Theological Musings

n my post about maturity, way back in the end of 2006 , my dear friend and blogging buddy Gordon Cloud asked some questions about simple church that I never got around to answering because of the holidays. I’m finally going to take the time to address them here, and open it up for further discussion, rebuttal, etc. by Gordon or anyone else who cares to weigh in.

Before I begin, I want to make some foundational points very clear. I find it necessary from time to time to revisit these underlying points because not all who read this post read my blog regularly (or have read long enough to see these points before). Additionally, it serves as a reminder for myself, lest I get so enamored with where my ideas are right now that I allow pride to creep into my heart. So, the following post has, as its undercurrent, the following presuppositions and foundational concepts:

• I am not against any particular form of church. I think that there are plusses and minuses in any expression of the body of Christ, and I also believe there are exceptions to every possible criticism or positive comment that can be made about any form of church.
• I do not believe that my ideas are the only possible conclusion to what is revealed in the Bible, but I do attempt to constantly check everything I am doing and promoting with what has been revealed.
• I do not personally believe in a “prescriptive” approach of reading Scripture, insomuch as some groups claim that their particular style of church is “New Testament” or “biblical”, etc. Rather, I look at what Scripture does tell us about how the body should function, what the goals are, and evaluate our practices in light of those desired outcomes. (This is a key principle in understanding where I’m coming from.)
• While I may disagree with some brothers and sisters on their approach to church, I do not hold that against them personally, and do not see it as a personal issue of division between us. As Paul instructs, I try to live at peace with all, as much as it depends on me.

Having said all that, there are three questions that Gordon posed. The first is one that relates to a particular view of elders, not necessarily limited to simple church. The other two relate more specifically to simple church. Gordon asks:

1. Where does the Bible mandate multiple elders? (I know it gives a historical reference to their existence, but it does to pastor/teachers as well)
2. In the simple church model, where do the biblical offices of pastor and deacon fit in?
3. Where do musicians fit in? (You’re going to have a hard time convincing me that God hasn’t equipped you for this ministry! )

The first question was answered by Alan Knox in the comments that followed Gordon’s questions, but I’ll touch a bit on it here. I’m not exactly sure I understand now (several weeks later) what this question was in response to, but I think it went along with the concept we were batting around about multiple teachers, pastors, etc. helping to shepherd the body.

As Alan mentioned in his reply to Gordon, elders are never mandated in Scripture at all. There’s not a mandate for a single elder, nor is there a mandate for a plurality of elders. However, references to elders in the NT are plural. So, the concept of multiple elders seems to be the “norm” in the NT churches.

I think, perhaps, however, that the question is whether or not it is appropriate to have one “senior pastor”, or a head elder, who is primarily responsible for shepherding, preaching, etc. (If I’m misunderstanding, Gordon, please correct me.) If the Scripture mandated multiple elders, then obviously, it would be wrong for a church to be led by one man. In the absence of scriptural mandate, therefore, I do not believe I can, in good conscience, say that it is wrong to only have one.

However, in light of the shepherding aspect of elders, I believe that one elder is not the most practical way to work out the descriptions we have in the New Testament. I realize that Gordon and I differed on this point in the thread to which this post responds, but I do believe that it is necessary to have a finger on the pulse of where someone is spiritually if we are to shepherd them. If I am an elder, attempting to shepherd and spiritually guide multiple people, I think it is impractical to conceive that I can do that effectively without having a relationship with those people.

This goes both ways. Not only do I need to have an awareness of where they are in their walk, but they need to know me in such a way that my life can be an influence to them. This takes into account the reminders by Peter and Paul (but not Mary! hehe) to live lives that are examples to those whom we are shepherding. How can one truly be an example, if there is insufficient relationship for their lives to truly be observed?

I have seen many times (including in my own life) where a leader can seem to have their act together in public, but in private, it is far from together. This is easy to maintain when there is distance between the leader and the follower (reference the utter surprise and confusion that results when a pastor of a large church resigns amid scandal), but when there is a real relationship, it is much, much harder for these types of discrepancy to remain.

Because I see relationship and visibility of a spiritual life to be so crucial in the biblical descriptions of elders, that leads me to the conclusion that elders are more associated with smaller groups of people, and as the group gets larger, the number of elders gets larger.

This in no way is meant to imply that one cannot learn and grow from the teaching of one more separate from their personal lives. However, I think there is a distinct difference between this form of learning by listening, and a true elder/shepherd relationship. I have learned much from men I have listened to or read. But I could never legitimately call those men a “pastor” to me. They know nothing about me, and I know nothing about them. How can they shepherd me, and how can I emulate them?

There are some additional practical reasons why I believe being an elder to a smaller group of believers is more desirable. One is the propensity for leadership to turn into a power trip for the one “at the top”. This plays out in churches much, much more than it ever should.

And quite frankly, it can happen on a small group level, as well. However, I think that both the temptation in this regard and the fallout from the damage caused by yielding to that temptation are both magnified as the size of the group grows. The more the leader is separated from the people (i.e., protected from them), and the more the identity of that group is centered around that human being, the greater the danger. And the harder the fall, if one comes.

I hear often (and heard when I was a vocational pastor, as well) how lonely it can be in the pastorate. You don’t know who you can trust, you don’t have very many close friends, you feel like people aren’t really being themselves around you, etc. But if you are not the only one “at the top” (think about that for a moment), it needn’t be lonely, trust and loving relationships can be forged, etc.

These are some reasons why, although not mandated, I think that the concept of multiple elders (without one being elevated) is a very wise practice to have in our church families. Not only that, but I think it will be the natural outgrowth of a maturing, growing body of believers.

This is already too long, so I’ll deal with the next two questions in a later post.

Until next time,

steve

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 5:16 pm and is filed under Church, Scripture Interpretation, Simple Church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.