This new podcast is another one that I’m excited to share with you because it not only involves topics that I care about, but it’s also my lovely wife’s podcasting debut.  That’s right! Christy and I are co-hosting a brand new podcast called “It’s Really That Simple“.  And the URL to find it is “really that simple”, as well: ItsReallyThatSimple.com (just make sure you leave the apostrophe out of “It’s”, or just drop the first word altogether and go to ReallyThatSimple.com – that will work just as well!).

This podcast does not venture into the theological minefields that Beyond the Box does.  But it does address simplicity in a multitude of areas, from faith to education to nutrition.

So come on over to “It’s Really That Simple” (not available in iTunes yet, but will be soon) and take a listen to the newest husband/wife podcasting team on the ‘net!

Until next time,

steve

To my dear brothers who are involved in the institutional church, please don’t read this so much as an “institutional vs. simple” dichotomy. But prayerfully weigh Phil’s words here and see what points of agreement might be had. Of course, dissenting opinions are welcome in the comments following this post, if one feels it necessary.

Without further ado, then, in my “Wish I Had Written This!” category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post:

Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership

or

(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.

Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!

How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?

If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?

I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.

And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect [frequent commenter] ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.

To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?

Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.

Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.

Way to go, Phil! And a hearty “amen” to that.

Until next time,

steve

This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in two concerts of chamber music. For those of you unfamiliar with classical music, the term “chamber music” usually refers to groups larger than two and up to about a dozen.

The two performances I was a part of were a piano trio (piano, violin, cello) and a piano quintet (piano, 2 violins, viola, and cello). Chamber music is rather different from most of the work I do at the University because it’s not “accompanying”. In chamber music, every instrument is equally important, and at any given point in time, any one of the instruments could be predominant in terms of playing the melody, etc.

This was the first time that I ever had the experience of working in this type of setting with chamber music, and I found it exhilarating! But it also made me think in terms of metaphor.

In July, 2005, I wrote a post called “Symphony or Cacophony” where I drew the parallel between a symphony orchestra becoming unified under one conductor and the Body of Christ being unified under our Conductor, Jesus Himself. And I believe that metaphor still stands.

But there is another facet of the body of Christ that I saw in my chamber music experiences. Specifically, I want to draw on examples from the quintet performance. (For those interested in these things, we performed Antonin Dvorák’s Piano Quintet in A Major, Op. 81.)

In a chamber music setting, there is no conductor. Rather, each player is responsible for being unified with the rest of the group. This plays out in various ways.

There are several ways in which the group coordinates with itself. One of these is the method we affectionately refer to as “The Sniff”.

It works like this: If the first violinist is responsible for starting a particular piece, he will make sure everyone is ready, and then he will sniff loud enough for the rest of the ensemble (and, depending on the hall, the audience as well!) to hear. This sharp inhalation functions in precisely the same way as a conductor’s “prep beat”. In other words, this is the one beat prior to the start of the music which instantly communicates when the piece is to begin, and likewise the tempo with which the piece will be played.

I will use “The Sniff” as my first example of how this played out in our performance. In the first movement of the Dvorák, the piano starts by itself and the cello comes in with a gorgeous solo in the third bar. For this reason, there was no need for a sniff from anyone. I merely made sure everyone was ready, especially the cellist, and I began playing.

The same was true of the second movement. However, the third movement started with the four string players minus the piano. In this instance, it was necessary for the first violinist to give “The Sniff”. And the quartet came in based on that cue.

The fourth movement started with all five of us. The difference was, however, that the piano hit the first note, and the four string players had to instantly respond on the second half of that first beat. In this case, because it was the piano that began, it was I who was responsible for “The Sniff”.

I illustrate all of this to demonstrate how I believe leadership can, and should, play out in the body of Christ. There are times when one or another person needs to “take the lead” on something. However, this is done in coordination with the rest of the body (in my metaphor, making sure the others are “ready” to move). And this leadership is sometimes just a gentle lead in the right direction.

Once the violinist or I gave that indication to the rest of the group that we were about to start, we then immediately resumed our position as “one of the gang”. I didn’t maintain “leadership” through the entire fourth movement. In fact, only about eight measures or so into the fourth movement, it was necessary for the first violinist to once again take the lead.

Another form of leadership that happens in chamber music such as this relates to subtle moments of leadership within a phrase of music. There are moments where the tempo is “pushed” or “stretched” in response to the musical ideas. Sometimes this is planned out in rehearsal, but other times, it “just happens” in performance.

One such example was in the second movement. This movement features the viola throughout most of the movement in a slow and passionate melody in the very dark key of f# minor. After a brief introduction by the piano, the viola takes over, and the rest of the quintet pretty much follows the violist’s lead.

There was one particular unrehearsed moment in our performance, however, where I saw not only organic leadership, but a shared leadership between me and the violist. I’ll try to explain it to make my point.

At a particular point in one phrase, I felt the urge to “stretch” a particular beat. Because the violist was technically in the lead at that point, I had to make sure not to step on her toes. I glanced over at her to see what she was going to do. She happened to glance my way at the same time, and so we were able to watch each other and feel the stretch of the beat together. The rest of the quintet followed perfectly.

The moment was very small. And the glance was very short, but just enough for us to incorporate the musical expression in conjunction with each other, and in so doing, lead the rest of the quintet together for that moment.

I call all of this “organic leadership”. The idea that leadership is fluid within the group, and that it sometimes moves from one to another as the need requires. There was not one set leader in the group, and when we were finished, it was a corporate bow by all five of us with none recognized more highly than the rest.

And what happens when that leadership doesn’t quite work? At another point in the second movement, the first violinist accidentally took the lead a measure earlier than he was supposed to. Instantly, the rest of the group figured out what had happened, and adjusted their playing to once again bring the entire quintet into unity. It happened so fast and without any of us actually having to say or do anything other than adjust our playing (skipping a few notes) to “catch up”.

The first violinist was not demoted as a result, nor was he forbidden from taking the lead in the other areas he was supposed to. Instead, the group organically worked to “cover” the fault, and together we continued in unity.

I think these are all ways in which the body of Christ can work together as one body. And I hope that, even for my readers who are not musical, the metaphor has been explained well enough to make the point. Your thoughts in response?

Until next time,

steve

I didn’t know it at the time, but apparently, Bill is on a similar journey of exploring life outside the institutional church. I don’t know all of the details, but I did want to highlight a post that Bill wrote yesterday.

The post is entitled “The People formerly known as The Congregation“, and finds itself highlighted here as the first in a new category I’m calling “Wish I Had Written This!”

Here is a paragraph from Bill’s essay, although I definitely encourage you to read the whole thing:

We are The People formerly known as The Congregation. We have not stopped loving the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nor do we avoid “the assembling of the saints.” We just don’t assemble under your supposed leadership. We meet in coffee shops, around dinner tables, in the parks and on the streets. We connect virtually across space and time – engaged in generative conversations – teaching and being taught.

There are minor details in which I don’t fully agree with everything that Bill has included here, but I think this functions as a strong apologetic for those of us who are seeking expressions of church outside of the conventional model. And I especially appreciate the tone with which Bill addresses our brothers and sisters who are still part of what we have left.

You can discuss it here, or on Bill’s blog.

Until next time,

steve

To begin with, I must offer a bit of a disclaimer. We have not fully experienced simple church in any kind of long-term, lasting situation yet. We are still very much “in process” and on the journey. Much of what I write about is still in its infancy, and some is even still very much in the outworking of theory.

Having said that, I will share a basic chronology of the journey, and augment with observations and personal testimony along the way.

Some of the seeds of simple church were planted many years ago when I was first involved in various implementations of small groups within a larger structure. Many times, I hear people say that some of the deepest experiences of spiritual growth and fellowship have taken place in small groups. My experience concurs.

Those small group experiences were very varied. Some were extremely structured, and others were much more informal. Perhaps one of the most memorable situations was when I was in college. The group of college kids in my home church began to get a bit frustrated with the Sunday School class that was provided for us. It just seemed like the teacher wasn’t really teaching much of anything that was prompting any kind of spiritual growth to take place.

We decided to start meeting in an unofficial capacity outside of the church structure for additional fellowship and study. We carefully chose a meeting time that would not conflict in any way with the church’s schedule, and we all continued to faithfully attend the Sunday School class on Sunday mornings (as well as the regular church services).

Each Saturday evening (I believe that was when we met), we invited different people to come speak with our group — at the start, it was usually one of the elders of the church. Over time, we invited other speakers from outside the church, and eventually began to spend time in the Word without a “leader”. It was fascinating! We would spend hours together as a group, fellowshipping, worshiping, praying, and studying. It felt like some of the most deep growth I had ever experienced in my life up until that point.

I don’t remember how long that group survived, but eventually, it ended up being viewed as an “unsanctioned” meeting, and we were told by the elders that we could no longer meet without continual elder oversight. Hmmm, maybe that was a foreshadowing of where things would end up going in my experience! We allowed one of the elders to “restructure” the group, and although there were still some times of growth, for the most part, things changed dramatically, and the group disintegrated over time.

At any rate, I never forgot that experience, nor others that were similar (I’m talking about the growth aspect). I spent many more years (probably about 15) involved in various levels of church leadership and laity. I taught, I preached, I “led worship”, I sat and listened, I gave financially, I received financially, I played, I sang…

Fast forward to the year 2003. I’ve written previously some of the details of what led me to reconsider my overall thinking on church organization, so I won’t repeat all of the details here. But suffice it to say that by the summer of 2003, I was seeking something different.

At this point, I had no clue that anybody else had ever had the same thoughts I was having. I tentatively shared them with Christy (to whom I was engaged to be married), fearing that it might scare her off. Instead, I found her to be quite open to what I was talking about, and together we began to search for answers.

I officially resigned my last church position in December, 2003 in preparation for my move to Boone, NC, and to pursue this new concept (new to me). As Christy and I found, however, many before us had already discovered the concept of what we termed at the time “house church”. We had not yet heard the term “simple church”, but what we read and studied both in terms of Scripture and resources from those already “doing it” matched our thoughts.

In February, 2004, we got together with several other families who also seemed to be seeking this type of fellowship, and began our first attempt at a “house church”. For the next eighteen months, we experienced quite a bit of what we imagined it could be like.

Not everything during that time was perfect. In fact, there was actually quite a bit of stuff that wasn’t even close to perfect! But once again, we experienced some of the same things that I had experienced earlier in life.

There were times when our gatherings would last over five hours! And even then, leaving would be reluctant. It was so thrilling to see so many people contribute to the gathering. Whether it was simple musical worship, or Spirit-led times of prayer, or challenging discussions about various texts of scripture, it was so refreshing.

During that time, I became even more convinced that nothing could replace the type of gathering where all are free to contribute. Not based on a schedule or agenda, nor on anyone’s “position” within the group, but simply as the Spirit led.

Eventually, for a variety of reasons, one family after another left. With the exception of us, everyone was still heavily involved in other churches (which was fine with us — we never asked anyone to leave their church), and eventually that pulled them away. Finally, it was back to just us.

In the months following, we made every effort to rest in Jesus and not try to force anything to happen. At times, it seemed lonely. Very lonely. But over time, God brought people into our lives who shared the same passion.

Currently, we are still seeking together what that means. Our gatherings together are not nearly as frequent as we would like. (By “we”, I mean all of us who are seeking this together.) But when we do get together, I still feel that same excitement and delight at watching the body work together in fellowship and growth. And I come away feeling refreshed and eager to get back together again!

It’s kind of funny because we don’t meet all together weekly, and yet when we do meet, it’s usually for four or five hours. It’s like getting together with family — in fact, that’s what it is. And while we don’t have all the answers (or even very many of them) as to what it should look like, or what it will look like in the future, I do feel like we’re on the right path.

In these gatherings, I continually find myself challenged and encouraged. I find that my awareness of the indwelling of Christ is heightened beyond anything I have ever experienced. And my love for Him and for His body deepens.

In addition to the gatherings as a group, there are the personal relationships. Two of my regular readers and commenters here (Raborn and David [ded]) are part of this family. And while I don’t get to spend as much time with David as I would like (not even close!), I do get the blessing of meeting with Raborn on a weekly basis for either breakfast or lunch. Those times are deeply challenging, refreshing, and encouraging to me. And two to three hours can fly by in a heartbeat!

All in all, with the exception of wishing that we could figure out a way to meet more frequently as a gathering of believers, I can’t say that I would necessarily trade any of this for anything else. And I’m learning to see simple church as a lifestyle of relationships, not just a certain type or frequency of meeting. In some ways, because of my interaction with David and Raborn here, this blog is a part of our simple church. And it allows us to connect with other believers in unique ways, too. My times with Raborn are part of simple church. Times when we fellowship together even when only one other couple can make it are part of simple church.

Simple church is a “way of life” for us, and we are constantly seeking more ways to make that a reality. I don’t know where this journey will lead, but I’m loving it!

Until next time,

steve

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you,…shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.

1. I wonder if the word “among” is significant. The description of elder here is not one who is removed from the rest of the flock, nor one who is above the rest of the flock, nor one who is coming in from the outside, but “among” us.
2. Peter exhorts elders plural. He did not say, “I exhort the elder among you” or “I exhort the senior elder” or…you get the picture.
3. “not under compulsion” could possibly play into discussions about whether or not pastors should, as a general rule, be salaried employees of a corporation called a church. Why do I say this? Because…
4. Peter says this should be “voluntarily…and not for sordid gain”. Now, I realize that one can draw a salary without doing it “for sordid gain”, but I think it’s interesting that Peter seems to be focused quite a bit on the monetary aspect (or lack thereof) of “eldering”.
5. Note, too, that he equates the “voluntarily” part (if I’m reading this right) with “the will of God”. Could he be thinking back to Jesus’ instructions about not leading like the Gentiles did, by “lording it over” people? He was there when Jesus said it, ya know
6. “proving to be examples to the flock” sounds an awful lot like “living it out” in front of them. This is a whole lot more about how a man lives, than what he teaches or preaches.

Now, most churches I know of and have been in are very good at having “volunteer” elders (well, apart from the “hey, Bob, we need to fill an elder slot for the next year. I know you’d allow us to nominate you, right?”), but does our “one man up top” structure encourage people to look at the lives of the elders? Or does it encourage them to look at the pastor alone for their leadership? And how much are they able to learn from the pastor’s life vs. how much they attempt to learn from his teaching/preaching?

Until next time,

steve

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! )

Gordon asks in the second question about the “biblical offices of pastor and deacon”. The wording of this question reveals some of the presuppositions that are brought to these types of discussions, and results in a bit of a loaded question, so bear with me while I dissect it!

First of all, the adjective “biblical” gets used a lot to imply that the noun modified is mandated by Scripture and is therefore necessary for “correct” ecclesiology. I’m not necessarily saying that Gordon was consciously thinking this when he used the word “biblical”, but I think it’s necessary first of all to examine whether or not “offices” are biblical, either for pastor or deacon, in light of this question.

One could possibly make the case for the office of deacon. 1 Timothy 3 begins with instructions regarding “any man [who] aspires to the office of overseer”, which appears from Scripture to be synonymous with “elder”. Then, in verse 8, Paul continues with “Deacons likewise”, which appears grammatically to put deacons in the same category as elders/overseers with regard to the term “office”.

However, no such instructions can be found for an “office of pastor”. In fact, the only time the word “pastor” is used in the New Testament, with regard to the church (and not literal shepherds or Jesus Himself), is in Ephesians 4. I have made the point on this blog before that there are problems using Ephesians 4:11 to defend our modern view of “pastor”, and especially that of “senior pastor”. Two of the problems are listed here:

• The “pastors” mentioned in Ephesians 4 are “gifts” to the Church, not necessarily positions or offices to be filled.
• If we maintain that an “office of pastor” is necessary based on Ephesians 4, then we must reckon with the offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist, and teacher (if one does not hyphenate pastor-teacher into one gift, which is possible to do).

I have heard some in the past attempt to apply passages regarding “elders” to “pastors”, and thereby find much more NT support for the “office of pastor”. Based on some of the descriptions and instructions regarding elders (most notably, 1 Peter 5:1-3), I think it is quite possible to view pastors as elders and vice-versa.

The difficulty with this, though, is that it ends up leading back to the discussion on multiple elders. Is the NT record indicative of one elder leading the church? Some refer to the “senior pastor” as “the teaching elder”, or some “first among equals”, etc. but these designations are nowhere found in Scripture. The only distinction that is made among elders or “shepherds” is that Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. For example, here is 1 Peter 5:1-4 (NASB):

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.

Peter contrasts between earthly “shepherds” and Jesus, “the Chief Shepherd”. Not between “pastors” and “elders” or “senior pastor” and other “staff pastors”.

So, we’ve dealt with the “office of pastor”, but what about the deacons? I recently made this point in a discussion somewhere else (although at the moment, I can’t recall where!) that deacons existed in Acts 6 to fill a particular need. There is no indication that this “office” continued on in every single church. However, Paul does give instructions, as I’ve already noted, as to the qualities of a deacon, so it is quite possible that deacons were “the norm” in all of the churches in the NT.

The point that I want to make here isn’t so much that deacons did or did not exist in some churches. The point, again, is with regard to their functioning, and what that role is to the body. I see no evidence that any of these gifts are holes that must be filled at all times in every church. But to the extent that the Spirit gifts and calls people in the body for these roles, they function organically in the body.

So, with all of this in mind, my response to Gordon would be that my experience with simple church and interaction with others on a similar journey is that all of the gifts and types of servants mentioned in the Bible are legitimate roles in the body of Christ. Pastors, elders, deacons, etc. are not opposed by simple church models.

But here is the key difference between the simpler method of church and the conventional model that we see around us: In a simple church environment, the recognition of these gifts (and the exercise of them) is a much more organic, informal process. Simple churches do not generally hire someone (and especially not from the outside) to do the work of shepherding the flock. Rather, those among them who are gifted in those areas function in that capacity as needed.

It bears repeating once again that the gifts given to the church are for the maturing of the body, and not for the lifelong listening/receiving by the members of the body.

I’ve gone pretty long on this second question, like I did with the first, so let me just briefly answer the third (because the answer is quite brief anyway).

Where do musicians fit in? The mentions of music in the New Testament (with regard to the church), are simply that we should speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. While at times, I do share my musical talents with different assemblies of believers, I do not believe that I am gifted musically for that purpose alone, nor do I believe that my musical talent entitles me to any special position or status within the church. But the question relates to music within the simple church concept, so let me address it in that light.

Music is actually one of those areas that often causes confusion when one steps outside of the traditional structures of our churches. Quite often, many will assume that we must have some form of music during our gatherings, and quickly, the move is made to identify someone in the group who can “lead” that. However, I believe this is completely unnecessary. According to 1 Corinthians 14, anyone can (and should) bring a song as the Spirit leads.

I do not derive my philosophy of music in the church in the same way that some conclude that musical instruments are inappropriate. So I’m not saying that certain uses of music within the church are wrong, per se. However, I don’t believe that “congregational singing” is as essential to our gatherings as we often seem to think it is. In fact, if I could say this without it sounding really obnoxious, I think that the reason we have elevated “congregational singing” so much is because this is one of the few ways we allow the otherwise passive congregation to participate.

In light of what I have just shared, I will attempt to write a post in the near future outlining some of my particular thoughts on how music can be used within the gathering of believers.

Until next time,

steve

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

Some believe that we must be very careful in applying Paul’s instructions across the board because they were written to specific churches in a specific culture at a specific time. Others believe that, because certain gifts allegedly no longer exist, some specific instructions might not necessarily apply.

This is all fine and good, and readers of my blog know that I don’t really have a problem not finding complete agreement on these issues. I have tremendous respect for all of my regular commenters here, and have no desire to debate endlessly on things that could end up dividing us if we aren’t careful.

However, since this is my blog…

No, seriously. This morning, Dave Black linked to an article he had written back in 2003 entitled “There’s Only One ‘Senior Pastor’ and It’s Not Us!“. How’s that for a provocative title?! In this article, Dave challenges the status quo of leadership styles in our churches.

First of all, if you are not familiar with Dave Black, allow me to introduce him to you:

Known for his love for New Testament Greek and passion for teaching, Dave Black is a husband, father, professor, author, preacher, lecturer, web journalist, and (above all) a sinner saved by God’s sovereign grace….

Dave is currently Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He has also taught courses at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Lancaster Bible College, Fuller Theological Seminary, Talbot School of Theology, Simon Greenleaf University, Criswell College, Freie Hochschule für Mission (Germany), Tyndale Theological Seminary (Holland), Bibelschule Walzenhausen (Switzerland), IEM Bible College (India), Chong Shin Theological Seminary (Korea), Faith Theological Seminary (Korea), Cosin Theological Seminary (Korea), Evangelical Theological College (Ethiopia), Meserete Kristos College (Ethiopia), and at other institutions.

In addition, he has lectured at the Complutensian University in Spain, the Areopagus in Timisoara, Romania, and the Universities of Oxford and Leeds in England.

Dave has published over 100 scholarly articles and book reviews in such journals as Novum Testamentum, New Testament Studies, Bible Translator, Journal of Biblical Literature, Biblica, Westminster Theological Journal, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, and Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

(By the way, Dave and his wife are leaving today for three weeks in Ethiopia. If you wouldn’t mind, keep them in your prayers today and over the next few weeks.)

In the article that I linked to above, Dave talks pretty frankly about our traditional structure of leadership and how it departs from the New Testament experience. For example, he describes the lowly, servant-style approach that Jesus exhorted his disciples to use, and then contrasts it with this statement:

Someday, I hope, the plain truth of the matter will no longer be a subject of debate and confusion among God’s people. The whole traditional concept of one “pastor” of a local congregation is a practice that is absolutely foreign to Scripture.

I tried to post some questions in my previous post to spark some thinking about what changes might be needed in our view of church, if we accept the New Testament record as one showing some principles that are timeless and a-cultural. Dave puts it a bit more bluntly:

The time has come to bring our local church practices under the scrutiny of God’s Word. If there are practices in our tradition that are in conflict with the New Testament revelation, then we have only one option, and that is to correct our practices. The Bible clearly rejects our clergy-laity divide. All members of the local church are to function in the body according to the grace given unto them (Rom 12:1-8). The church is a temple in which every Christian is a “priest” who offers spiritual “sacrifices” to God (1 Pet 2:5, 9). According to the New Testament, all Christians do the work of ministry through the exercise of spiritual gifts. Whatever legitimate distinction can be made between leaders and led (e.g., 1 Thess 5:12-13) does not negate the fundamental truth of the priesthood of all believers. (emphasis mine)

I’ve emphasized one sentence in bold, because I think it illustrates the kind of radical thinking I continue to push for on this blog. I don’t think that, ultimately, it’s good enough for us to sit back and think about how different things should be. If we know something should be done differently, I think we have a responsibility to pursue that.

Now, please note that I am not saying anything specifically about how things should be changed. I’m learning to be humble enough not to think that I actually have answers to all of these questions for everyone else’s situation! But I do want to continually encourage each of my readers to act on any truth that has been revealed to them, and trust God to lead them into whatever changes might be necessary. For some, the changes might happen fast and radically. For others, it could take years.

When I started to question my own involvement in leadership and the conventional system of doing church as a whole, it was not an immediate change for me. In fact, it took almost a year for us to work through some of the concerns Christy and I had about heading in a new direction. For some, it could be even longer.

Ultimately, when a body of believers is involved, any changes need to involve the whole body. This might mean that some are ready to change long before changes actually take place. Or some may be a bit slower to adopt changes that take place. But the mutual respect and edification that results in treating each member of the body as vital to the life of the body would, in my opinion, be very beneficial to the maturity of the church.

Let me illustrate a little bit by quoting a comment Alan Knox left on my recent post. Maybe I can talk Alan into sharing a bit more about the journey that his fellowship is on. In writing about the introduction of open, participatory elements into their gathering, Alan wrote:

I’ve talked with many people who recognize that scripturally any believer should have opportunity to use their gifts (speaking or serving) to edify the church. However, they do not know how to implement this in their current context and with the current expectations of the church.

We started by discussing this with the church. Has everyone caught on? No, many still believe it is the “preacher’s” responsibility to speak to the church on behalf of God. However, there are some who are beginning to understand that God may desire to speak through them. So, some are beginning to take their responsibility seriously.

It’s a process. But one which we should not prevent our fellow believers from experiencing, if we sense that God is leading us toward a different expression of the body. If God is the author of the change, then we don’t need to try to figure out how to make it happen, or how to make sure people are prepared for it. We must trust Him to be the “Senior Pastor” of His sheep, and follow Him ourselves as an example to others.

Until next time,

steve

]]> http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com/2006/12/14/when-tradition-meets-scripture/feed/ 15 http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com/2006/12/11/on-order-leadership-and-prophecy/ http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com/2006/12/11/on-order-leadership-and-prophecy/#comments Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:02:56 +0000 Steve Sensenig http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com/2006/12/11/on-order-leadership-and-prophecy/ Continue reading →]]> One of the questions that often gets raised regarding simple church is how to handle teaching and prophecy that comes into an open, participatory meeting. The thinking seems to be that, with open participation, it is too possible for “wrong doctrine” or actual heresy to be spoken.

This is often managed in the institutional church with the leadership serving as a barrier to open participation. By that, I mean one of two things:

1. Any open teaching that takes place is “by invitation only”, or by getting spoken words “pre-approved” by a pastor or elder in the church.
2. Open teaching is simply not allowed for the most part, and the teaching is handled only by the leaders.

While the efforts and motives in these situations are usually quite noble, I think that it’s possible to consider the approach outlined in Scripture, and rely on it. Most of the time, in situations like this, my ideas are viewed by many as “idealistic”. Something that would be nice in theory, but “in the real world”, we have to make other accommodations. I find that this thinking, however (the contrast between idealism and real world practicality), belies our reliance on our own ability to control things and not on God’s revelation.

So, what does the Scripture say about open speaking in a church gathering, and how does that affect our thinking along these lines? I’d like to point out some things that I’ve mentioned before here on this blog, from 1 Corinthians 14. Specifically, I’d like to focus on verses 29-32 (NASB):

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

Notice what is absent from this passage. There is no mention here of prophecies being “pre-screened” by anyone. The prophecies are spoken in the gathering, and others weigh the prophecy. This provides the very “check and balance” that is so often feared to be lacking in simple church. Those who believe that anyone speaking will quickly lead to heresy or false doctrine have neglected the very protection offered by Paul in this passage. Things that are spoken in a meeting are not merely left hanging out there. They are evaluated. They are judged. They are weighed.

Another very key point to be made in this passage is that the speaking is not restricted to the one who “has the floor.” In fact, quite the opposite. If one is speaking, and another gets a revelation, who is responsible for being quiet? The one who feels the need to interrupt? Or the one who is already speaking? I think the answer is rather obvious. “The first one must keep silent.”

How does this play out in our churches? I mentioned above two things that often end up taking place. There seems to be an “either/or” choice of how to handle this. Either we restrict sharing to those who are “pre-approved”, or we forbid open speaking completely, both of which completely avoid Paul’s instructions on allowing people to speak.

Even in churches that regularly offer a portion of their service for open sharing, it is only limited to a portion of time, and even then is rather tightly controlled. But these controls go beyond what Paul laid out in his letter to the Corinthians. And I don’t think they are necessary.

Paul instructs that things are to be spoken, and then weighed by others. This seems to clearly be in the context of a public gathering. By allowing things to be spoken, and then weighed, the entire body is edified, and the maturity of its members is facilitated. This should be the goal of any service (compare Ephesians 4). Each member gains insight into the “weighing” process, and the leaders are no longer functioning as the filter for what is said.

Recently, this came back to my thinking while watching a video of a portion of a church service from this past weekend in the UK. The guest speaker was Andrew Jones, with whom some of you may be familiar. He blogs under the title “Tall Skinny Kiwi“, because he really is a tall, slender man from New Zealand (although currently living in the UK)!

Andrew had blogged over the weekend about a group that he heard might try to interrupt the service at which he was preaching. As he had expected, some people showed up and interrupted the end of his sermon to deliver a prophecy. In that post, Andrew links to another blogger who videotaped the episode and posted that video. I would strongly encourage you to go watch that video so that you understand where I’m coming from on this.

Now, I must make it very clear here that I am not passing judgment on Andrew or the elders of the church where this took place. It is entirely possible that the above instructions from Paul do not apply to someone coming in from the outside. At best, the idea of walking into a service and interrupting it is questionable in its validity. However, I would like to take a look at how this situation might have been handled in a manner consistent with 1 Cor 14.

Andrew and others have defended their actions (basically prohibiting the two women from speaking in that service) based on the fact that they had told the women they could speak, provided the women met with the leadership and shared their prophecy ahead of time. My question, in light of Paul’s instructions, is whether the leaders of a church ever have that responsibility or authority given to them. I am not aware of any biblical reference to this concept of “pre-screening” prophecies.

Is it possible that these women really are in a cult, as Andrew concluded from his research? Yes, it’s possible. Does that give warrant for prohibiting them to speak? Perhaps. But, let’s continue on.

According to 1 Corinthians 14:30, what should Andrew’s response have been when he was interrupted? Paul says that he should have been silent. Instead, Andrew appealed to verse 32 in saying that the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. However, it is important to note that, in context, this statement of Paul is related to the relationship after the prophecy has been shared. In this case, Andrew used it as a defense for restricting the prophecy in the first place.

“But wait a minute,” many will protest. “It also says that everything is to be done in order! God is a God of order!” Are Paul’s instructions not orderly? In the context of talking about order, he says that a speaker should allow himself to be interrupted! The “order” that Paul talks about seems to refer to how things are spoken and weighed, not the prevention of speaking in the first place.

Let me pose a couple of questions to my readership, especially those who function as professional ministers:

1. How would you feel/react if someone interrupted your sermon to share a prophecy?
2. How would you feel about a public time (as part of the service) of weighing what you have preached in your sermon?

If the answer to the first one has something to do with being annoyed or angered, or if the answer to the second one leans toward “Who are they to judge what I am preaching to them?” I think an appropriate follow-up question would be “why?” Are Paul’s instructions inadequate for our gatherings?

As a side note, I do realize that 1 Corinthians 14 says that women should be silent, but ironically these are not the verses that Andrew or the elders of that church appealed to in their defense. I don’t necessarily want to get into that subject right now because the reality is that there is no small amount of debating over what those statements about women mean (especially in light of 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul’s statement about men and women in Galatians 3:28). Not to mention the fact that there is even some discussion as to the existence of those statements in Paul’s original letter to the Corinthians! I think that the incident in the video would have happened even if there had been men speaking instead of women, given the responses of Andrew and others, given the defenses offered by Andrew.

According to 1 Corinthians 14, I think it is appropriate to say that the correct course of action in situations like this would be to let the interruption occur, let the prophecy be spoken, and then to have the prophecy weighed. Andrew referred to the tension and disorder that was present, and how many were troubled and distressed over what happened. I do not think that is completely the result of “cult members” disrupting the service. At least not from what I can see on the video. What I see is leadership of a church (along with a guest speaker) attempting to silence the women, forcefully trying to get them to sit down, etc. My opinion is that actions such as those created (or contributed to) a sense of disorder and chaos. (I have to say I was especially troubled by the footage of a man, identified by Andrew as a worship leader in that church, trying to shove the women down into their seats.)

Again, I’m not trying to pass judgment on anyone here. I think that the intentions of Andrews and the elders were good. And I’m certainly not trying to defend the actions of these two women at all! But I think it really highlights the need to give fair weight to the instructions we do have in Scripture before building up other layers of “protection”. As I mentioned in a comment on Andrew’s site, I felt like a process got short-circuited. A process that could have resulted in more edification and greater maturity was stifled because the leadership felt they had to handle the situation themselves.

I would be very interested in feedback from anyone on my thoughts here. Am I too idealistic? Are there other passages that bear on this situation that I’m ignoring? Is there another angle that I’m not seeing? I open it up for your comments.

Until next time,

steve

]]> http://www.theologicalmusingsblog.com/2006/12/11/on-order-leadership-and-prophecy/feed/ 25