the Cretan church was in development before Paul asked Titus to appoint elders, but I doubt that it was thirty years.
I first became an elder at 38. Pretty young, I would agree. But I was a lifelong believer, a former full-time preacher, father of several children, shepherd to multiple small home groups, with time in missions in Africa and Mexico. I ran a local business. I left a wide trail anyone could check, for better or worse, to see what sort of leader I was. There is a difference between types of experience. A company president once reminded me, “We have hired a lot of people thinking they had 20 years’ experience, only to find out they had two years’ experience, ten times.”
I respect those who are older than I am, and often seek their counsel. But– generally speaking– if we make effective spiritual leaders “wait their turn” to be elders until they are approaching retirement age, we will mainly see people who will protect the status quo, not move forward.
It is like what we see in the natural world: Grandpa (age 87) dies and leaves the family business to Dad (age 65). A common practice, but is this wise? Is Dad more likely to work early and late to build the business, to embrace new ideas and technology and markets? Or would that be more like Junior (age 43), who has been working with Dad for the last fifteen years? Just because it’s the way we have always done it does not mean it was a good idea…
Grizz noted: “John, your statement about what some would find “authoritative” seems to be at the heart of this entire thread. Why is it that we so often come back to this word? And if we dismiss the precedents we DO have as being from an infant church (what do we call an older congregation that has nobody to be elders, if not infant or immature?), where do we look at all for a precedent from a more mature congregation?”
>>
Why are we looking to be led by precedent at all? Have we not the Holy Spirit? Is he not here, right now? I think He is “authoritative” enough for me. Perhaps we should let Him take what is of Jesus and make it known to us. Not theoretically or philosophically or interpretively, but really, in real time.
As to John’s idea, it seems to me to be a simple approach to accessing the wisdom for which we are seeking in the first place, when we first seek out elders. If any lack wisdom, let him ask God. If God supplies this wisdom among a group of godly men down the block, that seems not only feasible, but just what we might expect from God, who provides what we need even before we know to ask for it.
John,
Its easy to find the authority hierarchy in any church.
Just go by the one most paid by the church and on down the payment scale.
Charles, you wrote, “If God supplies this wisdom among a group of godly men down the block, that seems not only feasible, but just what we might expect from God, who provides what we need even before we know to ask for it.”
“A group of godly men down the block…” Is it “godly men” who continue to maintain a separate assembly from fellow believers “down the block”?? Is that not a witness against them actually being “godly men”?
Jesus prayed for unity and we deliver the flavor of our faith from this part of the block. Does nobody else see a problem there? Are we so used to having 3, 5, 10 congregations within a block or two or several from one another that this seems like a good idea?
WE prefer the intimacy of a smaller church.
WE prefer the way they do things at THIS congregation.
WE prefer the children’s program here.
WE prefer …
We prefer …
We prefer …
Are WE the Lord who gets to decide which fellow believers are the ones we would like to prefer?
Brother, there are a lot of things that add up to someone being a godly man, but I cannot ever remember thinking that men who choose to make do with less just to keep separate from other nearby believers, maintaining separate facilities that stretch separate smaller budgets, and which tell the community that unity is an afterthought at best among us – I cannot ever remember thinking that was any part of the description of “godly men.”
Charles, I am not indicting you. I have caught myself thinking those kinds of thoughts all too often. Familiarity breeds a certain amount of acceptance. When we get to accepting that having 20 small or medium or large or a mixture of these congregations in a small city is a good idea, it should make us stop and think about who is winning the battle for the hearts and unity of God’s people. The enemy is prowling … or in this case, purring … and allowing ourselves to be divided for easy pickings is hardly a sign of how many godly men we have among us. It is a sign of the absence of godly men.
When will we learn?
(sigh……..)
Grizz
Just spoofing you Grizz. I am way to old to get my feelings hurt by something, someone didn’t say to me. I don’t require much attention.
“And I’ve seen the harm that one poorly chosen elder can bring to a church”
Why would God allow us to poorly choose?
Alabama John:
If the Apostle Paul found himself in the year 2012, what would he be shocked by most; a system in which
a pastor leads the local church and one who is called the Bishop leading the region; or, by the specialization of ministry in which the one who preaches and teaches most Sundays is considered the leader? Or, would he be shocked at all? Hard to say.
But considering that Paul was the liberal of his day (if you don’t think so, just ask the Jerusalem church), and he found no problem with being all things to all people he might just look at both and say “it works; good job”.
Grizz said: “A group of godly men down the block…” Is it “godly men” who continue to maintain a separate assembly from fellow believers “down the block”?? Is that not a witness against them actually being “godly men”?
>>>
If such renders a man “ungodly”, Grizz, then there is not a godly man among us. Under your argument, the very existence of a discrete local congregations means that no one is qualified to be an elder in any city. That’s not just a universal indictment, but a conviction and condemnation as well. And it leaves us only with the same individual self-rule from which we suffer already.
Grizz, if you read my stuff, you will find I have been the most vocal of critics of the folly of “congregational autonomy”. But it seems to me that reaching through those walls is a nascent challenge to the artificiality of those congregational distinctions. You can hardly condemn our disunity while decrying attempts at real functional connection among our religion clubs. Your argument appears to boil down to this, “Our disunified clubs have disunified leaders, so we have no real godly leadership at all. Well, except for me, leading myself.”
I can think of only one thing worse than congregational autonomy; that is individual autonomy.
Mark asked, “Why would God allow us to poorly choose?”
Mark, are you talking about elders or spouses?
The main reason for our poor choices of elders is our lack of serious consultation with God. Putting the responsibility for that mistake back on God would seem foolish to me.
Jhn 4:24n God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
“Why would God allow us to poorly choose?”
Mark, and Charles, In my opinion we choose poorly, because we are to choose a God to follow instead of a man.
Church today place great value in what Paul, or the early church fathers said, not concerned with the fact that they are following “dead men” why not follow the advice of Jesus Christ who is alive at the side of God the Father. I don’t recall where Jesus said choose a godly man to follow. Pick up your cross and follow ME. “they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.”
I don’t see any pattern here at all. and only one leader.
Laymond wrote: “Church today place great value in what Paul, or the early church fathers said, not concerned with the fact that they are following “dead men” why not follow the advice of Jesus Christ who is alive at the side of God the Father.”
>>>
This is an interesting perspective. It essentially tosses out all but four books of the NT canon as being superflous and merely the work of “dead men”, rather than as being the work of the Holy Spirit. Was that the intent, Laymond? I think this might violate Jay’s one and only rule around here: that he does not countenance challenges to the Bible itself.
Charles,
I know you would like to paint me into a corner, but what you seem to fail to realize is that I am not standing in a corner, but rather I am standing at the door.
If my questions sting, good. What stings one heals another.
If my observations seem extreme, I am not surprised. I serve an extreme Lord who went all the way to the cross to prove that the ‘unlovable’ are NOT really unlovable.
If we ignore the issues, they do not just go away – even if it is uncomfortable to think about them differently and hurts our heads. Better a hurt head than a lost soul, eh?
Charles, I do not belong to a ‘religion club.’ I am sorry if you do.
I belong to a Master who calls me to serve and be served with others who also belong to Him. We call it a family, a body, an assembly of believers/trusters who have surrendered to the same Lord. It is not a club. And, as a recent video aptly pointed out, it is also NOT a religion.
Have a blessed day, Charles. Let go of the accusations and try to imagine that the truth is not as extreme as you imagine. It is just different.
Grizz
For the record, I do not believe in autonomy of any kind – not personal and certainly not congregational. Autonomy is just another (PC?) word for failing to practice the unity Jesus prayed we would practice.
Blessings,
Grizz
Charles, the time I spend on Jay’s blog probably averages 20 minutes every other day, I might find some other way to fill that time, if Jay decides I am to controversial to comment here. but I probably will as long as I am allowed.
Grizz, does your response mean I have drawn the correct conclusion about your remarks about “godly men”? I confess that I struggled to connect your reply to my prior observation, so I may have missed your response. Oh, and while I am open to new or different trains of thought, novelty itself is not sufficient reason to accept any idea, or even to consider it. And so far, that’s all you have offered. The fact is that I questioned your ideas not because they are new (they’re not) but because they seem inconsistent with what I know of scripture. Grizz, you owe me no explanations at all. But if you are unwilling to even talk about possible flaws in your reasoning, it is unreasonable to expect others to continue to consider your ideas.
And amigo, please do not conflate disagreement with accusation. I know it sounds better to ask me to “let go of the accusations” instead of insisting that I stop questioning your ideas, but it is simply not accurate. If you feel I have misstated your view, please do feel free to correct my interpretation. It might help me understand your opinions better.
Laymond, did I read you right after all? That you deny the inspiration or necessity of the writings of those “dead men” which make up the NT canon after John’s gospel? Your clear differentiation between the words of Jesus and the words of those “dead men” suggests this viewpoint, but I was hoping for clarification. I asked about this before, hoping you would either confirm my conclusion or correct it, but you did neither. But hope springs eternal. It would be a shame for me to reject what you wrote simply because I did not fully understand what you meant.
He who interposes himself in other people’s discussion usually gets stoned from both sides. That sounds like something that should be found in Proverbs, apocryphal Proverbs, or at least some ECF. But, risking that endangerment ….
Laymond, I am having trouble following what you mean, also. Jesus is alive and at the right hand of the Father … absolutely agree. Paul the apostle is a dead man. Pretty reasonable statement. Could you explain what the significance that has to the discussion? So, we don’t follow dead men; we don’t follow men who are alive, either. But are you saying the words that Paul penned by the Holy Spirit are also dead? Are the red letter words more important than the other words of inspiration because Paul is dead? Well, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are dead also. But they quoted Jesus — well, so did Paul. Not only direct quotes but direct teaching from the principles of what Jesus said. Yes, we are to follow Jesus and not a “man.” Not a news flash. Where in the scripture does a human writer say people should follow him rather than Jesus? The problem isn’t that we follow a “man” as in the writings of Paul, the problem comes when I follow a “man” known as big number uno — me, myself. God lets us choose unwisely when we have an idol called ourselves to follow instead of Christ. And, do we have any help knowing Christ from our natural selves — the Holy Spirit shall guide you into all truth (John 16:13). Go ahead and argue that this was just for the apostles…. make my day. The apostles are dead, so where does that leave us? Flailing for the truth? If one doesn’t believe that the Holy Spirit works to lead us today, then one could come up with some pretty poorly directed dead ideas.
Do your comments have any relationship to your theology about the work of the Holy Spirit today — doesn’t indwell, doesn’t do this, doesn’t do that? Are your comments a consequence of this theology?
At further risk ….
Grizz, maybe I am somewhat naive, but when I read Charles’ statement about “some wise men down the street,” I didn’t assume they were down the street separated by division in the body. I agree — people who exercise division in the body are not wise men – division in the body and wisdom is an oxymoron. I didn’t interpret that Charles was suggesting that. I assumed that, since the men were wise, they exercised their gifts for the body more effectively in their location down the street and that they operated in love and fellowship with all the believers around them.
Now, maybe that’s a goodie-two-shoes perspective, but if one were to assume that to be correct and division is the body wasn’t in the interpretation of Charles’ comment, then what Charles said about people in different locations sharing their wisdom for the benefit of one another is correct and a good thing. AND, all the things you said about the problem of division in the body of Christ are right on!! I was reading your post and thinking, “Amen, Yeah, Right!!” Division and lack of unity is shredding the church of power, and Christians are falling like dominoes for the dupes of Satan. The gates of Hell will not be stormed by a bunch of people arguing with each other.
So, at the risk of misunderstanding both of you, I took a different assumption, and, to me, you were both right — in what you originally said. I don’t know how much of the following exchange I would endorse, but we can learn from everything if we can remain humble.
Peace, brothers.
Theo asked, “Where in the scripture does a human writer say people should follow him rather than Jesus?”
Nowhere I can think of, except here.
1Cr 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. KJV
1Cr 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. NIV
1Cr 11:1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. ASV
Only Paul, said, I will follow Jesus, you follow me. It seems to me it would have been just as easy to say, Follow Jesus , just as I do.
Theo, my theology is of consequence of what is written in the bible, not of what men think, or assume.
“It seems to me it would have been just as easy to say, Follow Jesus , just as I do.”
Seems to me that is what he said, so “except here” is not an exception.
“my theology is of consequence of what is written in the bible, not of what men think, or assume.”
“not what men think?” You mean OTHER men? What are you, Laymond? You certainly follow what you think. And if you don’t believe the Holy Spirit works to bring you to all truth, all that you have to follow is what YOU think. And to not see out of that box is a problem.
“what is written in the bible.” Does this include those books written by dead men, like Paul?
Laymond, you said, “Church today place great value in what Paul, or the early church fathers said, not concerned with the fact that they are following “’dead men.’”
Two people have questioned you as to what you mean by that statement? Have you not just contradicted yourself?
Like previous exchanges, this is destined to become a “dead horse.” Ad repeatum.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a Christian say that the entire New Testament, except for the four gospels was uninspired….. Surely, that’s not what Laymond meant…Surely.
“Seems to me that is what he said, so “except here” is not an exception.”
That is the problem with discussing the bible, instead of reading what it says, people put their spin on it to make it say what they want it to say
Either someone did not quote Paul correctly, or he said “follow me” I don’t recall any of the “Twelve” who said that.
“what is written in the bible.” Does this include those books written by dead men, like Paul?
I read the writings of Paul, more than any other biblical writer, except John.
and yes Paul’s writings have influenced my beliefs greatly on such things as “doing church” good or bad influence is still influence, how many CoC congregations can you name that split because of a dispute over what Jesus said. ? Theo 1 Cor chap 11 is a good place to start.
Price said, “Surely, that’s not what Laymond meant…Surely.”
Price, I believe the entire NT is as inspired as the four books of the gospel.
Theophilus,
With more consideration of what Charles said and what you said, I can see that I did make just the observation that you noted – that the division is obvious on the surface when there are two sister congregations not in neighboring towns but just down the block from one another, operating as independent and only marginally related bodies. And perhaps my observation does hinge a bit on whether or not this division is deliberate.
When is it NOT deliberate? And where do we know of a community of any size with multiple congregations and only one group of elders serving ALL of those congregations? Has anyone heard or known of such a case in America in our lifetimes? Have we even heard of such an occurrence outside of the pages of inspired scripture?
Yes, I based my observation on my own limited experience. The real question, though, is whether the observation is reasonable or unreasonable. So I put it out there to all who are reading these posts and the associated comments …
Does anyone here know of a place, even just one, where two congregations exist in the same town, maintaining separate facilities and separate budgets and separate programs and yet who share elders and preachers interchangeably and seamlessly?
(Please note that I would even accept the ‘mega-church’ model of a home congregation and one or more satellite congregations IF-IF-IF there is seamless integration of the leaders and self-identification with the whole of all of the groups … and IF-IF-IF there is not another sister congregation in the same community. And I do observe that at least in this latter case, it is a step in the right direction however short of actual and complete mutual acceptance it may be.)
Jerusalem was not a small community. It has been fairly, I believe, observed on more than one occasion that there were most likely many gathering places utilized by smaller-than-the-whole groups of believers in that city. Still, in the pages of the record we have I read of only one leadership group that watched over the whole group. There were chosen from among the whole group several men who cared for and served the entirety of the whole group of believers as one body with one mind in the unity for which Jesus prayed so fervently. And I do not imagine that there were no fringe groups who tried to distinguish themselves from the majority. There were certainly noted factions among the believers, though nothing is specifically noted about them having separate leaderships, rather that even among the factions there was a co-mingling at least of leaders/elders/apostles/preachers among them universally accepted and respected.
Can we say as much about any community of believers today? I know of no such community and would love to hear about such a community today in America in the 21st century. Has anyone else been part of such a community?
And how accepting of the elders of a neighboring congregation in your community are YOU? Are you ready to let them and encourage them to – speak for the congregation where you assemble regularly and where they do not assemble with you or know you at all? How much influence do you allow them to have over you?
WHY THIS MATTERS TO ME …
For others here this may be just an intellectual exercise to explore unfamiliar but entirely scriptural ideals. It is much more than that for me … and not only for me but also for the community in which I live. In a community of 22,000 souls where it takes a good map to know where neighboring villages and towns and cities border this one, we have more than 100 places of assembly where the name of Jesus is spoken and heralded as ‘Lord.’ Within that more than 100 places of assembly are four separate congregations that barely know one another though ALL four are rooted in the Stone-Campbell American Restoration Movement. Only one is an a capella congregation where fellowship and even attendance is a very closed and closely guarded opportunity. None of the four is closely associated with the Disciples of Christ. Two of the remaining three are the products of a church split in the 1970s. The third is a recent church plant focused wholly on outreach to the ‘unchurched’ in this community, eschewing the usual ‘member-swap evangelism’ that is quite prevalent among neighboring groups of believers. One congregation hovers around 75 members. One hovers around 35 members. The third and newest congregation hovers around 55 members. None of these three is really effectively reaching the lost in our community of 22,000 souls, though the newest congregation has been seeing more baptisms/new births than the other two assemblies combined.
The largest facility is owned and maintained by the smallest group. The smallest facility is owned and maintained by the largest group. The middle-sized group leases a space that is increasingly unsuited to their group’s use due to a variety of factors.
The smallest group with the largest facility is no longer fiscally able to maintain that facility. Its aging membership has only 12 regular attendees under the age of 50 and has 15 regular attendees over the age of 70. This congregation has three chosen shepherds and two ministers who receive housing allowances only and another minister who receives only reimbursement for most of the monthly expenses of putting out the weekly bulletin. All of the elders are over 80 and only one of the ministers is under 50.
So discussing how close congregations are within a community is a very near and dear subject for me. Discussing how elders relate to their fellow believers is absolutely vital to me. And there are no easy resolutions, despite a clear and ever-present call to unity by the Lord that is given at least some lip-service by three of the four SC/RM congregations and even a few of the rest of the assemblies where Jesus is called ‘Lord’ in this town.
This is not theory here … and certainly not for me.
Just so you know …
Blessings,
Grizz
Grizz,
My comment about elder appointments was simply to emphasize that the only Text-based process is to have an itinerant evangelist make the appointments. We don’t have very many itinerant evangelists these days. And even if we did, I doubt we’d agree to let them appoint our elders … so I was throwing out a “off-the-wall” idea.
To your more recent question, there is a growing number of “mega-churches” who have satellite campuses, where the sermon from the “home” church is broadcast to the satellite facilities. I know this is true of Farmer’s Branch in the Dallas area. I think it’s true of The Hills, in Fort Worth and the Oak Hills Church in San Antonio.
It’s even more common among other groups. Life Church, Oklahoma City; McLean Bible Church, McLean, VA; Second Baptist Church, Houston, TX.
Perhaps both Timothy and Titus weren’t merely Itinerant Evangelists but also Apostles in the general sense. In other words, right-hand men of the 12(well technically 13) Apostles. Maybe that’s why they had authority to oversee congregational leadership selection.
Just a thought.
David,
Isn’t it interesting to note that among a people who make so much use of precedent to do so in elder selection is viewed as being “off the wall”?
We are more cafeteria style people than we like to admit.
As far as the mega-churches that you mentioned, I would venture a guess that there are sister churches within those same geographical areas that do not participate in shared elders and preachers – which is the precise point I was making in reference to Charles’ observations.
Again, this is a very practical and real matter for me due to the current situation in the assembly I attend and serve. More than enough details about that have already been shared.
As I told our elders when asked, my greatest and only real concern beyond personal preferences is that God be glorified in every decision and in our approach to decision-making. If that means we get “off the wall” in some of our considerations, so be it. If that means looking into the scriptures for precedents, so be it. If that means finding another path previously not considered, so be it as long as God is glorified by the process from beginning to end.
I am unreservedly and without qualification committed to my Master. My life and everything about it belong to Him.
To that end … I appreciate your counsel and Charles’, and everyone else’s who has seen fit to respond to me and to the other comments. May God bless us with wisdom to meet the challenges before us to His glory.
Blessings,
Grizz
Grizz
I agree with your assessment of the church today. What you have described in the city in which you reside is a “real world” example of a major problem that is repeated over and over with great destruction. That is why the church is more in retreat mode than it is in “attack the gates of Hell” mode. And the “real world” example — that’s the problem. The situation between the different churches that you described is “of the world” and not “of the kingdom of God” that Jesus established. It is of the natural, not spiritual. Yes, division is always intentional. Unity is a choice; peace is a choice; forgiveness is a choice; love is a choice. Adam and Eve had the first choice. They chose poorly, and I believe the church today is making the same mistake. Many congregations today couldn’t get along well enough to even share the same “apple.” So they slice the “apple” into slivers, with each one claiming their slice is better than any other slice. Some make applesauce and serve it at their potluck fellowships, which they protect from contamination from “those people over there.” It is all still “apple.”
I hear you, brother. I feel your passion for this. Too many Christians in churches sit comfortably in their pews without recognizing the auditorium walls are really the sides of a handbasket, and they and their idolatrous and prideful attitudes are headed for a little trip.
I am just saying that, for me, the issue of unity in the body of Christ is one that is as big as the universe, and, by comparison to that, any issue with what Charles might have phrased is the size of a grain of sand. Just my perspective.
I choose peace. God bless.
Theophilus … and Charles, too,
I also choose the shalom of Yahweh.
Blessings,
Grizz
I’m no expert on the subject of church structure. That being said I have been in a Methodist church where people who don’t attend the local church choose the preacher who aside from being able after several years to be voted out lead the church. That in my experience leads to many difficult experiences. I’ve also been in a Baptist church where it seemed committees were nominated and voted on by the members to make many decisions some of which were accepted or declined by vote. That seems to work okay as long as it doesn’t create factions which does occur from time to time. I also attended a Weslyan church and can’t say I know how it was run though it seemed to be a great church. Now I find myself in a CoC that is elder run and it to me is run very well. I have heard stories that leads me to believe that some are not. So it leads me to believe that however the elders are chosen, it should be well thought out. Personally I feel a church may have to evolve depending on the need. Christ desired unity in His church and as far as I can tell the leaders at the time evolved the structure to fit the need at the time. Deacons grew out of a need and my guess is as other needs arose structure grew out of it. If a missionary starts a church in their home they end up leading it to begin with out of need. Later if it grows there may be a need for more leaders and more structure. It’s hard to imagine starting a church by looking for elders first. So it may be okay to entertain other structure in my opinion as long as Christ is the head and a unity is sought. My favorite structure at present would be the elder run, but that may be because I have very good elders.
I know I have already gotten into enough trouble here for suggesting we should follow what Jesus said, but I am just a glutton for punishment.
Early on in this discussion Price said;
My “guess” is that the Holy Spirit didn’t intend for the function of the church to be “easy.”
Why guess about it Price when Jesus himself said it was easy?
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.
I believe we just make it harder than it has to be.maybe some (elders) get an ego boost from telling people what the bible does not say.
Laymond….I guess I was just looking at how difficult it has been for groups to agree and get along…all the way back from the beginning… the disciples argued about who was the greatest… Paul and Peter got into a heated exchange in public…. Paul and Barnabas agreed to disagree about John Mark… It seems that as far as interpersonal relationships go, it’s NEVER been easy… That’s why I suggested that perhaps there is something to be learned in the often trying process of working together. But, perhaps you are correct…that as we learn more about how to do that and set the example for others to follow it will be easier to do..I’m sure there are many who wish that day would hurry up and get here !!
Laymond wrote: “I know I have already gotten into enough trouble here for suggesting we should follow what Jesus said, but I am just a glutton for punishment.”
>>>
Laymond, you are suggesting by this statement that those of us who don’t follow your reasoning are somehow not interested in following what Jesus said. This is patently untrue and seems specifically designed to try to shame people who disagree with you into shutting up. Your brothers deserve better treatment.
By the way, if we are to follow “what Jesus said”, he SAID that the Holy Spirit would come and take what is of Jesus and make it known to us. You agree that the Holy Spirit inspired the NT scripture, so how do you now disregard parts of it as of lesser significance than the “red letters” and call this “following what Jesus said”?
“You agree that the Holy Spirit inspired the NT scripture,”
Charles, read what I said again.
Out of respect of being invited into anothers home I won’t discuss subjects, I am asked not to.so I invite Charles or Price to my blog to discuss any subject you wish to discuss.
http://laymond-meredith.blogspot.com/
Laymond, I withdraw my assumption. Sorry for misreading you. And I don’t really see any personal value in hearing the inspiration of scripture denied. To me, it is a matter of faith, not argument. But thanks for the invitation.
Charles, Just thought I would give you the chance to explain why you believe what you believe. sorry you can’t accept.
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
If you decide to follow Peter’s advise I will always be willing, to discuss matters, of the bible.