I’ve decided to cut this series short for now. The degree of personal attacks in some of the comments and private emails is disappointing. It’s as though we can’t disagree on this topic without declaring the other person wicked.
When good people are reduced to personal attacks, it’s time to move on to other topics for a while.
Sadly, some readers perceive animosity between me and Patrick, when there is none. We just disagree on some things. We agree on most things, as I said in the first post. But we don’t agree on everything. 
I’m used to having people disagree with me. I’m a lawyer. I’m married. I’ve raised four sons. I’m an elder. Disagreement is the nature of life — and I think that, in a healthy marriage, family, church, or denomination, people who disagree ought to be able express their disagreement without risking the destruction of relationships or personal attack. In fact, the ability to express and work through disagreements is essential to strong relationships and to good leadership.
Patrick has been a good sport, and I continue to hold him in the highest regard. I remain a devoted reader and fan.
I’ve written posts on how to prevent the appointment of bad elders, how to remove bad elders, and some other things. I’ll save them for later.
This post will be followed by a post proposing some conclusions, and then we’ll move on to other topics for a while.
Part 2
Back in post 3B 1/2 (I really have to figure out a better numbering system), I proposed a fact pattern for a church without elders and asked the readers to respond with their own solutions. This is Part 2 of my response to my own question.
6. Not enough elders. Let’s assume the church ultimately nominates five men, as the preacher anticipated, and they all agree to serve and are ordained. Five men are not enough to effectively pastor a congregation of 500. They have families and jobs. They are part-time volunteers. They need help. (And this is typical of most Churches of Christ in my observation.)
The best system I know for extending pastoral reach is a small groups ministry. Some churches use small groups as a Bible class extension or a social program. Others see the program as evangelistic. Regardless, small group leaders should be seen as and trained to be under-shepherds. After all, in a healthy church, all members should share in the pastoral work because we love each other and so should be involved in each others’ lives. The small group leaders aren’t so much counselors and comforters as concerned friends who make certain that needs are met — often by others better equipped to serve.
Hence, if a member of a small group is in the hospital, the group leader makes certain someone visits and calls, but the workload is shared. If food needs to be brought to a family, the leader makes certain the work is done but shared. You get the idea.
I don’t know how a congregation of this size can operate without small groups in support of the elders’ work.
7. Training; support. These five elders are starting from scratch. They have no local examples to follow. And they are part of a church that may just now be learning about grace and the Spirit and the true gospel. They need support and training.
They need to be encouraged (and funds provided) to go to one of our better lectureships each year, they need to be introduced to the best leadership literature, and they need to be part of a network of elders that can call each other for advice and lean on each other for support.
The preacher can likely see to the first two. The third doesn’t exist anywhere to my knowledge. But it’s entirely doable. Elders of a similar church, perhaps in a nearby town, would be flattered if asked to serve as mentors and coaches for novice elders at a sister congregation — and would surely agree to help.
The consultant, preacher, and elders in other churches should be able to help the novice elders put together a network of advisers and consultants they can call on as needed. There are men who are truly expert in foreign missions, small groups, teen ministry, and all sorts of other things who would gladly take a conference call and advise these men. They just need a name, a number, and an introduction.
8. Staffing. This congregation is woefully understaffed. But it would wise to get elders on board before trying to hire a youth minister or other staff person. Most ministers won’t go to work for a church without meeting with the elders who will be responsible for his future there, and it’s essential that the staff hired fit well with the elders. They need to work well together — not as siloed, separate ministries.
This is the point where the outside consultant is pretty much done. There is much, much more to be done, but once the church has leadership in place, it can begin to address its own problems internally — but with the support and encouragement of many others who stand ready to advise and counsel as needed.
Congregational autonomy does not mean “going it alone.” Rather, we are brothers and sisters and need to stand by and help one another regardless of congregational lines.
Animus in the CoC ?? Ya think .
That sure is a Christian thing to do. NOT. Why don’t you write a post about some of those comments and how doing such a thing does not help unify Christians.
Mark, do you really think that would be helpful ,? I really doubt it would solve anything.
Some de identified comments would be good to see. When certain people can call the shots in secret, there is nothing holding them back. They will have full reign. This happens in churches all the time.
This series has been very, very good. Thank you for providing challenging thoughts. Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I strongly disagree with some of my most solid opinions of ten years ago.
Mark, “de identified” is the problem here, Jay identified his opponent as “Superman” of the progressive CoC movement, then he started tugging on Superman’s cape. As Jim Croce said, you just don’t get away with that.
“You don’t tug on Superman’s cape. You don’t spit into the wind. You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger And you don’t mess around with Jim./Patrick.
But it is not very nice to name names on the Internet unless you want to start a fight. It’s one thing within a congregation to require signed letters, but on the net, it is not advised. Jay is a lawyer, but IMHO some of that material could be libelous and/or slanderous.
I have been reading….some, and not commenting for some of the reasons you mentioned.
In the 1st congregation, even those whose task was serving tables and taking care of widows were men full of the Holy Spirit. If the lifestyle of a man is marked by love, showing the fruits of the Spirit he will not be rude, damn others who are not a cookie cutter image of him, and lord it over others. Instead of focusing on some of the requirements we require for elders, in addition maybe we should look for men of prayer, men who know the word well, and men who are kind, gentle, patient, and loving. What have we gained if we follow the traditional template and wind up with selfish, unkind, jerks for elders?
Jay, in my time here at his blog, has exhibited the qualities an elder should have. He has been very wise, more than patient, ignores cruel insults, and only steps in to halt nonsense when immature guys get way out of hand.
I too am an admirer of Patrick Mead. And, I am an admirer of Jay Guinn. These two are among some of the best of what an elder and preacher should be.
Well-said, Royce!
And Jay is, of course, free to run his blog as he believes the Lord sees fit. I think it is especially wise to be VERY careful in airing dirty laundry.
as royce sad, i too admire both jay and patrick and follow both, these men has shown how to discuss problems that face the church , thank you both hare excellent reads
I am glad that both talk and then listen(by reading the comments). Many ministers could get a lot of new ideas by putting ideas out on a blog and reading the responses.
To a part of Jay’s post here, on “not enough elders”. This is both quite true and a function of our traditional “board of directors” structure. I would like to propose something which might actually be helpful. Jay’s suggestion of small groups is something I think to be key to finding real leadership. I have been for years part of a small group which is, in turn, one of dozens of such groups involved with a large (4000+) congregation. The fellow who leads this small group is a true spiritual shepherd. The elders do call in these “small group leaders” once in a while to train them, but I would suggest that these small group leaders -not the board- ARE the actual functioning elders. THEY encourage the sheep and protect them individually. But they are not seen organizationally as even “deputy-elders”, but as a different and lower strata altogether. This should change.
Proposed: that de facto small group shepherds be included in every way in the function of the eldership. Why should an eldership NOT be made up of 50 people? Or a hundred? If these are the hands-on-the-sheep shepherds, why do we insist that they not be treated with the honor due that work? Why have we created the elder attitude of “you do the work, and we’ll make the decisions”?
The main argument against so many elders is that it can create a sort of a legislature, which clogs up the decision-making process. But that may be exactly what we need: something to dissuade us from so much central decision-making! We need less operational “decision-making” by senior leadership and more spiritual oversight. Less time reviewing staff reports and financial statements, and more prayer. The apostles in Jerusalem, instead of gathering operational authority to themselves (as is our custom), insisted on shedding it by delegation. A larger group of elders could do this easily, delegating sub-groups (as much as I hate the word: “committees”) to tend to operational matters or congregational projects. A large group of functional shepherds could have enough various voices to warn us when we are straying from the essential functions of encouraging and protecting the sheep. It would also be large enough to distribute tasks that would otherwise prove burdensome, or for which we would feel pressed to hire outside experts.
Here is to more shepherds and fewer directors.
Charles,
In most COC churches it is hard if not impossible to find even one man and wife that meets all the exact requirements stated in Timothy. Having a plurality is hard to get so most churches have business meetings instead. I have seen men put up to be an Elder and refuse because of something in their past they didn’t want brought forward in the investigation.
Sure would be a blessing to have that many with a pure history that have done and are doing what is required to be an Elder.
To have a large number to choose from is hard to even imagine. You and your church are blessed.
We too have small “life walk groups” and they are had at the homes of those in the group one after the other and we all bring food.. In most groups, there are no Elders present or as we call them Shepherds.
Charles wrote,
I’ve learned from hard experience (confirmed by expert advice) that any committee or team over about 12 members will not engage participation by all members. Think of the typical 20-member Sunday school class. A seemingly robust discussion class probably involved only 4 or 5 people. It’s just how people act in a large group.
A group of 5 or 6 will naturally involve all members. A group of 12 can involve all members if the chairman makes a point to engage everyone. In the case of a larger group, engaging everyone will take a lot of time and very expert leadership — and will be frustratingly slow for those present. No one will enjoy the process. In practice, a committee of 20 will be dominated by a strong chair or by two or three strong personalities. And the rest will not want to force a tedious process in which all 20 speak on all issues.
The solution is for a large group of elders is to specialize — so that not all elders are involved in all aspects of being an elder — and to specialize by giftedness, not politics. Some large issues have to be reserved to the full eldership. Hence, some elders, gifted pastorally, will be freed to spend their time in pastoral duties — which should be good for the church and enjoyable for those elders. Other elders might focus on the teaching ministry (a scriptural emphasis), etc.
If the church and its elders are focused on the mission of God, then they should want leadership that can effectively empower ministries as the Spirit works within the congregation to move the church toward mission.
The best elderships, in my view, are able to quickly see that a proposal is from the Spirit and help the church give birth to such a ministry, rather than slowing the process to a crawl with bureaucracy. Therefore, since I see the role of elders as empowering Spirit-led ministries, the last thing I’d want is clogged decision making. I want it to be easy for a new ministry to find a home, support, budget, etc.
Alabama John,
Are you trying to say that there is no work in these small groups that is being done that resembles the duties of an Elder? It would appear to me that all groups have the need for the duties that an Elder is responsible for, therefore those voids are being filled by a men that are not qualified or by men that are qualified but not placed officially into that service. I fully believe that there are a lot more men that are qualified by the scriptures to serve as Elders but have never been placed into that position. Nearly all candidates are home town boys grown up, remember Jesus own words. (Mat 13:57 KJV) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Seems what I have heard might be true, where there are three men gathered, there are at least three opinions, unless these men are Christians, then there are at least four, 🙂
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Larry,
There are many doing the work of an Elder that would not qualify to be one by the list of requirements in Timothy. Many heading up small groups meet that position.
Some doing the work could be women, so there is a difference in those doing and those qualified for the title. That is why many are drawn to the one doing instead of the one titled.
Sometimes one that has done the most sin and repented is the one that has received the most forgiveness and others that have sinned come to them as they have a better understanding and also are more appreciative of the grace and forgiveness received from God. The Holy Spirit may have a hand in there somehow.
One that appears sinless like Timothy records and has a loftier position to many is deemed unapproachable.
You really have to be careful of the ones who claim to have never sinned. They tend to pass stern judgement on the rest.
Jay, I think you got my point, but perhaps not the way I intended it. A phrase like “empower ministries” usually means the same central control as we have almost always had. Included in “empower” in most cases are the concepts of “command and control” “get reports from” “exercise financial control over” and “approve or disapprove”.
But if all a ministry has to do is to find a champion or two among the elders, then there is no “clogged decision-making” because there is hardly any full-group decision-making at all. Those two elders take on the role of advising and overseeing that project and the rest of the elders trust them. And they let it fly! If these two champions find issues where they need more input, they don’t go “to the board”, but to another elder or two for additional counsel. If someone wants money for a project, let ’em do as Paul did: ask the people for it. Or open their own pockets.
Only things which seriously and lastingly affect the entire congregation should get even the occasional attention of the whole council en banc. (See Acts 15) And I mean serious things like gross heresy being publicly taught or gross immorality among leaders. Nothing so mundane and temporal as, say… money. If the Twelve could not bring themselves to break away from teaching and prayer even to feed the widows, how much less can senior spiritual leaders justify spending their time diddling with the budget? Even under the guise of “supporting ministry”?
Alabama John
I understand the message that you are telling, and notice the same problem that I have seen in the church about the appointment of Elders. What I noticed is preachers and teachers have guided us into believing that men who meet the qualifications listed are very rare. Yet almost all of the mentioned attributes should be met by any Christian. Because those mentioned were really not in favor of appointing Elders, you see those that are selecting and appointing are now in power and will have to place themselves under subjection to those they appoint, I believe they have distorted the qualifications out of there original principles to disqualify men that should be appointed. They also do not want to consider that a man that lived a very visible worldly life before becoming a Christian should be appointed because of the knowledge the world has of him. To say that differently the life that a man lived prior to becoming a Christian should never be analyzed in respect to his nomination for the office of Elder. That man and all men were given a total pardon for all sins in the former life and have begun a new life. Look again at those qualifications and try to view them like the apostles and early fathers did and you might find men that are qualified that were previously rejected. I was told by one preacher that Paul and Jesus could not be accepted to be Elders because they were not married. Would we really be so naive as to believe that Jesus would not have accepted himself as an Elder in the church upon that technicality? Or even Paul, our Lord would not have accepted Paul as being able to fulfill the duties of an Elder because he was not married?
Amen Larry,
You say that so much better and I did or can.
Answer to your last two questions: Jesus and Paul would not be considered meeting the requirements of an Elder because they don’t, at least as far as we know. No exception would be made.
Just because a man is qualified does not mean that the other elders want him, even if the congregation does. that is why there are still men who will not be chosen as elders but who do the real pastoral care and conduct funerals.
Mark,
Are you saying that, men that are not Elders in the congregation are performing the duties of an Elder while being rejected from the Eldership by the Elders in the congregation? It would seem to me that the present Elders only reverence the title; It appears they are not intelligent enough to see that those performing the duties were given the honor by the congregation for their services that should belong to an Elder that was doing his duty. Therefore, the congregation should remove those Elders holding the title and install those men that have proven their abilities.
Sometimes, yes. Not always. However, if you believe in the “priesthood of all believers” then they are just following that. I would not advocate removing current elders since i do not know the specifics. Also, I will not say anything about intelligence. Also, some may be the business elders who are keeping the congregation afloat. Some of those doing the work without the title may be women, whom some cofC says cant have any titles, though in others they go to the pulpit. Some may be men whose opinions differ from the current elders on the volatile topics.