I’m a big Patrick Mead fan. He’s spoken at my home congregation more than once, I’m an avid reader of both his blogs, and I think he’s just a very fine preacher and writer. And I have great respect for him as a person and as a thinker.
However, Patrick has taken some positions in his recent series on elders that I question. I don’t disagree with everything Patrick has to say, of course. In fact, I strongly agree with much of what he says. But a couple of our disagreements are too important to ignore.
Here are Patrick’s original posts —
- The Problem With Elders, Part 1
- The Problem With Elders, Part 2
- The Problem With Elders, Part 3
- The Problem With Elders, Part 4
- The Problem with Preachers, Part 1
- The Problem with Preachers, Part 2
- How Then Should a Church Be Organized?
Please read Patrick’s posts before reading my responses. It’s important that you read Patrick’s comments in their entirety.
(I’ve corresponded with Patrick re this series.)
All Patrick’s posts are liberally sprinkled with anecdotal evidence of horrible actions by various elderships — and I’m sure all the stories are quite true and the pain caused by these men quite real. The problems he points to are serious. I just disagree with his diagnosis and prescription. But we agree that the symptoms reflect some serious problems that need to be dealt with.
In particular, I disagree with the premise that the solution to our many deeply flawed eldership is organizational or ecclesiological. Seeking a solution in who does the appointing or how long elders may serve or that sort of thing is ultimately futile, because, in my opinion, the core of the problem is not our selection methods or how much authority elders have but our poor theology. A false gospel produces a false image of Jesus and God, which results in choosing the wrong kind of men to lead us toward Jesus and God.
Second, I disagree with Patrick’s approval of David Lipscomb’s argument that being an elder is not an office and carries no authority beyond a good example. I find that the Bible teaches very much to the contrary — and I believe it does so for very good reasons.
Now, let me begin with some framing comments regarding elders.
I am, myself, an elder. I’m not a preacher, and I’ve never been in fulltime ministry.
Through this blog and speaking and visiting at various lectureships and other church educational events, I’ve had occasion to spend a lot of time with elders around the country. I’ve had elders from many churches call me for counsel on all sorts of issues.
I’ve been blessed to have had excellent experiences with all these men. They’ve all cared deeply for the church and its members and try very hard to do the right thing.
I’m a fan of Church of Christ elders. But there are indeed some who behave abominably and have no business being in the eldership. Of course, they didn’t get there by accident. Their congregations nominated them. The pre-existing eldership ordained them. Someone looked as these perfectly awful candidates and determined that they should be ordained. They didn’t ordain themselves.
How do such horrible decisions get made? I don’t think it has much to do with who gets to decide. Nor is it about elder re-affirmation. Nor how much authority elders should have. Rather, I think our tendency to ordain men who lack the Spirit of Christ is just one more symptom of a deeply flawed theology, a false gospel that pervades many of our congregations. And you can’t fix bad theology by reorganizing the church.
There is no organizational structure that will fix the damage done by our persistence in teaching a false gospel.
Rather, until we refocus our teaching on Jesus, the Spirit, grace, and the true gospel, all efforts to fix our elders will be futile because men will be nominated and ordained by people who have no idea what a real elder should look like because they have no idea who God and Jesus really are.
Most elders learn their Bible from the preachers they hire, and a great many preachers teach a legalism that is anti-scriptural, destructive, and judgmental in the extreme. It’s hardly surprising that many elders, raised on a judgmental God who damns without compassion for the least mistake become like the God they’ve been taught to worship.
And it’s no surprise that congregations nominate and ordain men who are like the God taught by their preachers. When we imagine that God is so harsh that he’d damn someone over clapping because clapping is an “addition” and not an “aid,” then we will surely seek out men who emulate the God we worship — harsh, judgmental, and quick to condemn, happy to damn over the least disagreement. These are, after all, the characteristics we’re told to admire — even to emulate. We are told that this is the nature of God!
The gospel simply does not damn over instrumental music, the frequency of communion, or other such disagreements, and the insistence of so many within the Churches of Christ that any disagreement over worship or church organization damns is not just error but a false gospel, which greatly distorts the character of God that our leaders present to the members. And we become like the God we worship.
When we study the history of the Churches of Christ, we find the denomination to have been very preacher-driven, with the hateful, destructive theology that has so warped many of our congregations coming from the lips and pens of the preaching class.
Sadly, we have a culture in which we expect preachers to set doctrine and elders to follow preachers — and for over 100 years, many of our preachers have led the church into folly. The elders who follow such men will be judged for their foolishness, but let’s be clear: the parade toward self-destruction has been led by generations of preachers who’ve taught truly severe and destructive error.
And so it’s no surprise that we’ve had some pretty awful elders. After all, these men were trained by some pretty awful preachers, teaching an awful theology, damning all who’d disagree with their arrogant presumption.
On the other hand, it’s my experience that the progressive movement within the Churches of Christ is an effort being made by elders and preachers together. After all, few preachers are able to teach the true gospel unless the elders give permission.
Indeed, it’s my experience that, among progressive Churches, the elders are often very well schooled in the scriptures, are not nearly as reliant on their preachers for Bible study as among the conservatives, and indeed those Churches that manage to transform themselves from conservative to progressive do so much more because of the hearts of their elders than their preachers.
You see, progressive preachers who preach a true gospel without elder consent get fired — and so make little impact. It’s only when the elders are willing to give permission for a truer, better gospel to be taught that a church can change.
The elders that preceded me in my home church were excellent elders because they gave permission for members to teach grace and the Spirit in the Bible classes at a time when some of our preachers were unwilling to preach such things from the pulpit. Our elders taught grace — not so much by being great teachers but by being men who graciously allowed the congregation to explore the scriptures and find new truths.
They weren’t the sort of men to write books or class curricula. Rather, they were simply sufficiently in tune with the Spirit to recognize a truer gospel when they heard it. They were the ultimate in permission-giving elders, who let the Spirit move within their church. And so the church was changed by the hand of God himself.
And this is a pattern I see working itself out across the country as more and more churches discover a truer gospel, grace, and the Spirit because more and more elders give permission for the church to do so, freeing the Spirit to transform hearts and lives.
Indeed, if we weren’t in midst of a Renaissance of greatly improved eldering, we would not be seeing hundreds upon hundreds of congregations and thousands of individual Christians moving away from legalism toward grace. The progressive movement within the Churches of Christ is more than sufficient evidence that our shepherding is dramatically improving.
Does it need to get better? Sure.
Will it get better? Well, does the Spirit still dwell among us?
Are there still truly horrific elders and elderships? Of course.
But let’s do give credit where credit is due. And the dramatic changes for the good occurring within the Churches of Christ within the last generation are always elder-permitted if not elder-driven. And that’s a very, very good thing.
I think we live in an era when information is readily available.. Opposite opinions can be listened to without damaging friendships or having to go and visit somewhere else on Sunday morning… I can read an Elder’s blog who lives in Tuscaloosa and never leave my house in Atlanta… The congregants are no longer forced to get their information and teaching from one source.. We can debate and discuss and we can learn… rather than memorize the tracts and dogma of certain men…
Education is the key to change, I’d agree. But, not sure what to do about those preachers and Elders who have dug in their heels to protect the one true church from corruption… God is going to have to intervene or folks are going to have to relocate their membership…
Go on any of the CoC FB pages and see what kind of back and forth exists.. It’s a culture of condemnation, arrogance and exclusive understanding of the scripture… It’s what’s been fostered…Everybody is wrong but us… Unfortunately, “us” isn’t so well defined anymore… It’s gonna take decades to change but it is indeed changing.
I realize that Jay is an elder and wrote this from that perspective, “Seeking a solution in who does the appointing or how long elders may serve or that sort of thing is ultimately futile….the core of the problem is not our selection methods or how much authority elders have but our poor theology.”
I am neither an elder nor a minister. What happens when one elder holds up progress but has a life appointment? If the minister appoints new elders he will likely get men who view him favorably so that he can keep his job (which seems reasonable). If the current elders choose new elders (as is most common) then they are a self-perpetuating body, and they will only choose men like themselves who won’t question their decisions. Also, what is the vote needed for passing a motion in an elders’ meeting? Majority, super-majority or unanimous? We all know that sometimes a single “no” vote kills a motion.
Jay mentions poor theology as the cause of problems. How does one teach old, legalistic elders a new theology? How does one get old elders to listen to people other than their friends? How are young people (from both genders) supposed to convince elders to do/permit/not forbid something when they can’t donate lots of money?
Perhaps this may be why the community church movement is growing where the average age is quite young and the management structure is different than the old elder-led model???
Agree 100%! It’s bad theology.
Mark said, “Perhaps this may be why the community church movement is growing where the average age is quite young and the management structure is different than the old elder-led model???”
You may have something there Mark, according to both Patrick, and Jay, they can’t do any worse than they and those before them have done.
If I recall correctly that was the very way congregations were started. “church” has become nothing if not a business. The progressives just want to make business easier to do. Fill those buildings at any cost.I really have doubts that “church” will exist the way we have known it, within the next century.
Maybe I could convince “WalMart” to put chapels in their stores, at a discount of course.
Many of the conservative folks I talk too that feel free to question our going ‘Liberal” as we have known many for over 65 years, are now having recruiting classes. They are starting to get out in the community to teach more and go after new members as their series of teachings on going ‘Liberal” has not kept many from leaving to their souls damnation.
They see the problem in their greatly reduced membership as being a lack of recruiting folks that will remain more faithful rather than their teaching anything wrong.
Teaching the requiring of those that are faithful attendees of denominations to be re-baptized correctly or remain lost seems to be the biggest obstacle to have the nerve to express. When they get to that point in their home teaching where the one being taught is to understand they are lost as they are now, and even though they have been baptized, they must be re-baptized correctly, more balk at that than anything else and how to overcome the opposition to that requirement is needed.
Will you kindly define “re-baptized correctly”? There is a large argument currently brewing on some websites about some Christian ministers not including “for the remission of sins” at the end of the invoking of the Trinity at a baptism.
Two good points here: One, that we cannot effectively address procedurally what is essentially a spiritual issue. And two, that this creates a real practical dilemma for those who are stuck behind elders with this spiritual issue.
Jay identifies the problem under the hood, so to speak, which keeps us from going anywhere. But I would suggest that in many cases, the hood of the car has been welded shut by a particular doctrine which keeps us from getting at the theological errors which are at the root of the problem. That problem is the long-held doctrine of congregational autonomy. In reactionary fear of being told what to do by an archbishop or a pope, we long ago created an extrabiblical defense which carries within it the seeds of our own destruction. When we sliced the church in our city into multiple mutually-exclusive little fiefs, we cut ourselves off from the cure for our disease.
In the autonomous model:
1. The elders’ most important job is to keep their congregation’s doors open for services every Sunday. Everything else is subordinate to this goal.
2. Local elders are accountable to no one.
3. The only external input accepted is from the hired preacher whose livelihood is controlled by the elders.
This model of ours is not at all biblical, but it is very much American. “No one is going to tell us how to run our own church,” is as Yankee Doodle as the Declaration of Independence and just as Christ-less. Godly leaders learn servanthood and submission before they are allowed to lead. But not us. We don’t really submit to anybody. We don’t like the leadership, we go find leadership more amenable to ourselves. Thus trained, when we become leaders, we expect others to think and behave just as we have. Get with our program, or get thee down the road.
Because of this issue, we fail to see a lot of internally-driven change within congregations. Rather, we see congregational change as a result of people moving about. Folks who want to hear more of grace gravitate toward a progressive group or a “community church”, while those who hope to hold to the “old paths” gravitate toward and solidify the positions of more conservative groups. This portends a gradual bifurcation of the traditional CoC, rather than a violent split. This current parting of the ways will continue, not so much because of doctrinal differences, but because we have created a system in which the one thing which is most rigidly suppressed is the idea of listening to anyone outside our own walls who might disagree with us. Folks who don’t listen don’t scrap much, they just go their separate ways.
I think AJ points out an old assumption that if people aren’t buying what you are selling, that’s because you are not selling it loud enough. Can’t be the product…
A J , question; do you think there would be any harm in being baptized every evening before retiring for the night ? If so what harm might it entail ? What would be the difference in praying for forgiveness of daily sins, and being daily baptized for remission of daily sins? why would one prayer not last for a lifetime, if one baptism will last for a lifetime ? If you know please let me know.
Mark,
It would include both you mentioned being spoken out loud before going under. I didn’t know that was ever questioned in the COC.
Laymond,
No harm in being baptized as often as you wanted except if you missed your appointed sequence if it caused you concern for your soul.
One is far more convenient.
I’ve seen one prayer last for a lifetime many times as the life ended soon after.
Praying and asking for forgiveness of our sins and having your sins forgiven and erased out of the book of life and forgotten so on judgement day it is pages of erasures is an ongoing request as we all continue to sin.
This is the way I see it.
Everything is up for debate now. The question that is being hashed out now on the websites is “Is a baptism valid if it is only in the name of the Trinity and ‘for the remission of sins’ is not included at the end?”. That makes other Christian baptisms invalid and is leading to the special baptism formula for cofC. Not a way to unify Christianity.
Mark,
Over the years, I have seen so many debates, hard feelings, ostracizing and splits over this and they accomplished nothing good.
Have seen many baptized without any of the words spoken you mentioned and just a prayer before they went under.
We can get into personalities wanting to be more “righter” than others real quick.
Ever heard or is it now debated, the old question if a person dies from a heart attack while under the water is he lost because he did not come up and OUT a new creature but died before his nose broke the water coming out? Very important to have the water warm for that reason as a shock of cold water could cause a heart attack, but that would be another debate too wouldn’t it.
WE can get pretty silly and do.
God looks at the intent of the heart and in the end that is what will really matter.
A J or anyone else, can you be baptized for remission of future sins.? It seems that some on this thread are saying sins don’t condemn once you are baptized.
Well, not on this particular thread, but on some threads on this blog’s comments.seems to me anyway that they are saying, the grace of God and the death of Jesus, null and voids all sins for those who accept Jesus as the son of God. is that what grace means?
Sorry for being neglectful, but I just finished Mead’s “elder” posts. I was really led to think hard, for the flaws I see in his approach too often show up in my own. Mead proudly recounts blasting an elder by declaring his own superior intellect, education, and skill set– not to correct any real problem, but merely to put that elder in his place and to force that man to stop second-guessing him. Mead identifies himself as a qualified sole selector of elders, and expresses disdain for not just a flawed process, but for many of the people involved. Mead appears to take particular pride in recounting times he has left an elder speechless with a clever verbal thrust to the heart.
I have done all these things. Every single one.
It’s hard to stop doing this. It’s easy to see, if I look, but not so easy a habit to root out. But not only does it serve no useful purpose, too often that is not even the intent. The intent is to raise up a thunderhead of power over myself and to intone from above my cowering peers, “HEAR YE ME!” so we can move forward as I know we should. God help me. I should have learned better by now. And if God has any time left over, he can work with Mead. For I take Mead at his word… he really doesn’t realize that he is doing what he is doing.
I want the church to change. Radically. That’s no secret. I think we have encrusted the church with structures and ideas which need to be changed drastically if the church is ever to live as she is called to live. But these very people who hold these toxic ideas and who defend harmful doctrines are precious to our Father even so. God help me to be more kind and more gentle, to separate my regard for revelation I have from a regard for myself. The message itself is difficult enough, without me being difficult on my own account.
Sins don’t condemn once one is baptised. However, many in the cofC believe that they do.
Let me add that Patrick has many excellent qualities not seen in many ministers. Also, he has a Ph.D. in immunology which gives him credibility with the scientists and physicians who happen to be Christians. First, he will answer questions asked of him by people who may be doubting Christians or are not even Christians at all. His answers are well thought-out and respectful (and Biblical). Second, he does not use canned (cofC correct, elder-approved) or half-hearted responses. I can tell you he has a large following of young people who have said they felt shunned by other ministers and elders for asking too many complicated questions and were yelled at by their parents for expressing doubt.
The fact that he left at least one elder speechless makes many people want to pat him on the back. Too many elders have a history of “lording it over” others. Elder does not equal diety.
Mark,
I agree with your response to Charles. If I remember correctly, the episode to which Charles refers happened after months of the elder involved objecting to all that Patrick wanted to do – and micromanaging in numerous other ways that showed him to “lording it over the flock” – including the other elders. Someone said its not boasting if you can do it. Patrick had done it (and continues to do it today). Also, he went on to indicate that by the time another year went by, the elder had come around and the incident was behind them. In other words, Patrick was much more diplomatic and tactful in his rebuke of the elder than Charles seemed to appreciate.
Charles, I came to this conversation late. I want to respond favorable to your analysis of at least one of our underlying problems – insistence on congregational autonomy. Autonomy comes from two Greek words – auto and nomos. The first means “self;” the second means “law.” Combined they mean “self-law” – or “self-rule.” This is the temptation Satan put before Eve when he said that God knows that you will be wise like Him if you eat the fruit – “knowing good and evil.” That is rule of one’s self without reference to God’s rule over us. Too many times we put ourselves in a position to rule ourselves instead of allowing self to be corrected by interaction with others who disagree. While no one person is to “lord” it over God’s people, when God’s people in loving discourse with one another come to better understanding of God’s Ways and His Kingdom, we are better off than when we isolate ourselves from any dissenting voice. Loving discourse among our selves when we disagree just might also lead to some loving discourse with those of other churches with whom we disagree – and thus contribute to progress in unity across the denominational lines that now divide us.
I agree that Elders are more then mere examples of the flock. But requiring permission from them to undertake anything seems a bit authoritarian to me.
Anonymous,
I entirely agree. The elders should train and equip the members and trust them to do the right thing. The true leader of the church is the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit does not work exclusively through the elders. Sometimes, the wisest choice an elder can make is to get out the way.
Elders who insist on a high level of control do not trust the members and so do not trust their own teaching and equipping.
Mark,
I’ll be addressing how to deal with bad elders in some future posts.
I recall many years ago talking with Landon Saunders about the difference between authority and authenticity. If we are relying on authority to make our point, we’re failing. If our lives are authentically centered on Christ, people will listen and consider what we say. Unfortunately, in our culture, too many people rely on authority.
It’s probably unfair to talk too generally about “elders”. But it does seem that many elders rely on their “authority” to impose their viewpoint, rather than relying on the authenticity of their example of following Jesus.
I wish more would rely on authenticity.
Jay wrote: “Elders who insist on a high level of control do not trust the members and so do not trust their own teaching and equipping.”
Ultimately, it is God and His Word that they don’t trust.
I received by email a comment by David Himes in which he contrasts authority and authenticity. He is exactly right. Unless elder authority (which Jay seems to be stressing) is backed up with the elder’s Christ-like authenticity in life, that authority will be onerous, and the sheep will not follow because the do not hear the voice of the Good Shepherd. This, I believe, is where Jay and Patrick find genuine agreement. An elder who authentically looks and sounds like Jesus does not rely on authority, except – perhaps – in very rare occasions with very rebellious sheep who on closer examination turn out to be wolves in sheep skins – or at least cantankerous old goats or maybe frisky kids.
Jerry and David,
I would certainly agree that authenticity needs to accompany authority, but I do not believe that authenticity can replace authority. What happens when genuinely authentic elders seek to lead a church through difficult change? Well, the authenticity is necessary, but if the members perceive the elders as having no authority, they will follow their own opinions as to what is wise.
We’d like to think that the example of a life well lived should be enough to compel submission to a difficult change, but it’s not. Rather, many members will make their own decision regarding the best course and they will either follow or not depending on their own preferences. Change will thus either not happen or else happen more painfully than is necessary.
Just so, those who believe the elders are acting too slowly, rather than patiently submitting to the elders’ timetable, may pursue their own change agendas apart from the elders, if they see the elders as having no authority.
We keep wanting to retreat from authority so we can retreat from submission, because Americans do not believe in the doctrine of submission. The churches don’t teach it and preachers don’t preach it — and yet it’s a core doctrine, indeed, part of what it means to be Christ-like.
(Heb 13:17 ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Submission requires obedience even when you disagree. And I’ve seen ministers and members refuse to follow some of the most authentic men I know over points of disagreement not involving doctrine — just what both sides admit to be tradition. Authenticity alone makes obedience a personal choice — whereas authority (accompanied by authenticity) allows a shepherd to lead his sheep to better pastures.
Take clapping. The elders — genuinely authentic men — announce that they are going to allow the church to clap to the music. The elders carefully explain their intentions and the doctrinal support for their decision. Questions are taken and answered. The church is gently well prepared for the change.
And yet some members are angry and upset. They don’t see a doctrinal issue but they are afraid of criticism from family and friends in other Churches of Christ. And they prefer traditional music styles. And so they complain to the song leader. They make faces in church. They engage in passive-aggressive behaviors, refusing to clap and making a point to be seen not clapping. And they complain and complain and complain. Indeed, they are so obviously unhappy with the change, that many members decline to clap for fear of hurting the feelings of the non-clapping members. Clapping becomes uncomfortable for the church, the services are unpleasant, and no growth occurs. Rebellion prevails over submission.
If they’d been taught submission — real, biblical, Christlike submission — they would not do this. But because they consider their judgment just as valid as the elders’, they rebel and grumble.
The change — a change the elders consider necessary to grow the church and reach the lost — is unnecessarily painful and ineffective, and those in rebellion (and it is rebellion) set a terrible example for other members. The elders are undermined, and they become reluctant to pursue further change in the worship.
Yes, the elders can confront such sin and rebuke the childish members, but they shouldn’t have to. The congregation should have been taught to submit and obey, as the Bible plainly teaches. Had the members been submissive to the elders’ authority, the change would have been made, the church would have enjoyed their new freedom, and perhaps the church would grow. Perhaps not. But at least the elders’ plan would have been given a fair chance to succeed.
And these problems arise in churches even when the elders are fully authentic.
I think your example demonstrates the universality of our failure before God.
If, as you hypothesize, the elders are fully authentic, then, I can argue, they should have been successful teaching their flock about submission and the proper place for tradition within the family of God.
So, in reality, elders who have to resort to authority to make their point are admitting their failure at authenticity. This observation is not intended to be critical, because we all fail at being fully authentic children of God.
There is value in recognizing that following / submitting to someone (and specifically, an elder) because we see them being an example of how to follow Christ.
I am not an elder by appointment of a congregation, but I know that there are numerous people who pay special attention to the things I say and do. And that makes me even more careful about how I display my faith in my life.
While I think “authenticity” is certainly crucial to an elder’s influence, an actual pastoral connection with each individual sheep is just as crucial. The sad “clapping” scenario here reduces the elders to referees who make a call disliked by some of the fans. They get pushback and all they can do is to reciprocate by pushing back the other way. This demonstrates a lack of relationship and a lack of interpersonal discipling by those same elders. But we cannot reasonably expect elders to demonstrate and practice among others something they have not developed themselves. The centurion understood it better than we do, when he saw it in Jesus.
Even an unbeliever would give his own friends more slack.
Jay wrote “The congregation should have been taught to submit and obey, as the Bible plainly teaches.” This is one topic that can be preached on “till the cows come home” but will be to no avail 99% of the time. When the nation was founded as a rebellion against the monarch, it is very hard to get people to obey much less submit.
If elders have to decide something like this, has anyone ever seen one go to the pulpit and explain the reasoning and remind people that this is not a kindergarten. I guess I always thought that it and anything else the elders thought the congregation needed to hear came in the form of a sermon by the hireling (preacher). Talk about having someone else do the dirty work. I have seen more than one preacher give a sermon that he either did not agree with or did not want to give. Those aren’t pretty, and it was obvious.
This gets back to the preacher as peer or preacher as hireling. On one side the preacher could say that he is not there to do the dirty work so the elders can save face and the other side is that the elders do the hiring and firing.
Jay may have represented both sides during his career.
Jay,
I believe the case you cited re clapping illustrates my point. Thse members who refused to be persuaded by godly elders are cantankerous old goats or frisky kids. They are not acting as authentic sheep. In Hebrews 13:17, the word translated “obey” is πείθω (peithō). The definition by Thayer Is, “(1) persuade’ (1a) to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe, (1b) to make friends of, to win one’s favour, gain one’s good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one, (1c) to tranquillise, (1d) to persuade unto, i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something; (2) be persuaded, (2a) to be persuaded, to suffer one’s self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing, (2a1) to believe, (2a2) to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person, (2b) to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with, (3) to trust, have confidence, be confident.”
The basic idea is persuasion. In this text, the word is imperative, middle or passive voice. In the present tense, these two voices have the same form. Passive voice in Greek, as in English, indicates that the subject is acted on by another; the middle voice indicates that the subject (in this case, an implied “you”) acts on itself. The verse indicates that the subject is to allow itself to be persuaded by the leaders.
Yet, persuasion does not come by authority but by authenticity and reason, or teaching. When people refuse to accept instruction, you do not persuade them by using authority. Think of the child who sits down because Mom said sit down “because I’m the Mom” who sits, but defiantly says, “but I’m still standing up inside.” Trust is the key ingredient in persuasion. Hence, the need for authenticity.
Perhaps in the example, not enough teaching was done (in the case of the cantankerous old goats) or it dragged on too long (in the case of the frisky kids). In each of these, the leaders failed to lead and acted by fiat either beginning or forbidding a new practice.
I’ve been there – on both sides. I’ve been in situations where I was an instigator (as an elder) where not enough teaching was done prior to the change – and where I, with my fellow elders, forbad something with inadequate teaching that would truly persuade.
The trust that opens a person to genuine persuasion, not mere acquiescence, can only come as a result of genuine authenticity of a Christ-like heart.
What do we do with the old goats and frisky kids? Lovingly attempt to win them to a position in which they will listen to the voice of the shepherd, if not because they agree with what he asks of them then, because they trust the shepherd.
As an old goat, respect for the older folks that just might be right on a point or two even though it disagrees with you might be needed. There is also a category called “know it alls” that in my experience are far more destructive.
John, those “know-it-alls” may just be the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
AJ those “know-it-alls” usually come clothed in elder’s garments, in my experience .
Guys,
Let me see if I got this right.
If a group of members rebel against the elders, it’s because the elders aren’t truly authentic and therefore the elders’ fault.
If the elders are in fact clearly highly authentic and some members still rebel, the elders should have been even more authentic, and therefore it’s the elders’ fault.
If some members rebel despite the elders’ being optimally authentic, the elders surely did not have a sufficient personal relationship with every single member of a 400-member church. Therefore, the rebellion of the members is the elders’ fault.
And if the elders have Christ-like authenticity and perfect relationships with all church members, they must make the announcement of the change themselves, or else the rebellion will the be elders’ fault.
In other words, rebellion by members is, as a practical matter, impossible — and all apparent rebellion is a sign of bad eldering. Where there is good eldering, there is no rebellion. Submission depends entirely on the excellence of eldering and therefore there is no reason to instruct the church in submission.
Now, with this view in mind, who would be willing to be an elder?
This is, of course, exactly what we see in the First Century church. Paul was surely the perfect elder-prototype, and none of his congregations were guilty of rebellion and he never needed to call them to account and insist on submission.
I’m saddened to see how eaten up we are with the Western culture of individual autonomy and how far removed we are from the image of Christ — which calls us to radical submission and self-sacrifice.
The Elders are chosen by an individual Church. They might not of been chosen by the next 20 churches down the road nearby.
If you disagree with an Elder, you should bring it up and talk about it, 3 witnesses thing, as I have only seen a few that wouldn’t be willing to do this. Realize there are some that will mark you for life for questioning their authority to call it as they see it and that will be the way it is, by God.
If you are not satisfied with the way the Elders are directing the church, you should leave and go somewhere you agree more but not cause a disturbance.
Ruling by intimidation has caused many of our splits or having a church with no Elders which means it is run by everyone and that makes everyone an Elder in fact. Reminds me of a lesson I used to teach called the ‘Drunken Elder”. It referred to an actual event when a decision was to be made for the church and since it had no Elders, at the business meeting one man showed up drunk and all present stood equally in that Elder position of making the decisions including him.
We are currently dealing with the spirit of rebellion in our church family. Of course, it’s regarding freedom in worship. The shepherds have given us the freedom to clap, use videos with music and to have a praise team (though they are scattered throughout the audience and not on stage). They have taught on this issue, allowed time for congregational feedback and then implemented the changes. There are several who still complain, gripe and criticize and I believe it has stifled the freedom that many want to enjoy in our worship for fear of offending those who are criticizing. It’s sad, depressing and frustrating.
Thanks, LBB. I take your word for it that the elders have handled this wisely and the members who act in rebellion are themselves at fault.
I am amazed at the communication I am hearing. I remember some of Jay’s lessons regarding our lack of recognizing our brothers in Christ that don’t attend our services and possibly even honor man made organizations, and that same principle is not practiced within the teachings and tolerance of accepted brothers and sisters whom we meet and fellowship with inside our own assemblies. We probably will never be in close association with those that we meet elsewhere, but we cannot be Christ like if we reject them upon similar issues that are creating divisions within our assemblies. It seems to me that anytime the Elders or preachers attempt to organize specific actions within the congregation towards a tradition, it involves more than just doing things orderly. I am not sure that the job of Elder was designed to attempt total unison in our assemblies, but only to keep them from becoming unruly because of the hardness of some members hearts that have designed a format that they call worship (which is really not worship at all if they are attempting to govern their brothers and sisters emotions or attitudes). There is no instructions in scriptures that will suggest that a Christian should submit to a different set of standards while assembled with other Christians, than they should ad-hear to as they live outside the assemblies. So what am I saying, any Christian that opposes actions by others in the assembly that disagrees with their own desires which have not been documented in scriptures as sin, is not living the Christian lifestyle, and probably are counting on the ritual of what they have conceived as worship in the assembly to save them rather than Christ.
Elders were given the charge to feed the flock, they were never displayed in scriptures as needing to be referees of battles between the sheep.
Show me in scriptures where the sheep, preachers or Elders were given the responsibility to design how to worship the Lord. Even beyond that is there scripture giving us a ritual for the assembly to build each other up or edify each other while assembled?
Jay…the elders have used wisdom in dealing with this issue and have stayed the course. It is now not an “overt rebellion” but the rolling of eyes, loud sighs, and gossip in corners grows wearisome. Just a hurdle that needs to be overcome as God leads us into freedom and grace.
Jay, while I do sympathize with your feeling a bit ganged up on, with responsibility for all these ills being laid on the elders, it does make me wonder about something. When today’s congregational elder exercises “authority” (be it well or unadvisedly), upon what, exactly, is his claim to such authority based? Even if one accepts the general idea of an elder’s authority in NT reference, how did this particular man get to BE an elder? Was he appointed by God, or chosen by “consent of the governed”? If his position is, as we usually practice, a matter of popular consent among the members of the congregation, then the authority of the appointment actually rests in the congregation. What real authority does the congregational elder have, other than to say, “You gave me this job, now follow the policy I have laid out for you.”? I think this muddled dynamic comes from our stealing the “elder” concept from history and misusing the term to apply largely to elected boards of independent policy-makers. Hard to get reasonable footing in such a slippery place, even assuming good general intentions.
We sometimes mock the electoral process of leaders in other denominations, but we have the same thing, with a fig leaf over it. The elders cannot point to someone of spiritual stature and say, “If you have a problem with us, talk to Titus, who appointed us.” There is no redress available, which is a source of frustration, even if complaints about elders turn out to be overblown or invalid. The sole reason for modern expiring terms for elders is because we have chafed under quasi-elected “presidents-for-life”, who are otherwise unaccountable to anyone. As to the suggestion that “we are accountable to each other”, that sounds more like a junta than any other governmental form.
Your question is a good one: “Why would anyone want to be an elder?” I think too often their answer is, “So I can direct these people’s work and development in the way I believe is best.” While that’s a pretty good management basis, it is less proper as a motivation for a shepherd. I wonder: if you told elders that they would not longer be making congregational policy nor making operational decisions for the group as a whole, how many of those elders would find themselves without anything to do at all? If you told an eldership that their job now was to protect the flock from serious heresy and to personally care for individuals and to disciple them as individuals, how many would find this a sea change in their current job descriptions?
Charles wrote “if you told elders that they would not longer be making congregational policy nor making operational decisions for the group as a whole, how many of those elders would find themselves without anything to do at all? ”
IMHO, about 3 in 4 elders would move over to the Board of Trustees and 1 in 4 would remain on as a “religious elder”
Mark … I wish more congregation could find a distinction between the Board of Trustees and Elders. But it carries difficulties in “where the lines are drawn”, as well.
No, I don’t think so. Submission relies on far more than that. What I fear, though, is that reliance upon positional authority undermines the power of relational authority. Those with the position of elder should not be the only ones rebuking the rebellious members.
The ancient shepherd, which a holistic reading of Scripture suggest should be the framing metaphor for elders, has three responsibilities in his service to the flock: Leadership, Protection, Healing.
Remember the RVL story about how many times, you will see flocks being led by two little girls, because the sheep need to know more than one voice? Otherwise, if the one voice they know dies, the whole flock must be slaughtered?
What that conveys to me is the antithesis of “positional authority.” The sheep will not follow someone because they possess an office called shepherd; because they stand outside the sheepfold and say, “I’m the shepherd, come follow me.”
In prepping for this comment, I found a cool short wiki page that mentions five kinds of authority. I think that all five of them blend together into the work of an elder, but I think that positional and coercive work far less, and should be employed as a last resort.
Think about how Paul goes about addressing his rebellious congregations. How often does he call upon them to submit to him because of his position, and how often does he call upon them to submit to one another because of the Cross?
I don’t think it would be hard to draw the lines. I just have to presume that most elders not moving to Trustees would not want to give up power while some would be happy to move. Part of the congregation would not like it because they might not be able to run to one particular elder and get proposals/ideas stopped rather quickly since the Trustees would now be making that decision. Another part of the congregation would love the new structure since they would have easier access to the Trustees without certain elders being able to stop all proposals. The moderates and liberals would love the Trustees since younger people and women could serve.
The politics of religion….
“The politics of religion….”
Ain’t that the truth!
The best elder I ever knew didn’t even have that title(he disliked the politics of it all), but he was the one many in the church flocked to, to perform their loved ones funerals(instead of the preacher), to marry them, and to open up and talk with about problems. The sheep will recognize true shepherds, if there are any around. Usually it will be someone willing to take time to really talk with you, invite you over to their place, and come by yours when the need or opportunity arises. But so often we select someone with management experience in the absence of real shepherds.
Wow. Hand clapping? Praise teams? Maybe you all have not seen how those things evolve. It all becomes a show…one big show. Who can clap the loudest, who can clap with the best rhythm, who can add a slightly different clap beat, who sings the best on the praise team, who can put the most emotion & theatrics into the singing… I’ve experienced it. You do not want to go there. Just close the doors and join the community church.
Wow. Four part harmony? Song books? Have you seen how those things evolve? One big Stamps-Baxter show. Who can come up with the catchiest melody, wave their hand the best to keep the beat, find the song the fastest, who can put the most emotion and theatrics into singing…I’ve defintely experienced it, plus the bonus of self-righteous indignation and condemnation. Bring back the good old Gregorian chant…like it should be.
Orion, only if you sing those chants in Greek or Hebrew, so God will understand them in his native language. Latin is so Catholic. And English didn’t even exist in the first century, so we KNOW that’s not biblical.
Change leads to who-knows-what. I have heard it reported that, contrary to the practice of the earliest believers, some congregations let the womenfolk actually SIT with the men in worship. Some even sing out loud, instead of being silent. I heard that there were even religious songs where women’s voices were heard above the men. But I just can’t believe we have left the faith to that extent… some things are beyond the pale.
And don’t even get me started on those guys who have decided that they can shave off their beards, like the pagan Romans did. I don’t know how THAT practice got into the church, but it’s been awfully tough to get rid of it.