20. The search committee. I have mixed feelings about search committees. I’ve had good and bad luck with and without one. I’ve been on search committees, and I’ve been part of an eldership that hired without one. I’ve had great successes and great failures both ways.
My misgivings derive from the unique relationship a preacher should have with his elders. The search process is kind of like this —
a. Decide what sort of man you want to hire.
b. Cast a wide net looking for candidates.
c. Call potential candidates to determine their interest.
d. Interview interested candidates and their wives.
e. Narrow the list.
f. Try out the best candidates.
g. Make the hire.
Now, the elders will necessarily be involved in nearly every step. The elders will be among the members with the most network connections. (They should be.) They will generate many names just from people they know.
Every candidate will want to chat with the elders before deciding whether to visit. A candidate may have questions about the elders’ relationship with the last minister or the church’s theology or vision that only the elders can completely answer.
A serious candidate will want to spend hours with the elders in interviews. He’ll likely be on the phone with multiple elders talking salary or theology or vision or history.
And, ultimately, the hiring decision will be made by the elders.
That is, a search committee may not save the elders much time. In fact, it may cost them time, as the elders must deal not only with candidates but the search committee. It can add a layer of bureaucracy that slows the process and separates the candidate from the elders — which should not be a good thing.
Moreover, many preachers figure that churches have power centers separate from the elders. They’ll view the search committee as reflecting who holds the real power — by virtue of large contributions, years of attendance, family connections, or whatever. The preacher may perceive that he owes some special loyalty to the committee that got him his job.
The case is different for other ministerial positions. In most churches a pulpit minister has a relationship with the elders unlike that enjoyed by a youth minister, for example. The pulpit minister typically attends elders meeting and works alongside the elders as nearly another elder.
Most church members don’t think in these terms, and don’t realize how very close the pulpit minister and elders have to be for the church to be healthy. If he’s thought of as a mere hireling or subordinate, the elders and the minister will be limited in how well they can lead the church.
Therefore, it’s unavoidable that the elders must be very heavily involved in the hiring process.
On the other hand, there is a lot of work that goes into a search, and delegation is normally good and wise. The elders will have other responsibilities and, to the extent possible, shouldn’t let themselves be bogged down in the search.
I’m inclined to think that the longer the search process continues, the more valuable a search committee will be, as a long search is hard on the church — even with an interim. It’s important for the church to see that every effort is being made to bring in the next pulpit guy.
On the other hand, if the elders have two or three excellent candidates in hand at the beginning of the process, things will go much faster without a search committee.
After just a few months of searching and interviewing, too many other issues pile up behind the other things elders need to do. You have to have the discipline to get out of the pulpit and the search (to the limited extent possible) soon enough so that the elders can tend to their usual pastoral responsibilities without being overwhelmed.
If I were to do it again, and if I had two or three excellent candidates in hand at the beginning, I’d interview those guys and, if they didn’t work out, I’d immediately go to a search committee and interim minister — even if in the meantime I had a list of 20 great candidates in hand. I’d turn them over to the search committee no matter what.
Be careful not to overly empower the search committee. They should help the elders without working independently of the elders. The candidate should never be under the illusion that he has to kowtow to power centers in the church separate from the elders. No man can serve two masters, and most preachers won’t take a job with a church where there are members who compete with the elders for control.
Remember, the candidate doesn’t know your church, and you can send signals that are easily misunderstood due to his lack of context.
An elder (or two) should be present at every meeting of the search committee — and the search committee should see such an arrangement as empowering. Having an elder present can help the team and elders stay on the same page so the committee doesn’t search for someone the elders won’t hire.
(I realize that many readers have a distrust of elders generally and will assume that the search committee should work free from the elders’ influence. This is bad theology and, in practice, a recipe for a disaster. Power contests will run off any candidate with a lick of sense. If you don’t like your elders, don’t do a preacher search, do an elder search.)
Oh … and don’t create a huge committee. Less than 12 is the rule. More than that and they’ll have trouble reaching consensus and there just won’t be enough time in the day for everyone to speak to every important question.
Keep it lean.
21. Delegate like crazy. Preachers do lots of things that, because they do them, elders don’t have to do them. Once the old preacher is gone, the workload on the elders (and the remaining ministers) can quickly become overwhelming.
The temptation is to man up and handle it, but the better move is to delegate like crazy.
Set up a committee to find the interim guy. Set up another committee to find the preacher. Put elders on both committees, so you know what’s going on and can answer the truly hard questions quickly. But delegate.
Other tasks the elders might have easily handled in a normal setting may be too much with no preacher and a couple of searches going on. Add to every agenda a question at the end: Which of these problems can we delegate? To whom? Which one of us will call and recruit volunteers?
Jay, more than once you have compared the Church’s search for a preacher to that of the search for a life long partner, A wife.
Jay, am I wrong, or does the Church not already have a life long commitment to a husband, and that husband is committed to caring for his wife . Has that marriage became so boring that the bride is now looking for something glamorous, and exciting. Well as far as I can recall the wife of Christ was never promised the glamorous , life of the rich starlets of Hollywood, but right the opposite, a life of giving, a life of service, a life of hate and opposition, how can a wife go into a marriage hoping for more than a husband can give, like many marriages wives go in knowing full well what the circumstances are, but say yes, but I will change him. No a marriage is a commitment to work for mutual good of that marriage, and what ever springs from it.
Has the marriage of the Church to Jesus Christ become so boring that the wife of Jesus has become willing to jump into bed with Satan in order to spice up her own life, has worship of God become so boring that we need dancing with great bands playing in order to justify our coming to church meetings? No bobbles and, bangles,and beads will only last so long, how much longer will it be before they demand blood on the alter, now that would really get the old heart pumping, wow, what a worship service that will be. This may be extreme now, but how long will it be extreme. When we build the worship service around what the worshipers desire, in order to bring them (and their purse) into the building, who knows where it will lead. It has already lead to a place where some of us are not willing to go, but some seem willing to take the next step, no matter what that step entails.
A dove on the alter really wouldn’t be that bad would it? Well that is the way it starts small, but it grows. Anybody got any small children they don’t need? In my opinion some have already placed their soul on that alter of excitement, in a thousand years (could be sooner the way things are moving) who knows what will be offered in order to please that false god? and maybe they will look back to us as being the ones who started the slide.
What God brought together, let no man pull apart. I would surely fear to be that man that pulled Christ’s bride from his arms.
It’s a matter of opinion but I long ago decided that the general Protestant terminology of calling a minister not only sounds better than hiring a minister but better accords with biblical principles. The preacher today is the modern manifestation of the biblical ministry of the evangelist. (And, no, nothing in scripture required evangelists to be always moving around.) Surely we can put the bringing of a minister on a different level than the hiring of a custodian.
Don’t all churches have power centers separate from the elders?
Just because elderly women can’t be elders in most churches does not mean that they are powerless. Some of them hold more power than one can imagine. This question of not knowing who is in charge has been debated on other blogs and is part of the reasons for shrinking Churches of Christ.
For those of you not familiar with this issue, there is a problem that has always existed but is now being discussed in public (on the internet) about good ideas squelched by elders when certain members (a tiny minority) of the congregation express their dislike of the proposed idea.
Jay wrote: “If you don’t like your elders, don’t do a preacher search, do an elder search.”
That sounds great until you have one who has amassed the power to stop everything.
Jim, that is what you get when money comes before God. I have heard it said “you can’t worship two masters.” I believe that is proven to be true. I would venture to say the members of which you speak, are not the poor members. but the ones who carry the largest purse.
Laymond, good grief. brother, you need a hobby.
another one besides Arianism.
why don’t you post your thoughts on the topic on your own blog, instead of writing a book in Jay’s comment section?
Most COC today around here do not have elders but have a meeting of the men.
To get something done, it would be smart to consider the womens position. We men have to live with them don’t we.
It doesn’t take long to determine who the head elder is in a congregation and in many, it is the one that has written the most tracts or is the most educated. How many times do you hear “He has a …. degree”.
I was once at a church that had a search committee that all but one agreed on a preacher. So that the recommendation was unanimous they asked the one dissenting member to resign. The preacher was hired. Two years later half the church was gone. The member who resigned had to be thinking, I told you so.
I like the following: “Delegate like crazy. Preachers do lots of things that, because they do them, elders don’t have to do them. Once the old preacher is gone, the workload on the elders (and the remaining ministers) can quickly become overwhelming. The temptation is to man up and handle it, but the better move is to delegate like crazy.”
But I think I like this for a different reason. When we have a congregation whose life and work depends on a hired specialist, the loss of that specialist can be revelatory. Whatever the preacher was being paid to do has to be examined, and the needful parts delegated to others. But to do this without taking the opportunity to review what we are doing generally is missing a wonderful window into our own patterns and practices, a chance to really see into what we often look past when things are “business as usual”.
Who has gifts and callings which we need to develop, but we don’t do it because we hire somebody to do that sort of thing? What gifted teachers do we have (not even counting the elders)? What sort of team leaders and program administrators do we have? Some of your people are demonstrating these gifts in their jobs and in the community but not in your own church, because you hired the work out so you don’t need them.
What are our own responsibilities as elders? Not from talking to each other, but as seen from interacting more closely with the flock than when we had a preacher. You know, like, like shepherds. If the sheep are not coming to us for shepherding, do they really see us as shepherds? Should they? If they do, why have we been delegating this central responsibility?
How does our process change when we don’t have a full-time preacher? What goes dormant? What continues on uninterrupted? What flourishes? Who steps up? Who suffers? And most of all, WHY?
I think the one thing the elders should NOT delegate is the selection of their chief surrogate/assistant. Get input, absolutely. But a search committee just reinforces the perception of elders mainly as a governing board and complaint department.
Elders should think of losing the preacher like a trip to the mechanic when you crack a radiator. If the car isn’t broke, most people don’t take it in for an overhaul. But now, while the car is already on the lift, it’s a good time to get a look at everything, rather than just swapping out that one leaky part for a new one and getting back on the freeway.
Fascinating humanistic process, however you don’t see anything remotely resembling this in the NT. So much for being NT Christians. 😉
Skip, the NT letters only give us a picture of a moment in time primarily of new church plants. Those churches had to grow and evolve over time to meet changing circumstances both external and internal. I would highly recommend that any Christian interested in ecclesiology read the classic work by Raymond E. Brown entitled The Churches the Apostles Left Behind.
Gary, I believe the NT gives us the most important snapshots in time. Since there is a dearth of information correlating to our modern search methods, I conclude we are approaching it wrong. Heck, I can see little difference between the method described above and modern industry search methods.
Skip, you may well be right but I think critics have a responsibility to offer a constructive alternative. I find the mutual edification model in 1 Corinthians 14 attractive but in practice it has only been adopted by very small Churches of Christ and would seem to be impractical for churches of more than 50 or so. I am thankful to Mutual Edification Churches of Christ, however, for producing Carl Ketcherside. He was the apostle without honor who blazed the way for progressive Churches of Christ today.
I am not interested in models X, Y, or Z. Mutual edification leaves the church without strong leaders, and yes it won’t work for large congregations. In the first century outside leaders came to a town to start a church AKA Paul, Timothy, etc.. they then left the church to grow their own leaders and shepherd them. The leader pushes the church forward and the elders provide feedback. If all members assume ownership of each other then the burden does not fall on only a few. This is much more consistent with the NT.
Brian, thanks for taking the time out of your busy schedule to advice me on what I should do and where I should do it, but if I ignore your advice don’t let it hurt your feelings. If I were in need of advice I might search somewhere else.
I guess that for many years I have held the concept that I thought I saw in scripture that the preacher at a church was not someone that had as much authority, duty, or prominence in the church as we see in action today. I don’t remember any letters that were addressed to the preacher of a established assembly. I saw the structure of the church as the Elders being the backbone, the individuals that members were in ready contact with, you might say in the trenches with, multiple men in the assembly whom the members felt very comfortable confiding in and the preachers were not placed in nearly as great a responsibility in the church as we are accustomed to seeing today. It appears to me that the communication about preachers today is almost like the CEO of an organization, they many times almost have more authority than the board of directors. The CEO is also somewhat a public relations representative. I thought that the Elders were to be fulfilling that purpose within the church, but we recognize that the preacher is most of the time in that position. Is that really the picture displayed in scripture? I have seen scriptures that state there was a man who was designated as ruler of the synagogue at a location. Sometimes our preachers seem to fulfill that role.
Brian, you might do well to take your own advice and leave your degrading remarks about me on my blog, you know where it it, but it is not my problem where you stick them.
I have to agree with Gary here, in that the early church was an infant church, a growing and evolving group of people learning to follow Jesus together. In my view, this “restorationist” idea of copying “the NT church”, as though it began in mature perfection, is misguided. In fact, such an image of a pristine early church does not even track with the biblical record. It is obvious to even the casual observer that the Restoration Movement groups are highly selective in what pieces of the anecdotal history they collect for their picture– which they then insist we should all slavishly copy. But the early church itself did not start out with some sort of comprehensive blueprint; it continued to receive revelation from God and to learn how to walk out both Jesus’ teachings and subsequent revelation and instruction. If one really wanted to be the “NT church” then he would have to expect us to keep doing exactly what they were doing– learning, changing, correcting errors, getting revelation from God, and addressing current challenges and opportunities as the Spirit leads us. That is the real picture found in the books to the right of Malachi.
When we trade this living, breathing, growing dynamic for mere rote repetition of old anecdotes about certain events in the middle first century, it is THEN we have abandoned what we read of the church in the New Testament.
Gary, you suggest that the modern preacher is more the equivalent to the evangelist found in the New Testament. Is this solely based on the letters to Timothy or on some other observation?
And BTW, I agree with you entirely about Carl Ketcherside. Give the CoC another 20 years and perhaps he will get his due…
Charles, I base the preaching and teaching minister being a continuation of the ministry of an evangelist primarily on Timothy but Epaphas in Colossians also seems to have been their located evangelist. In Acts we find Philip leaving the Ethiopian eunuch and going to a certain town (Caesarea?) and then many years later we find Philip with his virgin prophetess daughters still in that same town.
Larry, the minister or evangelist has no formal authority in the congregation but they have enormous influence through the pulpit. And they can always make a request regarding what they see needs to be done. I think in practice authority in churches is overrated anyway. David Lipscomb didn’t see even the elders as having any formal authority. Especially in churches without elders (and they are legion) the minister/evangelist has to exert enough leadership to help the church to move forward but remain humble enough to avoid being accused of running the church. That is frequently a delicate balancing act.
Gary,
I don’t buy it. God called Abraham. I don’t recall any NT church “calling” a preacher.
And it bothers me to feel compelled to speak in terms of God’s hand moving preachers from church to church when you and I both know that preachers often move without really being called by God. Sometimes it really is true, but to always speak in those terms is to assume that every move is right and holy — and I don’t buy it.
I began the series urging churches, elders, and search committees to pray intensely over the search — and I meant it. God plays a role. But if you’re not careful, the language of “calling” will fool you into hiring someone without checking references or thoroughly interviewing.
I’ve seen a church “lay out their fleece,” declaring that minister X would be the right candidate if he calls before 5:00 pm and not if he calls after 5:00 pm. He called at 4:59, was hired, seduced an elders’ daughter into adultery, and proved unspeakably destructive to his ministry and the church. God must have been thinking of Jerusalem time.
Of course, Gideon laid out his fleece by asking God to contradict the laws of nature as a sign — twice. We flip a coin and call it God’s will. It’s not the same thing — and can lead to very bad decision making, that is, the abdication of using the wisdom and talents God gave us to use.
So, yes, I’m very skeptical of turning our brains off, being lazy, and using churchified vocabulary to hide an abdication of responsibility. If you took the money for bad reasons or left without integrity, with promises broken, calling yourself “called by God” won’t change any of that. If you left to take the money but kept all your commitments to your former church and handled your departure with class, you don’t need to hide behind God to be okay. Rather, the old church should celebrate your good fortune with you.
Charles wrote,
I’m totally on board with you. It cuts both ways. You may also suddenly realize that you are missing nearly as much as you thought you should be, because the preacher had already delegated everything but the preaching.
One reason I’ve recently been harping on the church not relying on the ministers/elders to be the official visitors of hospitals and funerals and shut ins is due exactly to the analysis you’ve suggested. It really is wrong to hire away the work of visiting shut ins, the sick, etc. That is truly the congregation’s job because they are the ones charged to love their brothers — making it definitionally non-delegable.
The elders should LEAD in this area, but should not be expected to do the church’s loving for them.
I’m a big fan and devoted reader of Ketcherside. I taught a class at an ACU lectureship attended by his son-in-law who gave me some of his books in appreciation for the class. They are among my most cherished possessions.
But in 20 years, few will even understand why we needed a Carl Ketcherside. Things are changing fast.
Gary,
I have seen many times that the preachers enormous influence through the pulpit has created an empire for him that he becomes sole ruler (God) over. This happens most often in the legions of churches that don’t have Elders. Of course no preacher would admit that he is doing this and the congregation cannot contest his actions without first establishing where the majority stand. In those situations not a soul will dare to confront him with a concern otherwise they become a target of pointed teaching from the pulpit and for sure those in the minority will be brought under his control, they will leave, or be eradicated from the community of members. This is very frequent in small congregations. Actually, I believe that there are a very few Churches of Christ that are large enough to be able to ward off this situation. As we look around the denominations are even more susceptible to this control, because they place their preachers into the position of being the only Pastor of an assembly.
Jay said , “But in 20 years, few will even understand why we needed a Carl Ketcherside. Things are changing fast.”
Truer words were never spoken IMO. Isn’t it strange how the church is changing so much, and the cornerstone remains the same.
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I guess some think modern builders are just better than those of the past, no matter the structure.
The nature of man never changes. We change and go too far right, then change and go too far left. Call it conservatism or liberalism, but the changing will not stop and that is why any writer on any subject taking either side will be the man of the day for a while and then “the other” with a new bunch later on.
When passing through, headed to one extreme or the other, we do meet dead center which would be just right, but that seems to last the shortest period of time as both sides are equally against that.
Jay, I was speaking of the church calling a minister not God calling a minister to a particular church. (I do believe God often calls ministers, elders, teachers and others to those ministries but that is a different subject.) The practice of Churches of Christ speaking of hiring ministers and not calling them is, frankly, hick and denigrating of ministers. You see much more in the term than I do. You were at some point called to your law firm or its predecessor. The use of the term call implies no divine endorsement and is a more dignified and respectful term. As I said it is a matter of opinion; I just happen to have a strong opinion about it!
Larry, with your perspective why even have ministers? If I felt as you do I would find or start a mutual edification Church of Christ. Seriously.
Jay, in all fairness, where in the NT do we find a church hiring a preacher? So how is that an objection to referring to a church calling a minister?
We have to get our heads out of the CoC sand and look afresh at the NT to see how the early church grew and managed itself. The whole business of setting up minister interview schedules, test sermons, references, etc… smells more like corporate America. Get the local leaders on their knees, declare a congregational fast, get the members to rise up and take ownership of the spiritual health of the church, let the elders model real service and leadership instead of being mere business men. Start a revolution from within. I bet God will raise up the best leader. Churches today are fat and lazy and want to hire a man to do their work for them.
Skip, I agree with everything you propose but how does any of that make unnecessary interviews, references and test sermons? You speak as if they were mutually exclusive.
Skip, maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Are you advocating mutual edification? That is a valid and biblical option.
Gary, There is a world of difference between hiring a stranger from the outside who has no knowledge of the local church and having the spirituality within that inspires local members to rise up into leadership. I am not talking about a new church plant. I am contrasting this with a CoC that has been around for decades, interviews and hires an outside person, only to wear them out in a few short years and they start all over again with the same original 1oo members. The church needs to quit looking for an outside savior/preacher and get on their knees asking God to show them what they need to change. They need to take ownership of their growth, study their Bibles at home, have long and real prayers, real honest fellowship, confessing sins to each other, building each other up, and growing just like the first century churches did. Paul did not start a church and live there for 5 or 10 years babysitting the church. Paul threw them into the deep end of the pool and they grew up. He left the church in the capable hands of the brand new Christians with occasional visits from trusted outside leaders. Our whole modern process is reminiscent of the OT story about how Israel wanted a king like everyone else. God reluctantly gave them Saul and it blew up in their faces.
Skip, you want a church that is made up of mature, dedicated, effective disciples or those clearly on their way to becoming that. That is either a very small church in great danger of depending on their own attainments for their standing before God or, more likely, it does not exist in the real world. Jesus saw the masses to whom he preached the gospel of the kingdom as sheep without a shepherd. When we come to Christ we have found our shepherd but we are still sheep. In the real world in which we have to live until it is transformed at the return of Christ the church is made up of men and women struggling to get by the best we can in the midst of fallenness on every hand. In Churches of Christ we have just witnessed in recent decades the fruit of making a god out of our own discipleship in the fiasco of the ICOC and its previous manifestations. There will always be weak Christians and weak churches. We are rarely at our best and even then we only provide a glimpse of the beauty of the coming fullness of the kingdom of God. Instead of disdaining the weakness we find in the church we would do well to let it help us find our strength in God’s grace.
Gary asked,
As just noted in an earlier comment, it’s clear that the apostles in Jerusalem were supported by the church. They didn’t fish in Jerusalem (Hard to find a decent pond on top of a mountain). They were fulltime in ministry.
Paul chose to support himself but insisted he was entitled to the church’s support.
Why? Why was Paul entitled to be supported? Because —
(1Co 9:9-14 NIV) 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
Why does Paul credit this teaching to the Lord? Probably because of such passages as —
Jesus and Paul expect that the Kingdom will support those whose labor for the Kingdom deserves pay.
Gary also asked,
“Called” refers to the voice of God in scriptural parlance. Many preachers speak of being “called” to a task believing they’ve called by God to that task. And they may well be. But I object to the habit of some of speaking in those terms just because we’re in church. Unless you are seriously claiming that God called you, you are not “called” in the biblical sense.
For a church to “call” a preacher is language borrowed from the Calvinist/Baptist tradition in which God’s sovereignty is found in everything. It’s the same people who say “God has a plan” when a tornado hits an elementary school. I reject that theology.
Maybe it’s the Campbellite in me, but I’d rather call Bible things by Bible names and get away from churchy slang so that we have to translate “We called you” to mean “We hired you.” And because I believe there are times when God really does call someone — and if we use “call” for every hire, we dilute the power of the fact that God is indeed active and calling people.
I would rather observe the hand of the Spirit and discern true callings rather than blathering on as though every decision made by a preacher were an act of the Almighty.
It’s pretty clear — and not limited to apostles. Rather,
Skip wrote,
How long was Timothy in Ephesus? Church tradition says he stayed until he died in about 97 AD. But Timothy didn’t grow up there.
The apostles who led the Jerusalem church did not grow up there. They were all from Galilee.
It seems that the NT pattern is to find someone with the giftedness and training to lead a church, relocate them to a church suitable to their abilities, and let them lead.
Actually, there is no “pattern” as such — but that is one practice some churches adopted. Ephesus and Jerusalem were leading congregations of the Christian church for centuries afterwards.
“As just noted in an earlier comment, it’s clear that the apostles in Jerusalem were supported by the church. ”
Actually if we read closely, the apostles were supported by God, how he did it was up to him. With the power given the apostles I believe they could have supported their selves. remember the feeding of thousands with a few fish.
“Paul chose to support himself but insisted he was entitled to the church’s support.”
If I read the bible correctly Paul did not accept pay for the work he did, but he did accept food and lodging from those in the group called “church” or the disciples of Christ. There is a difference in being entitled to necessities of life while doing the work of God, than haggling over a pay check, and the amount. No there were no paid preachers in the scriptures, as I recall Jesus had a low opinion of those he called hirelings. Those who are paid to feed his sheep. I don’t recall Jesus promised Peter anything to do the job, except the privilege of doing a friend and loved one a favor. If you love Jesus feed his sheep. Just like the apostles, Jesus didn’t promise you a rose garden, he only promised his true followers the thorns. In my opinion there are no true Gospel preachers left only hirelings. They care more for the money than the sheep.
Jhn 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
Jhn 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
Jay, Acts 10:23, “So he called them in to be his guests.” The word “called” in Acts 10:23 is from the Greek eiskaleo which means to call in or to invite. If Cornelius could call Peter and those with him into his home to be his guests then a church can biblically call a minister in to be their minister. Even in scripture a call is from God only if the context so indicates.
Jay, in light of John 10:12-13 where Jesus unfavorably compares the hireling (the one who is hired) to the shepherd how can you contend that hiring a minister is preferable to calling a minister? Words are important. Should we treat the minister as a hireling? Maybe our Campbellite instinct does not serve us well in this regard.
Hireling has no negative connotation in the OT (Malachai 3:5). The word means simply a hired servant or one who works for wages. Jesus gives the word its negative connotation in John. Since we know what Jesus thought of the term why would we want to use it today of those who want to spend their lives proclaiming the gospel and serving Christ’s church?
Even using words in their most literal sense calling a minister is more accurate than hiring a minister. When you (the elders) decide whom you want for various ministry positions what do you do? You phone them and invite/call (eiskaleo) them into your congregation to serve your church as a minister or, in standard Protestant terminology, extend a call to them. Even if a contract is later signed stipulating a set salary that “hiring” is subsequent and secondary to your calling them to serve your church and to their acceptance of your call. Even then their motivation is presumably not primarily earn a wage so the term hireling/hired servant that we find in scripture does not apply to them. They are biblically comparable to the oxen that are not to be muzzled while treading the corn and not to the hireling/hired servant whose motivation is to earn a wage.
Sorry but it’s a slow Friday night!
Jay, I promise I will leave this alone- eventually! Didn’t you grow up singing, “We have heard the Macedonian call today, ‘Send the light! Send the light!’ “? Why was it ok to use the word call in our hymnody of the Macedonians need for ministers/apostles but not good to use today when we need a minister?
Jay,
The few strong leaders in a few NT churches seem to be the exception. Paul wrote many epistles that don’t clearly delineate who is leading the Church. Yes, there was the Timothy leader and a smattering of others but many epistles do not indicate who was leading. My contention is that the thesis that every church must have a strong outside preacher come in before the church can grow is a flawed thesis. What about the small churches in China that are popping up because several people become disciples but there aren’t enough seasoned leaders to pass around. Who let all the Churches in Galatia? We don’t know. But we do know that when two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, he is in their midst.
The absence of any reference to elders in 1 and 2 Corinthians has long been amazing to me. You do have to wonder what the leadership structure was for the Corinthian church.
Gary wrote,
I would say that the evident absence of elders in Corinth is a pretty good argument for having elders. That was one messed-up church.
Skip wrote,
I am not arguing from some supposed scriptural pattern. It’s simply my observation in contemporary America. It’s the nature of our culture. I know of no exceptions. I know of plenty of house churches and such like with no preacher or equivalent — but they rarely grow beyond 100 members — typically 2 or 3 house churches of 20 or 30.
In the contemporary US, the churches with large numbers of baptisms are institutional churches.
Gary,
I’ve given my reasons re the use/abuse of “call” in contemporary church jargon. If you disagree, it’s quite okay. I wasn’t going to be able to change the way our preachers speak anyway.
Gary asked,
To “hire” a minister means that we pay him to do the work of a minister. I modern America, the term for someone being paid to a job is “employee.” Is being an employee the same as being a “hireling”?
(Joh 10:12 ESV) 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
The contrast Jesus draws is between an employee and an owner. Of course, only Jesus truly owns the sheep. Even volunteer elders, who serve only for love, do not own the sheep. Jesus is contrasting himself with the Jewish leadership of the day — and as the owner, he cares more for the sheep than an employee. He is not criticizing taking pay but being motivated by the pay rather than concern for the sheep. (I might point out that if we’re too literal here, the owner of sheep is also all about the money — the economic value of the sheep. After all, the owner typically sits home while a son or daughter tends to the sheep out in the fields. It’s an analogy that, like all analogies, has limits.)
Well, I don’t know how to make a preacher (or elder) into an owner of the sheep. I do know that Paul (and Jesus) vigorously defended the right of those who preach the gospel to be supported by the membership. That would hardly make financial support the key to Jesus’ condemnation.
Hence, whether a preacher is “hired,” “employed,” “called,” or “ordained,” he is on the payroll for good or bad (I think it’s very good). He is a “hired man” (methistos) regardless of our vocabulary.
The key is whether he is there for love of the money or love of the sheep, I think. The point isn’t really about being paid (the owner makes money, too), but about motivation.
Jay, in your last post I think you were confusing my comments with Laymond’s. Of course I believe in generously supporting the minister on the principle of not muzzling the oxen that treads the corn. My objection is not considering the minister to be a hireling or one who is hired as biblically that referred to someone whose motivation was to receive a wage. Anyone who goes into ministry primarily to make money is just plain dumb. For every well paid minister several others are just getting by. We need look no further than the comments in this series to find evidence of a deepseated ambivalence about ministers in Churches of Christ bordering on antipathy. To put them on the same level as the custodian by speaking of hiring them rather than calling them as is done in any other denomination is a symptom of our unease with the role of ministers in Churches of Christ. That unease is reflected in many congregations by not treating the minister very well. (Thankfully there are now many wonderful exceptions.) You live in Southern Baptist country. Do you think Churches of Christ in general treat our ministers as well as they treat theirs? I doubt it and it is a factor in how much more successful they often are than we are in building healthy churches.
Jay, you may be right about an absence of elders at Corinth but it may be that their elders were so ineffectual that Paul never bothered to mention them. Good elders are always to be preferred to not having elders. But it is better not to have elders than to have bad elders. Sadly for many congregations it would be a giant step forward to have the eldership dissolved.
Gary asked,
I’ve had occasion to help counsel the leadership of some large SBCs through some tough issues.
It’s a difficult comparison since the SBC pastors I know best pastor churches much bigger than most CofCs. But it seems clear the preachers for big churches are generally treated fairly well — that part of how they got to be big! That true regardless of denomination.
The harder question is how smaller churches treat their pastors/preachers. My impression is that if you compare equal size to equal size, that people are pretty much the same. Small churches have small pools of leadership talent and so often are poorly led by their elders (CoC) /deacons (SBC) — and so treat their preachers poorly more often than a larger church. (Not that big churches never mess up!) And so they stay small. The well-led churches tend to get bigger, be they Baptist or CoC.
An interesting question is — why do SBCs tend to grow larger than CoCs? Christian Churches are also much more likely to reach 2,000 members than a CoC. Why the difference?
Another question might be related to this one– As SBC’s do seem to grow larger than CoC’s, are small SBC’s more likely to close or merge than are CoC’s in a similar situation?
Or does the CoC simply tend to spawn more “splinters” (mini-churches) over issues than do other conservative denominations? Such a establishing foundation of isolating from other believers might in itself be the growth limiter, keeping the gate narrow, so to speak.
Pretty simple. Church of Christ 101
Matthew 7:13
Those poor folks getting big, or broad, will be the many not going in.
Matthew 7:14
Only a FEW, being narrow, are going to go in, we should want to be the few instead of the MANY.
While attending some of the Baptist churches in this area I was astonished with the record board which contains the total membership for this church, the attendance last Sunday, and the total contribution. Usually there is a huge difference between the total membership and attendance last Sunday, I found out that in some cases even those that are deceased are still on the rolls (they are still alive in the spirit). You can usually notice the contribution and compare that with the attendance and that figure will make you believe that the CoC members are falling far behind in their gifts to the Lord. Of course the Baptist group promote heavily the Tithe of 10% but even then, wow these people must be very prosperous, until I learned that members that are not attending and have not been to an assembly in several years are admonished to and do send their Tithe in their absence. They don’t forsake their Tithe but forsake the assembly; I guess the members that do assemble do need their Tithe more than they need the attendance of their brethren. Ultimately, membership values are not comparable with other churches who only report number of attendees.
AJ. I believe that passage is referring to the path/road we take. That road is just not as wide as some would like to think. The road that Jesus trod, was built by God, we can’t build our own road, and ever expect to reach Heaven, or the promised land, we just don’t know where it is, so when we try to construct our own road, it has to be mighty wide, or we just might miss our goal. People have a view today of , why should I have to follow Jesus so closely? don’t the grace of God cover us all? It is hard for some to realize that the grace of God was fulfilled upon Jesus death. But yes God’s grace covers all who are willing to accept it, and obey God’s commands.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Some do try to construct their own “wide road”, it’s true. But no more often than others who try to construct our own version of the “narrow way”, basically with the intent of excluding anyone who is not standing in the single-file line we have formed amongst ourselves. When we read “few” in Jesus’ words, we read, “Me and probably most of the people in my brotherhood.” In so doing, we have created not one narrow way, but several– each path sparsely-trod enough to serviced, not by a gate of pearl, but by a subway turnstile.
LOL Charles!!!
laymond, I believe we said the same thing.
Gods grace covers all who are willing to accept it, AND OBEY GOD’S COMMANDS. (Emphasis mine from the age of 6).
As a small child, we could recite those two verses as well as John 3:16 which was quoted every day at beginning of public school. Those two are recited often today by COC elders and preachers when the local baptist or others are growing into mega buildings with acres of parking lots.
In many things we have not changed a bit and sadly, probably never will.
Here is a contrast to consider: Where the overall religious message is grace, then when the preacher points out my particular sins within the context of a sermon, the message I get is, “You are one of us, so you need to stop that!” On the other hand, where the overall message is works, and the same sermon hits the same sinful spot in me, the message I get is, “If you don’t stop that, you’re not one of us!”
Which message is likely to encourage people out the back door of the church as regularly as others come in the front door?
I remember being in a Bible class in Bible College (some type ministry class) where the instructer asked, “who had felt God call them to preach.” In a class of perhaps 16 guys, about 13-14 raised their hands. I did not. (I wanted to know the scriptures and be able to lead others to Jesus, but didn’t really go with the intent of being a preacher).Of course that moment was uncomfortable(who wants to admit being in a Bible College when God hasn’t “called” you to preach?) Now if he had said, Do you feel like you are here by God’s leading? I would have raised my hand. But “called” seemed more sure and Biblical then that, after all, how could you not know when God “calls” you to preach?
However, I find it curious that about 20 years later that around one half of those men who said they were “called” had left the ministry.
Alabama John … if the criteria is that we must “obey God’s commands”, we’re all doomed. Seek to follow is more in line what I read in my Text.
But none of us can successfully obey all of God’s commands … we probably don’t even understand them correctly.
David, I don’t understand which “New Testament” commands are so hard to follow. please inform the rest of us which particular ones are such a problem.
A J, I do believe you are right when you said “laymond, I believe we said the same thing.”
You gave the short version, but as you have seen before, I do tend to expound on things just a little. 🙂
AJ said; “In many things we have not changed a bit and sadly, probably never will.”
I surely hope quoting the bible is one of those things that never change.
Charles, I do believe Jesus decided the right message years ago.
Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Yep, and some people stuck right there. Some folks like law. It suits them. It gives them a means by which to see themselves as better than their peers. What Jesus nailed to the cross, they have taken down and wrapped around themselves. So be it. I see it like I do the fellow who was eating a cow-chip sandwich. When he offered me a bite, I said, “No thanks, but you go right ahead.”
Charles maybe while Jay is off sick, you can take over and teach this motley crew a thing or two.
Please explain the meaning behind the words of the following. If they don’t mean exactly what they say, just what is the meaning behind them.? Just what was Jesus insinuating here?
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
We can view Christianity as a set of rules to keep or as a loving relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. I dare say rules based churches are dying right and left. Only Churches founded on love stand the test of time and thrive. Please don’t lament the death of legalistic Churches of Christ. They need to die because they have presented the wrong message for years.
Skip, I will ask you as I did Charles, what was the point Jesus was making in this lesson ?
No matter how old we are we can always learn from great insightful teachings. So teach us Skip.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Laymond,
Are you sure you want to engage on this level? Do you really want to learn or just to pick yet another fight?
In your scriptures quoted, is Jesus suggesting we keep a list of rules and check them daily or is Jesus referring to the concept espoused in Galations 5?
Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
If the entire law is fulfilled by loving others, does that satisfy you?
Laymond,
What is the meaning of Col 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross”
My Jesus nailed rule keeping to the cross and replaced it with a life lived in love for God and for others.
And the lukewarm? What becomes of them? The barren vine that is good for nothing
but the fire? A very big problem for churches that talk the talk but just tread water is
the lack of sacrifice to lay upon the alter.
Skip, asked “If the entire law is fulfilled by loving others, does that satisfy you?”
It most certainly does Skip, but just saying you love others, don’t satisfy me , because it don’t satisfy Jesus. You might want to think about what is said in Gal. a little more carefully.
Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Every thing Jesus asked you to do, is showing love for others, not just saying I love you brother.
What does James say about a situation like this.?
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
Not enough to say I love you, we have to show that we love them by our actions, works. If you read carefully you will find Jesus to be a man of action, not just promises.
Skip says:
“We can view Christianity as a set of rules to keep or as a loving relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ. ”
I beg to differ Skip, you can’t have one without the other. You can’t have a loving relationship with Jesus without keeping his rules.
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Laymond,
What is the meaning of Col 2:14 “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross”
“My Jesus nailed rule keeping to the cross and replaced it with a life lived in love for God and for others.”
Jesus did only what God sent him to do. I do believe you give the messenger more credit, than the one who sent the messenger. If you know Jesus like I know Jesus you would know he would never alter even one of Gods commandments. Not even one tittle. Jesus was sent to show us how to keep those commandments, not abandon them.
Skip, Col 2:14 is speaking of commands and rules of men, absolutely not the commandments of God.
NIV Col 2:22
These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
Laymond, Your interpretation says we must obey all O.T. laws right?
Laymond, so we are in agreement. Showing love to others is fulfilling the law. I have never thought otherwise. Glad we resolved this months long dispute.
What did Jesus mean, Laymond? He meant that the Law would be fulfilled– not disregarded, but fulfilled. Completely. And Jesus did so. Completely.
My answer is not on Jay’s level of articulation, I grant, but it is at least succinct.
Skip, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Is a far reaching command. Along with Love God with all your being. The “sermon on the mount” tells us how to do just that. Skip if you read carefully, you will find a lot of “do and do not” or “rules” as you want to call them, in that sermon.
If Jesus did away with all rules, why was he so adamant that we follow them, in his sermon.
Charles if as you say Jesus, followed the law “completely”, and we are to follow the example Jesus set before us, what does that say about what we should do.?
Laymond, The OT law says don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric. Are you following that law?
Skip, did God tell us not to do this? if so we had better not do it. I don’t recall just where you are talking about, I am not as fast as I used to be. Show me.
what do you think Jesus was talking about when he said “Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Do you think Jesus said he was going to do away with the law, or he was going to put some meat on the bone of the law ? look at what he started doing immediately after making this statement. Did he weaken the law, or make it stronger?
And here you all go again taking one verse from one letter and one from another and debating the meaning of individual verses. This may be why the cofC is having so many problems. When will the cofC read a paragraph and not take it out of context? when will people remember that the individual letters were written to different churches with different problems?
Mark,
I never have forgotten who the letters are written to and what is their context. I am playing whack-a-mole with Laymond again. Thanks for reminding me of the futility of this exercise.
Lev 19:19 ¶ Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Skip my reasoning fails me as to why this statute was in place. but I would assume there was a good reason.but that said I don’t know of any one piece of clothing I own that is woven both of linen and wool threads. So I suppose I am safe there.
Skip, if our conversation gets us to read certain parts of the bible, it is not futile. Now I am wondering why we shouldn’t ware clothes made of mixed threads.
Oh by the way Mark, Paul may have given advice to different churches, but as far as I know he never told one church something that contradicted what he told another. (what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander)
Laymond,
There are supposedly 613 commands in the OT. You better get to reading in order to make sure you are keeping them all. Don’t forget the cases of when to stone people and when to put people out of the camp. Don’t forget to instruct women on what to do during their periods.
I will instead go by what Jesus said and how Paul reiterated it in the Colossians.
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse. Gal.3:10- No one can be saved that way. Jesus fulfilled law keeping. He did what men could not do. Keep it perfectly. He was perfect for us.
Also Mark, the letters we call epistles explained the new covenant Jesus brought to man. But it is unlikely the apostles were writing to a larger audience than the
Pentecostal churches. The old covenant said “an eye for an eye” but Jesus revised the
law to say love your enemies as yourselves. Jesus was non-violent which went against
the grain of the Pharisees who hoarded their vengeance philosophy that was so inbred
in them from the old law. When Jesus spoke of the ‘law’ it was with reverence since
he was with God when the law went into effect. The Israelites were stubborn people
and needed strict boundaries to test whether they would be true to God only. They
failed the test. God through Christ brought freedom from the old custodian, not
tearing down God’s statutes but writing upon our hearts the new covenant of love,
first to the creators and also to our neighbors, in essence everyone we meet.
I am glad to see the passion with which some here are resisting any hint of being dragged back into a system of law, having been once set free in Christ. There are so many little intramural disagreements I see us haggle over, but this one is worth standing up for! Laymond seems to have yet to grasp the fundamental central truth of the Gospel, which is that we were not at all able to do for ourselves, so Christ has done FOR us.
It really is a simple concept: I have a pile of trash in my yard, one that seems to grow faster than I can haul it off in my little wheelbarrow. Then one day my dad stops by and says, “Oh, I had all that trash hauled off for you.” Only a fool keeps pushing his wheelbarrow at that point… IF he believes what Dad said.
Skip, I believe you are well aware that I know we are not living under the same covenant as the Jewish forefathers were in the desert. But when Jesus was asked about the importance of the commandments, he never said none are important, I believe he named two, and those two were similar in importance.
If those two commandments are truly observed, we won’t need to remember the others, If we truly love God, we will obey him, If we truly love our neighbors/fellow man, we won’t treat him with ill will. So that just about covers the rest of the commandments. But as I said those two commandments sweep a wide path.
Laymond, I am well aware and have argued that with you but you have argued law keeping for months. I am now confused that you are coming around to my point of view: loving God and loving others.
I am well aware that Paul did not contradict himself. However, the taking of one verse from one letter and one from another brings back bad memories of hearing an argument for or against something and doing it with verses all of which were taken out of context.
I realize I am a bit late in this discussion but I wish to provide a different perspective on the mutual edification practice. I belong to an ME congregation and we historically have done a poor job of describing the practice. This is reflected in some previous comments above. Mutual edification is routinely used by congregations with over 50 members. In these situations men may only give Sunday morning sermons once every 3-4 months but they also have other teaching opportunities. One of the previous comments stated that mutual edification was not suitable to develop strong leaders. I don’t know the commentor’s past experience with ME; however, this is not accurate at all. THere may be some situations where congregations have failed to develop leadership; however, this is not a unique situation to ME congregations. We have numerous elders, evangelists and non-officer men who are not only extremely knowledgeable in the scriptures but also strong leaders of their families and pillars within their congregations.
I actually wish more congregations would utilize the mutual edification model. The approach is scripturally supported and, according to church historians, was likely the original method of public preaching in the first century church. This latter fact is often missed.
If you would like more information about ME, its history and its benefits, please email me personally and I can provide you with a complimentary copy of a book entitled “Able to Instruct One Another.” It deals specifically with the practice of ME in the churches of Christ. My email address is [email protected].
In Christ,
Jeremy