Church leadership involves guiding the spiritual community with humility, self-sacrifice, and care for the flock, reflecting Christ's example. Illustrations often use figures like bishops or pastors who embody servant leadership and highlight the contrast between worldly fame and genuine spiritual influence (1 Timothy 3:1-7). This subject emphasizes responsibility, character, and unseen devotion in Christian ministry.
Strong church gates and loyal gatekeepers are essential for spiritual protection and effectiveness.
The strongest walls are useless if the gates are weak or if the gatekeepers are careless or disloyal. The Great Wall of China was penetrated by enemies at least three times, and each time the guards were bribed. The church desperately needs strong gates and loyal gatekeepers.
True honor comes from God, not titles or self-exaltation in ministry.
“Be not ye called Rabbi.” Matthew 23:8
“In honor preferring one another.” Romans 12:10
On one occasion when in London, I was walking home from a meeting; part of the way I was accompanied by the Marquis of Aberdeen (who had presided) and the Lord Bishop of Norwich (who had been one of the speakers). Being an American, and unaccustomed to titles, I felt embarrassed as to how I should address men of their position. I expressed my perplexity, and the Marquis replied, “My dear brother, just address us as your brethren in Christ. We could have no higher honor than that.” This was surely to enter into the spirit of what the Lord Jesus taught.
We are told to give honor to whom honor is due. On the other hand, the servant of Christ is to seek the honor that cometh from God only. The first passage delivers from rudeness and that pride which apes humility, as it refuses to recognize the gifts which Christ has given to His church. The other is a rebuke to all self-seeking and fleshly ostentation on the part of those to whom the Lord has entrusted any special ministry for the edification of His church.
St. Charles Borromeo exemplified self-sacrificing leadership and care for the spiritually needy.
It is said of St. Charles Borromeo, that all his own private revenues, as well as those of his diocese, were expended in public uses: he kept nothing for himself but what sufficed to purchase bread and water for his diet, and straw for his bed. He travelled through every district and village, examining into the state of the people and the conduct of the priesthood, conversing with and catechizing the poor. Up among the mountains, into the secluded valleys of the Italian Alps, where the neglected inhabitants had long remained in a state of physical and spiritual destitution, did this good man penetrate; he sent missionaries among them to teach and to preach, and then went himself to see that they performed their duty: on one occasion, he was found in a poor mountain-but, lying on some straw, shivering with ague, which had seized him in one of his excursions on foot. With all his excessive austerity, his fasts, and his penances, he lived in public with the splendor becoming his rank, and exercised the most munificent hospitality, wearing under his cardinal's robes of scarlet and fur, a ragged black gown; and where the feast was spread for others, contenting himself with a little dry bread and glass of water. Mrs. Jameson
Even prominent leaders may be unknown or unrecognized by others.
When we had smoked our pipes a while, and all the servants gone away, I presented a letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was received in duo form, and, after a short explanatory exordium, was read aloud to the patriarch, first in English, and then translated into Greek. "And who," quoth the Patriarch of Constantinople, the supreme head and primate of the Greek Church in Asia, — "who is the Archbishop of Canterbury?" — "What?" said I, a little astonished at the question. "Who," said he, "is the Archbishop of Canterbury?" — "Why, the Archbishop of Canterbury." — "Archbishop of what?" said the patriarch. "Canterbury," said I. "Oh!" said the patriarch: "ah, yes! and who is he?" Here all my friends and myself were taken aback sorely.
— Curzon
Churches often fail to appreciate their minister's work and desire an ideal instead.
Every church, it is presumed, is desiring a good minister, yet every one may not in their own apprehension be favored with such a blessing. Many churches often feel that their minister is not quite what they desire him to be—not quite the man for the place which he is in. Their eyes are therefore turned away from the minister whose labors they enjoy, to some other man, or to their *beau ideal* of a minister, and they desire a change. For the benefit of such we would relate the following circumstances which we are told are substantially matters of fact.
A young man was settled in a large and popular congregation in New England, under very flattering circumstances. The church and people had settled him with the belief that he was a young man of more than ordinary talents, and with the expectation of his becoming a distinguished man. After a year or two, when the novelty of the thing had worn off, the current seemed to change, and the feeling prevailed that Mr. B— was not, nor likely to be, quite what they expected. He did not grow as they thought he would; he did not perform that amount of labor which was needed to build up the church and interest the congregation. Things dragged heavily. The young man felt the influence of the chill atmosphere which thus surrounded him. His spirits sunk, his health ran down, and it was whispered around in the society, and in the neighboring towns, that Mr. B— would probably have to leave, he was not the man for the place, he was not the man of talents which they had anticipated.
While things were in this state, at a meeting of the church when the pastor was absent, (perhaps called to see what should be done,) Mr. O—, an intelligent member of the church arose and said, "Brethren, I think we have been in fault respecting our minister. I think he is a young man of superior talents, and will one day be a distinguished man. But we have not sustained and encouraged him as we should. We have not spoken of him to others with esteem and confidence as we should. We have been standing and looking on, expecting him to raise both himself and us to eminence. Now let us adopt a different course. Let us encourage our minister with our prayers, our sympathies, and efforts. Let us speak of him with esteem and confidence to others, and say that we think him a man of talent, and who bids fair to be a distinguished man."
The thing was agreed upon. The leading men set the example. Very soon every one was speaking in favor of Mr. B——. His people visited him, sympathized with him, encouraged him; and people out of the society began to think how Mr. B—— was rising in the estimation of his people. The young man felt the change. The cold damp chill by which he had been surrounded, and which had benumbed the energies of his soul, was exchanged for a warm genial atmosphere. His spirits rose, his health returned, his energies awoke, and he soon showed to all that he had within him the elements of a man. Several revivals have attended his labors. In the affections of the church and people he has long since firmly established himself. They delight in him as a man of talent, as well as a good man. His name has become honorably enrolled among American authors, and he is one whom his own church, and the churches of New England delight to honor. Reader, Christian, would you have a good minister? Go thou and do likewise.
Eli's failure to restrain his sons led to ruin, showing the need for parental discipline.
Eli's life work wrecked because of failure to properly restrain evil sons (3:13). Eli like many preachers—too busy with sermons and meetings to look after own sons
Deacons vary in character; some faithful, others flawed but generally worthy.
Among the many false stories that have been told, especially in former years, of Mr. Spurgeon and his sayings, is that respecting deacons. He is reported to have said that deacons are worse than the devil, because if you resist the devil he will flee from you, whereas if you resist a deacon he will fly at you. Of course this was somebody's invention, and a wicked one, too, for he never said any such thing. He had some admirable deacons and elders, and no minister ever felt more strongly bound to other men in his church than Mr. Spurgeon did to his beloved brethren in the deacons' and elders' office. Indeed, he sometimes cautioned his students not to be harsh and forward to censure and condemn them when difference of opinion arose. He mentions one who undoubtedly was a good man, but every now and again was overcome with fits of temper. It was a mystery to all who knew him that such should be the case, for he was usually most gracious and devout. When he died a surgeon examined his head, and found a little bit of bone protruding into the brain. The mystery of his occasional irritability was thus explained. There are deacons and deacons; some who execute their office faithfully and adorn it, but there are others who magnify their office, and not in the best sense. But upon the whole they are a worthy set of Christian men, though, like ministers, none of them are perfect. Less of self-esteem, and more of the grace of humility, forbearance, and brotherly love, would improve some deacons and ministers also.
Women preaching is seen as defying apostolic teaching on church leadership roles.
When Boswell told Johnson one day that he had heard a woman preach that morning at a Quaker's meeting, Johnson replied, "Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." We will add that our surprise is all the greater when women of piety mount the pulpit, for they are acting in plain defiance of the command of the Holy Spirit, written by the pen of the apostle Paul.
Dear Abby column: Churches expect too much out of pastors. When one pulpit committee had rejected many candidates and was getting frustrated, a member sent them a purported letter from a candidate, based on the Apostle Paul's life. They rejected him, too.
[FULL TEXT IN 7/8/90 SERMON]
A member of a Pulpit Committee was getting fed up with the number of candidates they were rejecting. Their search for a new pastor was getting nowhere. At the next meeting he read to the committee this resume from an experienced Christian leader.
“Gentlemen: Understanding your pulpit is vacant, I would like to apply for the position. I have many qualifications. I've been a pastor with much success and also some success as a writer. Some say I'm a good organizer. I've been a leader most places I've been.
I'm over 50 years of age. I have never preached in one place for more than three years. In all honesty, many have said my sermons are boring, but I stick to the Bible. I don't believe in time constraints and some sermons have gone an hour or more over. In some places I have left town after my work caused trouble. I have also not gotten along well with religious leaders in many towns. I must admit I have been in jail three or four times, but not because of any real wrongdoing on my part.
My health is not very good, though I still get a great deal done. The churches I have preached in have been small, though located in several large cities. I am not too good at keeping records. I have been known to forget whom I have baptized. However, if you can use me, I shall do my best for you.”
The board member looked over the committee. “Well, what do you think? Should we call him?” They were aghast. Call an unhealthy, trouble-making, boring preacher? Who was this candidate, anyway?” The board member calmly read the signature:
“Sincerely, the Apostle Paul.”
=====================
Another version from the eSermons.com newsletter:
The Pastor Search Committee received a letter: “I understand your church is looking for a pastor. I should like to submit my application. I am generally considered to be a good preacher. I have been a leader in most of the places I have served. I have also found time to do some writing on the side. I am over fifty years of age, and while my health is not the best, I still manage to get enough work done to please my congregation.
“As for a reference, I am somewhat handicapped. I have never served in any place more than three years, and the churches where I have preached generally have been pretty small, even though they were located in rather large cities. Some places I had to leave because my ministry caused riots and disturbances. When I stayed, I did not get along too well with other religious leaders in town, which may influence the kind of references these places will send you. I have also been threatened several times and been physically attacked. Three or four times I have gone to jail for expressing my thoughts. You will need to know there are some men who follow me around undermining my work. Still, I feel sure I can bring vitality to your church. If you can use me, I should be pleased to be considered.”
The committee was dismayed that anyone would think their church could use such a man. A trouble-making, absent-minded, ex-jailbird could not possibly be an effective pastor, let alone be accepted by the community.
“What was his name?” they asked. The chairman of the committee said, “I do not know. The letter is simply signed, ‘Paul.’”
Sermon on coming of Pope to New Jersey. Matthew 16:15-18
================
THE POPE IS HERE
================
I. How come we don't have a pope?
II. History of the papacy.
A. Principle of apostolic succession. Matt 16:18-19
B. Gradual increase in worldly power.
C. Modern shift to spirituality.
III. Why we don't have a pope. [A Baptist response]
A. Our conscience, guided by Scripture, is our leader.
B. We do not need to go through humans to get to God. 1 Tim 2:5
C. The church must be primarily spiritual, not political. Rev 13
IV. We need earthly leaders.
A. Bible endorses human leadership.
B. The proper place of leaders. 1 Peter 5:2-3
C. Keep human leaders in perspective.
V. God must lead us.
A. Any human leader is second-rate. 1 Sam 8:7
B. He leads, we must follow.
How to put the right people in the right places for the right reasons. Churches tend to promote people from usher to trustee to deacon, whether they are spiritually fit for it or not. People have different personal styles, emotional energies (passions) and spiritual gifts, which must all be brought into play to make a church vibrant.
College Church of the Nazarene in Bourbonnais, Illinois, has 125 men in 25 Bible studies, up from 50 men the previous year. A layman is in charge.
A. The benefits of properly grooming spiritual gifts.
1. New enthusiasm.
2. More involvement.
3. Greater ownership for ministry.
4. Less turnover.
5. Fewer conflicts.
6. Increased giving.
7. Greater love.
B. Encourage the pew-sitter.
1. Pray for God's direction.
2. Research the area of spiritual gifts, passion and personal style.
3. Encourage your leaders to evaluate their own gifts and profiles.
4. Work with leaders to guide rest of church.
A sidebar article highlights the Servant Profile:
Passion - indicates where you should serve.
Spiritual gifts - indicates what you should do.
Personal style - indicates how you can best serve.
Another sidebar has a mini-quiz or questionnaire that assesses how someone fits a particular ministry they are currently doing.
At a time when traditional Baptist church government, known as congregational polity, has fallen out of favor in some churches, a number of Southern Baptist thinkers met at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary to discuss the issue.
In varying ways, they said the traditional model remains viable -- and biblical.
“Congregationalism may not be attractive, efficient, well-understood, well- practiced, easy, universally believed in or loved or impervious to distortion,” Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., said in his address. “But, my friends, congregationalism is biblical.”
In a panel discussion, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson went even further in both his judgment of and support for congregational polity. “Congregationalism is a terrible form of church government,” the Texas seminary president said, “but it is light years ahead of whatever comes in second.”
James Leo Garrett Jr., distinguished professor emeritus of theology at Southwestern Seminary, defined congregational polity as a form of church government in which “final human authority rests in the local or particular congregation when it gathers for decision-making. This means that decisions about membership, leadership, doctrine, worship, conduct, missions, finances, property, relationships and the like are to be made by the gathered congregation except when such decisions have been delegated to individual members or to groups of members.”
Garrett presented a case for congregational polity drawn from his study of biblical scholarship on passages in Matthew, Acts and 1 and 2 Corinthians. Beyond the various Baptist conventions, 35 different Protestant denominational bodies in the United States practice some form of congregational polity, he noted. The intention of congregational polity, Garrett added, was for the congregation to govern itself under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit rather than under the authority of any ecclesiastical body.
Congregational polity, Dever noted, assumes that every church member is indeed a believer, a concept known as regenerate church membership. John Hammett, associate professor of systematic theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, echoed Dever's emphasis on regenerate church membership. He illustrated that Baptists historically in the South practiced church discipline more often than any other denomination. Under that system, any member who acted outside the bounds of Christian behavior and refused to repent when confronted by the church could be removed from membership.
Church discipline all but came to a halt in the 20th century, Hammett said, as the teaching of “soul competence” by influential Baptist scholar E.Y. Mullins (1860-1928) replaced the historic Baptist doctrine of church competence, placing far more authority in the individual than the church.
Hammett noted, “It's hard to imagine that the pervasive presence of this individualistic doctrine of soul competence, in the absence of the idea church competence, did not play a significant role in prompting individual church members from asking questions like this, 'Who am I to call another person to be disciplined?’ 'Who am I question someone entering the church,' rather than asking, 'What must we do as the church to assure this brother and protect the church?'“
Malcolm Yarnell, associate professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Seminary, said Mullins' idea of soul competence was a response to the dangers people faced in the early 20th century, including Nazism, communism and other kinds of dictatorship around the world.
“We were very concerned to protect people, and the way to do that was to protect the rights of the individual,” Yarnell said. “Mullins took over current political ideology and current business terms and introduced them into Baptist thought and said, 'This is how Baptists have always believed.'“
Hammett outlined an historic view of church polity in which Christ gave the authority to rule to the church as a corporate body, who then entrusted much of that authority to the pastor. The pastor is then accountable to the church body. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, addressed how pastors should exercise the authority granted to them by the local church.
The biblical model for how a church should interact with a pastor, Land said, is identical to the instructions the Bible gives to husbands and wives.
“When the Bible talks to the husband, it says, 'Love your wife as Christ loved the church. Give yourself in service to your wife and always put your wife's needs above your own needs,'“ Land said. “When the Bible talks to the wife it says, 'Put yourself under the authority of your own husband as unto the Lord.'“
In keeping with that model, Land said pastors should not abuse their authority and that church members should follow their pastors whenever possible.
“When a church calls a man to be their pastor, they are saying, 'We are exercising our autonomy under the Lordship of Christ, and we believe that you are God's man to be our under shepherd and to lead us and we are going to follow you. Even when we would prefer plan B, we are going to go with plan A unless in conscience we cannot,'“ Land said. “There is no such thing as a great, God- honoring church which is pastor-led and not deacon- and people-supported. ... There is also no such thing as a great God-honoring church which is deacon- and congregation-led.”
Alvin Reid, professor of evangelism at Southeastern Seminary, noted that congregational polity must be employed with a sense of purpose if a church is to fulfill its mission to reach the lost.
“[Congregational] polity can lead to a form of individualism in which, just as it was at the end of the Book of Judges, everyone does what is right in his own eyes,” Reid said. “Congregations which drift along led by a 'good old boy' system of a vocal few perpetuate a form of church life which most pleases them, sternly resists change and decreasingly concerns itself with pleasing God.”
Reid said he believes congregational polity should be used to build consensus about the church's purpose rather than to preserve the status quo on non-eternal matters.
“Christianity at its heart is not a monument to be preserved, but a movement to be advanced,” Reid said, asking, “Should the red carpet, robed choir and pipe organ of the 1950s and '60s stand ossified and unchanged for years to come?”
Rick Durst, vice president for academic affairs at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in California, said that in implementing congregational polity, Baptists would do well to develop a biblical understanding of conflict. In contrast to the modern assumption that conflict is the end of one's ministry, he said the nature of church life in the New Testament epistles and Acts reveals that Christians have always had to deal with differences of opinion. He went on to say that honest disagreements can and should lead to growth and the advancement of a church's mission.
“Could you learn to see conflict as a gift from God?” Durst asked.
*
Elders and congregationalism. For many Baptists, these terms sound like polar opposites. However, according to some speakers at the “Issues in Baptist Polity” conference, the two may not be mutually exclusive.
Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., argued that a body of elders is the New Testament model of church structure. He made a clear distinction between “elder-led” and “elder-rule,” flatly rejecting the Presbyterian model that makes a distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders. Instead, Dever offered a biblical argument for an elder-led form of congregationalism in which the congregation serves as a “final court of appeal” in the decision-making process.
Pointing to passages in Acts, 1 Timothy, Philippians, James and 1 Peter, Dever made his case that the New Testament church had a plurality of elders within each congregation. In a number of cases, the New Testament writers refer to elders (plural) when addressing a church (singular). He read verse after verse.
“The best I can tell, the New Testament evidence seems to indicate that common, even expected practice was a plurality of elders in each local congregation,” Dever said.
In addition to the biblical argument, Dever attempted to prove that elder-led congregations are not absent in Baptist history. He cited a number of early Baptist documents that mention a plurality of elders. Among these was a letter written by W.B. Johnson, the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which refers to a plurality of elders in most Baptist churches of the South. Dever also cited correspondence from Baptist churches in England, Philadelphia and Virginia as evidence.
“The biblical model is elder-directed or elder-led congregationalism,” Dever said. “It is biblical and it is Baptist.”
While there was support for elder-led congregationalism, the majority of speakers at the NOBTS polity conference denounced elder rule in Southern Baptist churches. Under the elder-rule model, the congregation has little or no say in the matters of the church. A select group rules and controls all or most of the decisions of the church.
In contrast, various presenters were at least open to the idea of elder-led model as a form of congregationalism. This is due in part to their general consensus on the biblical teaching about the number of church offices.
“It is commonly agreed by all that there are not three distinct church offices, but two in the New Testament -- that of deacon and that of elder/overseer/pastor,” said David Dockery, president of Union University in Jackson, Tenn. “God intended for there to be at least one leader and perhaps a team of leaders in each congregation.”
Dockery explained that beginning in Acts 14, elders are usually mentioned as plural in the New Testament, with the context implying multiple elders for each church.
The function of the church, Dockery said, is more important than the form as long as the form is consistent with the scriptural teaching. To Dockery, Christ's lordship over the church is best experienced in churches with congregational polity. However, he noted that “being elder-led is quite consistent with congregational polity.”
Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas, addressed the issue of elders within Baptist congregations during a panel discussion that featured Dever, Richard Land and James Leo Garrett. He expressed concern about the growing trend toward “elder rule” in Southern Baptist churches.
A proponent of congregationalism, Patterson said he believes some churches adopt elder rule to fix unbiblical forms of congregationalism. One “abhorrent” form of congregationalism, he said, views the pastor as the slave of the church. Instead of shifting to a biblical model of congregationalism, some churches move toward elder rule. Patterson suggested that this “fix” may be worse than the problem.
“I do not like the 'elder-rule' proposition. I think we are going to lose one of our great distinctives as Baptists if we throw away our congregational church polity,” Patterson said. “I do not have a problem with multiplicity of elders within congregationalism.”
Patterson said “primary elder” congregationalism rather than “single elder” congregationalism is the model found in New Testament.
Garrett, distinguished professor emeritus of theology at Southwestern Seminary, said the practice of elder rule in Baptist churches constitutes a serious erosion in congregational polity. He believes that congregational polity is being rejected in some Southern Baptist churches because it is time-consuming and sometimes difficult.
“The appeal to allow a small group in the congregation to make the decisions for the church parallels the appeal to the citizens to give up voting and participatory democracy and put governing into the hands of the experts,” Garrett said. “Decision-making as to the life, ministry and mission of a church should not be rigidly separated from the living out of the life, ministry and mission. Members who are involved in one should be involved in the other.”
Garrett said that it is acceptable for the congregation to delegate certain matters to a smaller group within the church. He insisted that these things should be of lesser importance, with the essential issues coming before a congregational vote.
This is the case at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which often delegates issues to the elder body, yet the congregation still plays a key role in decision-making by voting on essential issues. The calling of a pastor or the election of elders, for example, must be approved by the church, Dever said.
“I do think the conference for many expanded what Southern Baptists mean by the term 'congregational polity,'“ said Stan Norman, assistant professor of theology at NOBTS, BCTM director and organizer of the conference. “I am open to further discussion and study on the matter of 'elder-led' as a viable form of congregationalism, but I am not completely convinced at this time.”
Glen and his wife left their teenage son at home while they took a vacation. They arrived home a day early to find a full-fledged keg party going on.
Bonnie’s daughter, Caroline, shares her bedroom with a live-in boyfriend.
Marshall has a son on crack cocaine.
Which of these parents would you want in a position of leadership? The answer, I hope you immediately said, would depend on the circumstances. Glen and his wife are wonderful parents who have faithfully taught their son, Max, through their own lifestyles and through their faithful involvement in church. They were horrified to discover a drunken party in their residence.
They not only let Max verbally know how angry and hurt they were by his behavior, they grounded him from all extracurricular activities and hauled him down to a nearby mission where the entire family spent the next month doing volunteer work. By the end of this time, Max had seen enough of what alcohol had done to the mission’s residents to cause him to re-think the whole issue of drinking.
Bonnie’s 16-year-old daughter, Caroline, moved her boyfriend in one night, telling her mom that his parents had kicked him out. When Bonnie protested, Caroline threatened to run away with her boyfriend. “What can I do? She’s all I’ve got,” Bonnie shrugged.
Lucas was 9 when his mom died, and Marshall has done his best to play the role of both parents. Marshall had worked with Lucas’s church youth group and even had taken up golf so that he and Lucas could spend Saturdays on the courses together. He’d prayed for Lucas, counseled him, disciplined him and hauled him to counseling and treatment, but the drug problems continued. Marshall has forbid Lucas to live under his roof as long as he’s involved with illegal drugs.
It’s a matter of looking at the whole picture. It’s kind of hard to feel sorry for someone who stands with their hand on a hot stove yelling, “It’s burning! It’s burning!” When a person allows or even encourages a sinful situation, he or she is a part of the problem.
While Max’s parents continued to love their son, they also let him know that his bad behavior wouldn’t be tolerated. Bonnie, on the other hand, had let her daughter manipulate her into allowing a situation that definitely was not God-honoring. Marshall had done his best to raise his son in a manner pleasing to the Lord, but Lucas had chosen to take a different path.
So, who are these folks? Well, Glen is an associate pastor whose son now serves as a minister of music. Bonnie was a Sunday School teacher who was asked either to get control of her household or step down from teaching. She resigned. Marshall is a state director of missions. Lucas is now drug-free and active in the prison church while he serves a two-year sentence for possession of stolen property.
Anytime we accept a position within the church, we are opening ourselves up –- and rightly so -– for greater scrutiny and accountability. How does your household management qualify you for His service? It’s all about the input. What are you investing into your family?
“If anyone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:5, HCSB).
________
Judy Woodward Bates is the creator of Bargainomics, a Bible-based time and money management philosophy, and the author of “The Gospel Truth about Money Management.” Visit her website at www.bargainomics.com.
*
“Mom, my knees ache!” I can still remember what my mother called “growing pains.” Like most early teens, my physical growth was not gradual and manageable -- it was sudden and explosive. For mom and dad the pain of my rapid growth was felt in the wallet as I outgrew my clothes before I would break them in.
Yet I can still recall with painful detail the physical pain that kept me from sleeping as my stretching joints and muscles cried out for relief. Dad’s salve for my pain was the simple promise that I would be bigger in the morning. For an aspiring athlete this was sufficient and I naively marked the door jam to record my “overnight” growth.
Growth is always a two-sided coin. It is a sign of health and vitality, and thus desirable. Nonetheless, it is painful. The same is true about growth in the church. Growth creates physical symptoms such as the lack of parking or space. It may mean that people must adjust their schedule to accommodate a second service. It may mean that the pastor and staff often will be stretched beyond their ability in their attempts to care for the needs of the congregation.
I pray that we all want growth. No one wants their church to die. What most of us want to know is: Can a church grow and yet maintain a personal, caring connection to all its members?
Everything we read about the church in God’s Word makes it clear that God designed the church to be the primary instrument for Kingdom advancement until the Good News of the King penetrates the darkness to the ends of the earth. Can we be faithful to this task and still nurture those whom God has placed in our immediate care? Good news, God has biblical solutions for our growth pains -- one is called “deacons.”
AS THE DISCIPLES WERE INCREASING IN NUMBER
An inaugural baptismal service of about 3,000 persons was a pretty good beginning for a new church. It is likely that many of those persons baptized on the Day of Pentecost returned to their homeland. Yet, the Acts account makes it clear that the disciples that remained in Jerusalem continued to grow. “And every day the Lord added to them those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). I love verse 14 of chapter 5: “Believers were added to the Lord in increasing numbers -- crowds of both men and women.” With many of our churches plateaued or declining, we have become so accustomed to “no growth” that we think it is the norm. God designed your church with the potential to invade the earth with the Gospel.
Exponential growth did not dilute the deep level of fellowship experienced by the early believers. “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers” (Acts 2:42). Great fellowship creates a natural climate for evangelistic outreach. The depth of fellowship need not be diluted by the numerical growth that naturally occurs when the church becomes Kingdom-centered.
A COMPLAINT AROSE
It is no surprise that the impetus for the expansion of the ministry structure of the early church was “growth pains.” “In those days, as the number of disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint by the Hellenistic Jews against the Hebraic Jews that their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution” (Acts 6:1).
If you have been in church for more than a few months, you may have heard a few complaints. When complaints occur because of growth, our natural reaction is to ease the pain at all costs. This application of a shallow topical ointment may give temporary relief, but it fails to address the underlying problem in a biblical way. This will lead to compromise and often result in stagnancy as the church loses its focus and its vitality.
The particular issue that caused growth pains in the early church was the inability of the apostles to meet the pressing needs of providing for the widows and still maintain the quality of the ministry of the Word and lead the church in prayer. The specific issue was the distribution of food provided for by the common funds generously given by the early believers (Acts 4:34ff). The Jewish community placed a premium on ministry to the widows and orphans (Psalm 82:1-4), and this same concern was embraced by the early church. It is possible that the cause of the initial complaint was a simple oversight caused by too much work and too few hours. But then the prejudice card was played and tempers flared. Fingers were pointed and the harmony of the church was threatened. Sound familiar?
A SOLUTION OFFERED
The apostles neither ignored the complaint nor allowed it to deter the church from fulfilling its mission. They sought a solution that would resolve the tension, preserve the fellowship of the church and allow the church to continue unabated in its Kingdom agenda. The solution had to be one that would not require the apostles to ignore their God-given tasks. Growth had created a situation where it would have been physically impossible for the apostles to be faithful to their own calling and give hands-on attention to the distribution of food.
The church elected seven Spirit-filled men to handle the task of serving the widows. The meeting of the practical needs of the congregation was vital and, thus, it was brought to the attention of the church as a whole. The issue here is not one of status or authority; it is one of calling and function. The apostles (pastoral leaders) of the Jerusalem church could not do everything -- nor should they have. A law of diminishing return affects any leader who attempts to spread himself too thin. Unless ministry is shared, dissension reigns and Kingdom growth is halted.
We generally look to this text for the beginning of the ministry of the deacons. The English word “deacons” is virtually a transliteration of the Greek noun “diakonos.” The original idea was “waiting on tables,” but this meaning was extended to mean “serving” in a general sense. I think it is likely that this particular word was chosen for these early “growth ministers” because of Jesus’ emphasis of greatness through servanthood. It is not clear from Scripture when these words were used to speak of the office of deacon, but 1 Timothy 3:8 refers to an order of deacons who were clearly recognized for their service. This passage should be carefully studied to determine the qualifications for diaconate service.
DO WE WANT TRADITION OR SCRIPTURE?
What is the role of the deacons in the church? At this point, tradition may create a problem for some churches. We may have grown up with the idea that the pastor and staff are called to do the ministry and the deacons are elected to administrate the church. This has led many churches to refer to the deacons as a “board” and look to them for all administrative decisions. We have actually reversed the biblical order, and it has adversely affected many churches.
It may have caused the mistaken idea among laity that one must have seminary training to effectively minister to people’s needs. Thus, most ministry roles and opportunities have been assigned to the professional clergy. This, in turn, led the deacons to assume more of the administrative tasks of setting the direction and vision of the church.
This reversal of roles can have many detrimental effects on the life and health of the church. First, the pastor who feels compelled to do the entire ministry will neglect his God-given priority of preaching and leading the church to become a praying community. The pulpit ministry will suffer and the discipling power of the Word from the pulpit will be diluted.
Second, the reversal of roles between pastor and deacons often creates a situation where the pastor is given no freedom to lead the church in developing a strategy for ministry. A fine line of balance must be maintained between pastoral leadership and congregational polity. The pastor is not a dictator who drives his people, but a servant who leads his people. Pastors must earn the right to lead by their consistent walk with God and service to the people. The members must encourage the pastor to lead, be willing to follow, and support his leadership through successes and failures. We often lose sight of the truth that we are on the same team and working for the same goal.
Third, and perhaps the most disconcerting effect of the pastor/staff doing all the work of ministry, is the loss of opportunity for the laity to serve according to their gifts. All believers are gifted for service, and thus, when deacons are deprived of the privilege of ministering according to their gifts, the church suffers. It stands to reason that churches should elect deacons who demonstrate gifts for service and then provide training and organize them to serve the body.
A PRACTICAL SUGGESTION
What is the biblical role of the deacon and how does the church organize itself to allow the deacons to accomplish their God-given ministry? Many would say, and I agree, that the Acts model and the qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3 indicate the primary role is ministry, such as visiting the shut-ins and caring for church families. The ministry to the widows did require that the deacons have administrative ability since they were to oversee the allocation of food. Churches grow and the deacon ministry flourishes when deacons assume their biblical role as partners with the pastor in ministering to the congregation.
Many churches have found it helpful to organize their deacon ministry through the Sunday School or small group ministry. Each deacon would serve alongside the small group leader to provide for the ministry needs of a specific class. For this model to be effective it is important to ensure that everyone is enrolled in a small group Bible study unit and that deacons are assigned to each group. From my own personal experience, small groups that have deacons who take seriously their family ministry grow rapidly and maintain a high percentage of attendance to enrollment.
THE DRAMATIC RESULTS
I know that some of the changes suggested may require radical changes in our thinking, structure and priorities. Will it be worth it? Luke tells us the results in the early church: “So the preaching about God flourished, the number of disciples in Jerusalem multiplied greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).
To please the King and advance His Kingdom is worth all the pain!
One of the key New Testament passages on leadership is Mark 10:32–45. Jesus was on his final journey to Jerusalem. A few chapters earlier, Peter had affirmed his belief that Jesus was the Messiah (8:27–30). When Jesus made his intention to go to Jerusalem clear, James and John anticipated coming events: In Jerusalem, Jesus would announce his messiahship, there would be a popular uprising against the Romans, and Jesus would be crowned and proclaimed king. But who would be his top advisers? After all, Jesus had 12 disciples. Mustering their courage, James and John approached Jesus and asked, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory” (10:37).
Jesus considered their request and responded, “You don’t know what you are asking. ... Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” The “cup” and “baptism” both symbolize the great test of suffering Jesus would endure in Jerusalem. Jesus was asking, “Are you willing to go through what I’m about to go through?” James and John believed they were up to the task. Assuming Jesus was speaking of the messianic war ahead, they answered affirmatively: “We can!” Jesus responded that they would indeed suffer, but he could not grant such positions of authority: “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared” (10:39–40).
Yet Jesus was obviously impressed by their courage and continued: “Blessed are you, sons of Zebedee, for the one who risks much will accomplish much, and the one who leads with courage and distinction will reap great reward.”
Okay, that’s not actually how the story goes. But that’s how many of us think it should have gone. To be sure, James and John were showing a bit of ego (moxie really). They were a little presumptuous and a bit overconfident. But what great leader is not? They were demonstrating vision and initiative. They saw the future and were ready to seize it. Against overwhelming odds, they were willing to lead Jesus’ followers into battle, even to the point of death. Aren’t these the marks of great leadership? This is “grab the bull by the horns” leadership. This is carpe diem leadership. This is Gladiator-style leadership. (It’s hard to say how many Christian leaders have told us this is their favorite movie.)
But, of course, Jesus actually responded in a very different way, rejecting the self-promotional leadership of James and John. Gathering the disciples together, he radically redefined what it means to lead: “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.” The world’s model of leadership is about power, control, and influence. It’s about motivating others to accomplish the leader’s goals, agenda, and aspirations. “Not so with you,” Jesus said. “Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:43–45).
We have read these lines so often through our filter of Christian leadership that it is hard to catch their countercultural nature. Jesus turns the “power and persuasion” model of leadership upside down by calling for “servant” — or better, “slave” — leadership, an oxymoron in the eyes of his contemporaries. Servants don’t seek power and influence; they seek to please their master. They don’t accumulate followers; they empower others through service. They don’t exploit people as resources; they enable others to be the best they can be.
The apostle Paul speaks of leadership in the same way. In Ephesians 4 he points to the senior leaders in the church: “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the pastors and teachers.” And what is their purpose? “To equip God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” (Eph. 4:11–12). The Christian leader’s goal should be to empower and equip others to fulfill their calling and use their spiritual gifts to the glory of God, even when it means setting aside their own vision and plans.
Sacrificial or Servant Leadership?
The subtle allure of power and self-aggrandizement is not just for megachurch pastors and New York Times best-selling authors. It creeps into our hearts and actions through everyday events and activities — in our late nights in the church office, our long hours in sermon prep, and even in our faithful time at hospital bedsides. Each of these things can convince us we’ve earned the right to be listened to and admired.
James and John surely had in mind the livelihoods they had left behind and the years they had spent at Jesus’ feet when they made their request for status in his kingdom. They had the right goal in mind: doing the will of God. Yet they could not envision this apart from the prospect of personal power and glory. They were willing to accept sacrificial leadership, but they weren’t quite ready to step into full-fledged servant leadership.
When Jesus redefined the role of the Messiah, he redefined the nature of all Christian leadership. Jesus did not come to be served but to serve, and that is the orientation Christians are called to as leaders. By fully embracing our call to empower others, pastors can join James, John, and Tony in turning away from our nagging need to have things our way.
Mark L. Strauss is University Professor of New Testament at Bethel Seminary San Diego.
Justin A. Irving is professor of ministry leadership and director of the DMin Program at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota.
From the official NASA website:
Generally the astronauts - twenty-three Protestants and six Catholics - adhered more closely to formal religion than their contemporaries; a high proportion of them served as elders, stewards, deacons, or vestrymen. Presbyterian Aldrin administered holy communion to himself inside Eagle after it landed on the Moon, and when Frank Borman was orbiting the Moon he apologized to his fellow members of St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church because his absence made it impossible for him to serve as a lay reader on Christmas Eve. The prayer he did say reached a somewhat larger audience and caused an atheist to sue NASA, unsuccessfully, on a separation-of-state-and-church issue. [see also #36252]
I had the privilege of co-officiating the funeral of a dear friend and former co-laborer in local church ministry last month. Dying at the age of 88, Ed Carroll served as a deacon at Muldraugh Baptist Church in Kentucky for over a half-century, and as the chairman of deacons most of those years.
As a 25-year-old serving my first stint as a pastor, Ed encouraged me, counseled me and served alongside me. We prayed together, visited together, worshipped together and tended the flock of God together. Though he was nearly 50 years my senior, he became one of those friends and co-laborers, without whom it was impossible to conceptualize ministry.
Pondering Ed’s life prompted me to reflect more broadly on the office of deacon and the caricatures often associated with it. We have all heard nightmarish stories of biblically unqualified deacons who use their position to lord over the church, even the pastor.
Thankfully, this has not been my experience. In the main, I have been privileged to serve with good, godly men. Ed was foremost among them. These men have been a blessing to me and to the churches we have served. Biblically speaking, such men are worthy of honor for two reasons, and honor them we should.
Men of character
The diaconate, as outlined in 1 Timothy 3, stipulates the men who would serve must have sterling character, just like the office of the elder. In fact, the qualifications of the deacon are almost identical to the elder, sans the requirement for the elder to be “able to teach.” Consider the apostle Paul’s qualifications for the deacons, their wives and families in 1 Timothy 3:9-13:
“Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
Men who measure up are to be enlisted and equipped for the diaconate. As they are, they are to be held up as an example to the flock and commended for their faithfulness to the body of Christ.
Men of service
The office of the deacon is not an honorary one. Rather, deacons are set apart to serve. In fact, when we see deacons first introduced in Acts 6, this was precisely their function. The deacons served widows so that the apostles would be free for prayer and the ministry of the word.
As he noted in 1 Timothy 3, Paul sets forth service as the deacons’ first priority: “These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.... For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”
The office of the deacon is not a position of leadership, but deacons often find themselves leading. Their leadership is a derived authority, earning such through godly character and sacrificial service. Such leadership is fitting and right.
The French statesman Charles de Gaulle once quipped that “graveyards are full of indispensable men.” In a sense, de Gaulle was right. No man is indispensable. But some men are irreplaceable. In the life of his church, Ed Carroll was such a man.
I’m going to miss Ed not only for who he was and what he did, but for what he represented -- a generation of servants, deeply devoted to their local church.
Brother pastors, let us hold high the office of deacon and make sure to honor those who serve well. As we do, may the Lord be pleased to call out a new generation of such laymen, qualified and equipped to serve their church.
A recent Gallup survey had some very bad news for pastors, and by extension, for the church in America. In the survey, only 34 percent rated the honesty and integrity of pastors as very high. Among respondents under age 30, the rate was a much lower 20 percent. These numbers are the lowest since Gallup has been surveying pastoral integrity as part of a larger study of the trust Americans have in various occupations.
Perhaps more startling, given so many recent negative news stories, more people have a positive view of police integrity — 50 percent rated them highly — than pastors. But at least we beat out used car salesmen who came in at a lowly 11 percent.
Pastors must face this hard reality — we have done this to ourselves. Our culture did not spontaneously decide to stop trusting pastors. They lost confidence in us because of clergy sexual abuse, crooked financial dealings, disingenuous political involvement, and other self-inflicted diminishments of our stature.
Beyond these obvious mistakes, we have also hurt ourselves by extending the pastoral title to lesser leadership roles in churches and by redefining the pastoral lifestyle in a misguided attempt to lessen the distinctions between pastors and other believers. From how we act to how we present ourselves, some pastors seem determined to make being a pastor less and less of a unique role, responsibility, and office.
Pastors are supposed to be different. We are supposed to model personal holiness, including circumspect behavior which avoids questionable activities. We are supposed to be examples of Christian virtue — not perfect, but consistently striving to live in ways others can emulate. We are supposed to be ministry professionals — in the best sense of the word — bringing the same gravitas to our role as attorneys, doctors, and other professionals in our community bring to theirs.
Many pastors are, of course, doing these things. And, in those churches and communities, my sense is any survey about their integrity would result in much higher marks. They overcome the stigma of bad-behaving pastors by their personal example. People are insightful enough to know a real pastor when they have one or meet one.
Part of correcting this problem is having the courage to be different — to act like a pastor, to own the role and its distinctives, to demonstrate professionalism in your calling, to reserve the title pastor for men who really are pastors, and to call out bad behavior by other pastors when needed. Pastors can regain or sustain the trust of their followers and their stature as community leaders by taking these important steps.
A recent Gallup survey had some very bad news for pastors, and by extension, for the church in America. In the survey, only 34 percent rated the honesty and integrity of pastors as very high. Among respondents under age 30, the rate was a much lower 20 percent. These numbers are the lowest since Gallup has been surveying pastoral integrity as part of a larger study of the trust Americans have in various occupations.
Perhaps more startling, given so many recent negative news stories, more people have a positive view of police integrity — 50 percent rated them highly — than pastors. But at least we beat out used car salesmen who came in at a lowly 11 percent.
Pastors must face this hard reality — we have done this to ourselves. Our culture did not spontaneously decide to stop trusting pastors. They lost confidence in us because of clergy sexual abuse, crooked financial dealings, disingenuous political involvement, and other self-inflicted diminishments of our stature.
Beyond these obvious mistakes, we have also hurt ourselves by extending the pastoral title to lesser leadership roles in churches and by redefining the pastoral lifestyle in a misguided attempt to lessen the distinctions between pastors and other believers. From how we act to how we present ourselves, some pastors seem determined to make being a pastor less and less of a unique role, responsibility, and office.
Pastors are supposed to be different. We are supposed to model personal holiness, including circumspect behavior which avoids questionable activities. We are supposed to be examples of Christian virtue — not perfect, but consistently striving to live in ways others can emulate. We are supposed to be ministry professionals — in the best sense of the word — bringing the same gravitas to our role as attorneys, doctors, and other professionals in our community bring to theirs.
Many pastors are, of course, doing these things. And, in those churches and communities, my sense is any survey about their integrity would result in much higher marks. They overcome the stigma of bad-behaving pastors by their personal example. People are insightful enough to know a real pastor when they have one or meet one.
Part of correcting this problem is having the courage to be different — to act like a pastor, to own the role and its distinctives, to demonstrate professionalism in your calling, to reserve the title pastor for men who really are pastors, and to call out bad behavior by other pastors when needed. Pastors can regain or sustain the trust of their followers and their stature as community leaders by taking these important steps.
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate