So why do there continue to be individual members — and even a few ministers — who contend that Lipscomb was right — that elders have no positional authority? Well, reasons vary, but here are a few I’ve observed —
1. First, some are genuinely convicted that the Bible gives no authority to elders. Typically the argument is based on Matthew 20 and 1 Peter 5:12, which we’ve covered earlier. Patrick argues more from Acts 6 and Acts 15, which we’ll consider in a future post.
2. Second, there are Churches of Christ where the elders are truly horrid leaders, where they do indeed “lord over” the church, or otherwise act contrary to the image of Christ.
In such churches, people are deeply wounded and are often desperate to find a way out from underneath such atrocious leadership — and that makes Lipscomb’s teaching attractive.
3. Third, there are ministers who’d really rather be in charge. They don’t like being in submission to the elders at their church — perhaps for good reason or perhaps not — and they find in Lipscomb’s teaching a justification to question the authority of their elders. But these ministers aren’t against the church having leaders with authority — just against the elders having authority. They want authority given to the staff.
Hence, for such men, the disagreement isn’t really over whether authority over the church is to be allowed, but who gets to have that authority. It’s truly a struggle for power — and I’ve seen it many times.
For them, the Lipscomb argument is a means to an end — a way to justify putting the staff in charge, although Lipscomb’a argument — properly understood — would also deny any authority to the staff as well.
Imagine being an elder of a church. You meet with the ministers to discuss the church’s vision statement, and the ministers look at the elders as interlopers — men who have no business being part of the conversation and who should, instead, go to a side room and pray — leaving the serious decision making to the staff.
Of course, every staff member was hired on the understanding that they’d submit to the elders. And so the elders perceive the staff as being insubordinate. They accepted employment on one understanding and now wish to operate on an entirely different understanding.
Sometimes the staff is motivated by immaturity — an unwillingness to be in submission to anyone. Or perhaps they’re frustrated that the elders act too slowly or are too cautious for their taste. Or perhaps they’re genuinely convicted that churches are better led when the elders surrender all authority to the staff.
But, in reality, the staff should be in submission to the elders. The scriptures require this, and the elders aren’t likely to listen to their concerns — good or bad — if they perceive the issue as a power struggle. Seeking to push the elders out of the way is a tactic guaranteed to be futile (elders fire insubordinate ministers).
Elders do, however, listen to ministers who are submissive and who evidence their concern for the church by hard work and attentiveness to the church’s vision. When the elders and staff enter into a relationship of mutual respect and trust, the staff’s views carry great weight and decision making becomes collaborative.
Of course, some elders are hopelessly arrogant and unconcerned with the staff — in which case the staff’s best decision would have been to never take the job.
And this is one reason I find Lipscomb’s notion that elders have no positional authority so concerning. When this is taught, the result is unnecessary tensions between the elders and their staff — with the staff believing the elders to be usurping authority that is rightfully theirs. And this is not good for the elders, the staff, or the church.
Worse yet, when church members believe elders have no positional authority, then obedience and submission become optional. As a result, every member pursues his own agenda, and the church quickly falls into turmoil. The same ministers who urge the elders to make dramatic changes find that many in the congregation are unwilling to submit to these changes, since the members consider themselves to have ultimate sovereignty — not the elders and certainly not the ministerial staff. (You can’t undermine the elders and then expect the members to let you lead change.)
On the other hand, if the members are taught that the elders are gifted by the Spirit and called by God to their tasks, and if the ministers model submission, it becomes possible for the elders to lead the church toward dramatic change.
Of course, not all elderships are willing to make these hard decisions, but we can’t build our doctrine on the behavior of men improperly ordained.
4. Fourth, we’re Americans. And Ameicans distrust authority of all kinds. Indeed, we Americans love to speak ill of the federal, state, and local governments. We distrust major corporations. We distrust all sorts of people — and so we tend to distrust elders, just because elders have authority, and we are not a people accustomed to submitting to others.
5. We Americans are also products of the English Enlightenment, especially the writings of philosopher John Locke. We believe in the “contract theory” of government — that the government does not have authority by divine right but by consent of the governed.
We’ve been trained nearly since birth to see the ultimate sovereignty of government as being in the people — an Enlightenment ideal. Therefore, in church, we see the members as having the final authority — not the elders.
Of course, the First Century church would have not understood any of these concepts at all. They were accustomed to living in a town where certain older men were elders and governed the town — not as politicians but as revered fathers and grandfathers.
The town was seen as an extension of the family, and the patriarch had near absolute authority — but also was charged with caring for his family with his entire estate. The patriarch held the family’s property in trust for the benefit of the entire family.
Just so, the village elders were charged with authority over the village — but the authority was to be exercised in trust for the residents of the village — seen as their extended family.
Hence, the early church saw itself as family — the household of God — and as an alternative society governed separately from the pagan cities in which the church lived. Therefore, they had their own elders, who governed the local church — God’s household and family — as trustees for God and for the members.
Their thinking was not about checks and balances, separation of powers, and the contract theory of government. They were thinking about family, patriarchy, and the respect that their society naturally gave to the heads of households.
Moreover, the early church added to the image of village elders the authority of Christ — the King — who gave gifts to certain members by the Holy Spirit’s gifting. The elders were thus men gifted by the Spirit to lead — on behalf of the church’s King.
Hence, true sovereignty is not in the members but in Jesus, and Jesus exercises his sovereignty through the Spirit and its gifting. Leaders are chosen, not based on human wisdom, but by the congregation discerning the work of the Spirit.
This involves an entirely different mindset, an openness to the Divine, and an expectation that God is active and moving in our presence. It’s very un-Church of Christ, you know, but it’s quite biblical.
6. In the Churches of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit has been largely ignored for over a century — and the New Testament plainly teaches that elders are ultimately gifted by the Spirit, and they are ordained in recognition of this giftedness.
In churches that deny the personal indwelling of the Spirit, it’s no surprise that elders are poorly selected. It doesn’t occur to anyone to discern whether God himself has gifted some men for that task.
In more progressive Churches, although the Spirit is taught, it’s still very hard to break old mental habits. Since we aren’t in the habit of seeing elders as selected by the Spirit, we see them as no different from the rest of us — especially in light of our democratic heritage. Rather, we often respond to them the way we respond to politicians — as men who should represent the desires of the people, rather than as men who are called by God to lead God’s people toward the image of Christ.
Thus, years of denying the work of the Spirit has made us blind to God’s giftedness and choices. And so we often choose men to be our leaders based on very un-biblical grounds.
Jay, while I agree with you about the inherent biblical authority of elders, in practice formal authority by itself counts for very little at least in America. Elders, like any other leaders, must earn the trust of those they lead to have any real authority. While those who hold explicitly to Lipscomb’s position may be relatively few most CoC members really don’t accept the formal biblical authority of elders either at least in practice. The proof is that they will change congregations if elders make too many decisions they disagree with. It is not necessary to accept Lipscomb’s bottom line to benefit from his functional view of elders. There is much to be said for his teaching that the true elders of a church are the ones who do the work of elders. Elders who have real pastoral ministries in the congregation are much more likely to be trusted and followed even into unfamiliar territory when they find it necessary to use their formal authority.
One disconnect in CoC church polity is the view you identified with McGarvey that preachers are merely employees of the elders. While that may be true in a purely legal and contractual sense they are clearly much more than that in practice and in the eyes of the congregation. Elders who persist in viewing their preachers as such are likely going to have conflict at some point in their congregations or will have a succession of short term preachers. The evangelist or preaching minister in the New Testament clearly had formal authority along with or as one of the elders. I think it is difficult to argue for elders having formal authority and then argue that the preacher is only an employee of the elders.
boy, these “straw man” or “what if” scenarios just keep popping up in order to justify one Christian’s authority over another.
I don’t see anywhere in scripture that a man will be saved by knowledge alone. I don’t see where man will be rewarded for knowledge alone. I do see where it is said “woe” to those who use their knowledge to burden others.
Luk 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
NLT
“Yes,” said Jesus, “what sorrow also awaits you experts in religious law! For you crush people with unbearable religious demands, and you never lift a finger to ease the burden.
(I do believe the phrase ” lift a finger” refers to physically helping)
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
NLT
“What sorrow awaits you experts in religious law! For you remove the key to knowledge from the people. You don’t enter the Kingdom yourselves, and you prevent others from entering.”
Jam 3:13 ¶ Who [is] a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
NLT
If you are wise and understand God’s ways, prove it by living an honorable life, doing good works with the humility that comes from wisdom.
(I can’t see this as meaning, sitting in meetings thinking up things for others to do)
“On the other hand, if the members are taught that the elders are gifted by the Spirit and called by God to their tasks, and if the ministers model submission, it becomes possible for the elders to lead the church toward dramatic change.
Of course, not all elderships are willing to make these hard decisions, but we can’t build our doctrine on the behavior of men improperly ordained.”
I did not know the doctrine of “Christ’s Church” was in need of a doctrine change,I do know however that is what “the progressives” our out to do.
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
Mat 7:29 For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes.
Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:
Jay said,”there are Churches of Christ where the elders are truly horrid leaders, where they do indeed “lord over” the church, or otherwise act contrary to the image of Christ.”
Jay,in one statement you say there are some “horrid” people leading congregations, an then you say in effect that the congregation should be taught that those “horrid” men were sent from God.
Jay said,”On the other hand, if the members are taught that the elders are gifted by the Spirit and called by God to their tasks, and if the ministers model submission, it becomes possible for the elders to lead the church toward dramatic change.”
In my opinion, and just my opinion, you are saying there are “horrid elderships” out there, just not those of which YOU approve, and certianly not the one of which you are a part.
I would guess those “horrid elderships” feel the same way about you, and yours as you do about them. and in my opinion both are self serving as long as they or you stay as elders and are protecting their own territory. And both will wonder why they are not taken seriouly by members. If one were to resign the position, and continue the fight, I am sure they would be taken most seriously.
BGuy,
I agree that ministers should be more than hirelings. I’ve said repeatedly that elders should treat the pulpit minister as a peer. There is nothing to be gained by quibbling over hierarchy.
The question of elder authority keeps being posed as either-or — either positional authority or the authority of a good example. That strikes me as failing to trust the Spirit.
Surely the Spirit will give positional authority to those who are genuinely authentic and in relationship with the members.
In fact, those are just the sort of characteristics the members would look for in discerning the Spirit’s gifting.
And so the non-positional authority necessarily is first and positional authority follows as the members discern the Spirit’s giftedness in certain members.
Just because men install someone in a high religious position does not mean that the person is of great character. There is a story from ancient times that one High Priest, the qualifications for him are spelled out in detail in the Torah, entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur but did not exit alive. He had bought the office much like a politician. now a rope was always tied around the waist of the High Priest in case he died in there since no one else could enter. This particular High Priest entered and was performing the rituals but was not heard from for a while and when the other priests began to worry, they pulled on the rope and out came the HighPriest’s corpse which was not in great condition because he was found beaten to death. Given that no other human was in there at the same it was concluded quickly that an angel had won that fight.
In many cases, you can observe a congregation and see who is the one folks go to for leadership. That person may not be qualified to be an Elder for some past problem, but is doing the work of one.
That is the person appointed by God at that location.
Exactly. His or heart is the right place.
Jay, the difficulty with asking the elders to treat the minister as a peer is that he usually is NOT one, except in the most generic of terms. The elders are permanent, the preacher is temporary; they are older, he is younger; they supervise him, he does not supervise them; they volunteered, he hired on and will be gone when the last paycheck clears the bank; they hire and fire, he is the one they hire and fire; they are integral to the congregation, he is integral to the operation of the congregational activities. This is not to slight preachers, but we cannot simply ignore these realities and say they do not really matter. No, they really DO matter. These realities are a function of our system. As long as we maintain a permanent class of itinerant professional operating officers for our local clubs, this will remain the case. It is not something we did wrong; it is something that comes with the structure we have created. We can no more separate the result from what created it than we can take the tea back out of the hot water after it has steeped.
Charles wrote,
I was persuaded to see preachers as peers by a presentation made by a very young, inexperienced preacher at an ElderLink. He made an excellent case, and my fellow elders and I were all persuaded. It just made so much more sense than anything else.
Some preachers have more experience than the elders in the room. Some have less. Some are older. Some are younger. Some have been the church’s preacher longer than the elders have been elders. Some are newly hired. But all preachers bring with them experience, training, and a perspective that’s helpful to the elders — or else he wouldn’t be on staff. Why have someone preach who has nothing to say?
For a preacher to be a “peer” of the elders, he does not have to be their equivalent in age or experience. He only needs to be a worthwhile participant in the discussions the elders have. He needs to bring something to the table not already there — and I’ve never seen a preacher fail to do that.
And I’ve learned over the years that it’s often those younger and less experienced than I who have a lot to teach me. All my law partners are younger than me, and I learn from them every day. And I’m the youngest elder (although I’m 59). I’d like to think I have something to offer them despite my relative youth and inexperience.
And so, I wouldn’t think of having an elders meeting without the preacher there. He brings too much to the table to leave him out — and we’ve always made better decisions when we have that additional voice in the room.
We always seem to communicate about the age of Elders being of the eldest in the congregation, but the scriptures relate to those being appointed as still rearing their children in their home. I know places where the preacher is among the oldest members 80+ and he does not see anyone in the congregation as qualified to be an Elder. Could you guess who is in control of the church, Just a suggestion from him brings his desired actions. I would believe that it would be very hard for an elderly preacher to be submissive to Elders much younger than him. Yet, would you assume the age of the Apostles was older than the early believers?
To consider someone a peer is to look through a one-way glass. There is no two way discussion like that between friends. The highest ranked person (academic title, full law firm partner, attending surgeon, military rank, CEO) decides his or her equals then accepts them as such. Anyone lower than that is not a peer. This has led to the formation of multiple ranks of people within the organization and those ranks have a hard time when together in the same room.
It is why younger generations don’t want much to do with organizations that have older people in them. Some older blame the younger for not participating while the younger see the older as people who won’t listen to their ideas, don’t want the younger except on specific terms, and can do no wrong. I have seen organizations/divisions run into the ground by the older but when the younger wanted to propose some new ideas, they were promptly shut down.
I appreciate the openness in what Jay describes, but to me it still suggests a board who really respects the operations staff and values their input… but who still makes no bones about who the decision-makers are. There really are reasons why most preachers are still not considered elders in their congregations. If their elders put the preacher up for eldership, he’d get it. But they usually don’t.
Larry makes a good point about age; our religious organizations are some of the few of any sort where ten or fifteen –even twenty– years’ positive experience and track record is not enough to qualify a man for leadership. I think this fact alone may do more than anything to act as a brake on progress or change.
Preachers do not want to be Elders for one reason.
The Elders vote on how much the preacher gets paid and preachers don’t want to vote or look like they did that for themselves.
A spirit filled group of elders will lead their flock as prescribed in Psalms 23. Their vision will be to expand the kingdom. 2 Corinthians 10:15b Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand. Spirit filled leaders will encourage and edify their congregation to reach out to the lost as a community of equally statused Christians.
Unfortunately we have seen several preachers attach themselves to the alpha elders with very little empathy to the congregants or other cases where the Staff runs the church.
Good leaders will surround themselves with qualified people to accomplish a goal. This synergy is practiced in business but not understood in the church. In many congregation there are highly qualified spiritual people, both male and female, who set on the sidelines because no one ever discovers their talents. A professional sports team could not exist in a church environment of selecting leaders and workers.
AJ, I understand your statement, but this has not been the case with the preacher/elders I have known. They fully participated in the determination of their compensation without feeling guilty about it.
Charles, It would be interesting to know why, or what caused our experiences to be so different.
In mine, the Elders did all the deciding and the preacher was told what their decision was. He could take it or move on, his choice.
Too bad we are not a spirit filled community where the world can see us as one as Christ in us. The Goddess Athena offered more to the people around Ephesus. Free food, medical care, entertainment and water.. You guys quibble over nothing but who is in power. The Church of Christ is not a spirit filled community.
AJ wrote,
In every church where the preacher was named an elder that I’m aware of (and I’ve seen it many times), the elders had an explicit agreement that the preacher would not participate in setting his own pay or benefits. Interestingly enough, I’ve seen several cases where the preacher was an elder and was nonetheless fired — so the conflict of interest can apparently be gotten around!