Archive for the ‘Elders (Pastors)’ Category

New Wine for New Wineskins (revisited)

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 by Art
It is VERY hard to divorce from our heads all that we “know” about the church already from experiencing what we have grown up with, and to NOT read into the scriptures reinforcement for these (mis)understandings by twisting scripture, pulling single verses completely out of context, etc.
Tellingly, Titus was told to appoint elders in every city, not in every congregation or home where they met. Paul did the same when he revisited churches that he previously founded. A plurality of elders, then, serves the local church delineated by a locality. This statement raises many functional questions:
1. Does the local church really mean a geographically “local” church in an area (the only biblical usage I can find, never do I see multiple churches in one locality in scripture)? Or, does it mean a group of people who organize themselves together separately from all other Christians in the same locality (the common practice throughout Christendom)? Are such divisions in a geographical location the kind of thing Paul railed against in the immature, Corinthian church? Is it the kind of activity Paul called hereticks–those seeking to draw followers off to follow them separately.
2. If “local” church means a self-identified sub group of Christians who band together ACROSS localities (the common practice throughout Christendom) as a separate “church” apart from all other Christians in all of those local areas, then where in scripture do we see this pattern even once?
So then, hierarchies and authority structures become immediately necessary if we want to consider it now “one church” in that locality, but YET continue to maintain the current authoritarian, positional leadership in multiple congregations that we now have. Leaders would have to work through who is in charge of what, where, when. Most leaders would feel like someone was stepping on their turf; some would be interested in expanding their influence (let’s assume to do good). It would be likely the layered clergy/denomination varieties of organization (presbyterian, congregational, or episcopal) would emerge if leadership remains in the current model(s). There would be much pressure for “leaders” to be somewhere near the top, in charge of everyone else. And, who will still get paid, how much? Who decides?
In other words, rediscovering biblical patterns for the church also requires rediscovering biblical patterns for leaders; in fact, biblical patterns for all believers. The “new” wine for “new” wineskins, or it will burst.
This doesn’t begin to address the substantive issues and objections the “laity” would have with all this. They are comfortable separating the secular from the sacred and enjoy the freedom from substantial spiritual responsibilities to serve others, to function as ministers along with holding jobs. The design we are discussing presents huge impositions on both clergy and laity.
3. If rediscovering biblical patterns for the church finds that all those in a locality are considered the church in that locality (as we have in the epistles, Acts, and Revelation), then we are left to understand how that functions–and we have the scriptures to aid us in that, but very little experience or extant models to draw from.
I think one of the things complicating this is the difficulty we have in divorcing our thinking that leadership in the church is positional/hierarchical, organized generally the same as any leadership structure the world uses (but, of course, benignly dictatorial by a single leader or a group of leaders).
One important step in rethinking the local church from a fresh biblical perspective, is to go back to a biblical leadership model–one that eschews hierarchy, position, and authority, and embraces instead relational experience over time to provide trust and persuadability among one another. To consider a community of saints that foundationally begins with mutual submission and mutual ministry expectations among all the saints as normative.
NT leadership resides in Jesus Christ. His leadership is spread throughout the saints, so that leadership on the physical level doesn’t come from above or beneath, it comes from within. Elders (overseers, pastors, bishops) are those who, by their manner of life and by the experiences of the saints over time, have earned respect by their care and service. They are then in a position of public influence and persuasion, but not of positional power of an office like we have in the world.
Who is then “in charge?” The same person who was always (supposed to be) in charge — Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. But remember, a core foundation is that we all endeavor to be in responsive submission to Him who loved us and died for us, and therefore to each other and with recognition that God has engifted every saint to be of mutual service to each other. In that scenario, elders have substantive influence, but not control: not the power to decide on behalf of some laity subgroup, nor to serve in lieu of the saints functioning. So, elders will have much influence, and they should be wiser, more experienced in following Him in difficulties and in sacrifices. But no one becomes a child in the community–a “laity.” Consensus needs to be built, not commands issued.
In the end, unless the Lord dramatically turns the churches–the saints–upside down, the best we will achieve is some hybrid, where the worldly infused church models are accommodated in some way by those who are set free to follow Jesus and feel connected to all saints everywhere, but especially those in our locality, and especially those with whom we have frequent interaction and influence. It will take real trust in the Head of the church to begin to live out NT church principles in the midst of chaos and foolishness.
Impossible? Yes, without Him. We can still strive to hear, “Well done…”

It is VERY hard to divorce from our heads all that we “know” about the church already from experiencing what we have grown up with, and to NOT read into the scriptures reinforcement for these (mis)understandings by twisting scripture, pulling single verses completely out of context, etc.

Tellingly, Titus was told to appoint elders in every city, not in every congregation or home where they met. Paul did the same when he revisited churches that he previously founded. A plurality of elders, then, serves the local church delineated by a locality. This statement raises many functional questions:

1. Does the local church really mean a geographically “local” church in an area (the only biblical usage I can find, never do I see multiple churches in one locality in scripture)? Or, does it mean a group of people who organize themselves together separately from all other Christians in the same locality (the common practice throughout Christendom)? Are such divisions in a geographical location the kind of thing Paul railed against in the immature, Corinthian church? Is it the kind of activity Paul called hereticks–those seeking to draw followers off to follow them separately.

2. If “local” church means a self-identified sub group of Christians who band together ACROSS localities (the common practice throughout Christendom) as a separate “church” apart from all other Christians in all of those local areas, then where in scripture do we see this pattern even once?

Next, integrating existing hierarchies and authority structures becomes immediately necessary if we want to consider it now “one church” in that locality, but YET continue to maintain the current authoritarian, positional leadership in multiple congregations that we now have. Leaders would have to work through who is in charge of what, where, when. Most leaders would feel like someone was stepping on their turf; some would be interested in expanding their influence (let’s assume to do good). It would be likely the layered clergy/denomination varieties of organization (presbyterian, congregational, or episcopal) would emerge if leadership remains in the current model(s). There would be much pressure for “leaders” to be somewhere near the top, in charge of everyone else. And, who will still get paid, how much? Who decides?

In other words, rediscovering biblical patterns for the church also requires rediscovering biblical patterns for leaders; in fact, biblical patterns for all believers; and all gladly and trustingly under His active leadership. The requisite “new” wine for “new” wineskins, or all attempts to return to biblical models will burst.

This doesn’t begin to address the substantive issues and objections the “laity” would have with all this. They are comfortable separating the secular from the sacred and enjoy the freedom from substantial spiritual responsibilities to serve others, not imagining or expecting that they could function as ministers along with holding jobs (as should all). The design we are discussing presents huge impositions on both clergy and laity.

3. If rediscovering biblical patterns for the church finds that all those in a locality are considered the church in that locality (as we have in the epistles, Acts, and Revelation), then we are left to understand how that functions–and we have the scriptures to aid us in that, but very little experience or extant models to draw from.

One of the things complicating this is the difficulty we have in divorcing our thinking that leadership in the church is positional/hierarchical, organized generally the same as any leadership structure the world uses (but, of course, benignly dictatorial by a single leader or a group of leaders). “We all know” someone has to be in charge “at the top” to get things done. Right? Well, Jesus didn’t think so in Luke 22:25-27:

“25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.”

One important step in rethinking the local church from a fresh biblical perspective, is to go back to a biblical leadership model for the church–one that eschews hierarchy, position, and authority, and embraces instead relational experience over time to provide trust and persuadability among one another. To consider a community of saints that foundationally begins with mutual submission and mutual ministry expectations among all the saints as normative.

NT leadership resides in Jesus Christ. His leadership is spread throughout the saints, so that leadership on the physical level doesn’t come from above or beneath, it comes from within. Elders (overseers, pastors, bishops) are those who, by their manner of life and by the experiences of the saints over time, have earned respect by their care and service. They are then in a position of public influence and persuasion, but not of positional power of an office like we have in the world.

Who is then “in charge?” The same person who was always (supposed to be) in charge — Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. But remember, a core foundation is that we all endeavor to be in responsive submission to Him who loved us and died for us, and therefore to each other and with recognition that God has engifted every saint to be of mutual service to each other. In that scenario, elders have substantive influence, but not control: not the power to decide on behalf of some laity subgroup, nor to serve in lieu of the saints functioning. So, elders will have much influence, and they should be wiser, more experienced in observably following Him through difficulties and in sacrifices. But no one becomes a child in the community–a “laity.” Consensus needs to be built, not commands issued.

In the end, unless the Lord dramatically turns the churches–the saints–upside down, the best we will achieve is some hybrid, where the worldly infused church models are accommodated in some way by those who are set free to follow Jesus and feel connected to all saints everywhere, but especially those in our locality, and especially those with whom we have frequent interaction and influence. It will take real trust in the Head of the church to begin to live out NT church principles in the midst of chaos and foolishness.

Impossible? Yes, without Him. We can still strive to hear, “Well done…”

(NOTE: This post was a response to a question on my friend Alan Knox’s blog, “I think the key to this entry (besides the lack of distinction between “clergy” and “laity”) is this: “All Christians are called upon (and expected) to minister.” That would it take for churches and Christians today to move towards this way of life in Christ?” His question was prompted by a post from an entry in “Dave Black’s un-pseudo-blog-type-thing. (See entry #2 from Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.)”

Posted in Church Planting, Elders (Pastors), Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Leadership by Position or Loving Servants?

Thursday, December 9th, 2010 by Art

Alan Knox’s blog post prompted me to post this. I very much appreciate his perspective on and practice of biblical church leadership.

We hear it said, “respect the office, even if you don’t respect the person.” In the world, this is a “true statement, and worthy of all acceptation” (Rom 13:1-7). Simply being in a position gives one power and authority. But, biblically, this cannot be said of a Pastor or Elder. If we do not have respect for the person, for their example, for our experiences with them, then they have no ability to lead us by their example and their service to us. There is no other power offered them by God.

Yukl (1998) defines power as “an agent’s potential influence over the attitudes and behavior of one or more designated target persons.” Others define power as influence, and that being the effect of one party on another.

Generally, the person (agent) trying to influence others (target) is trying to deal with one of the outcomes of the influence process:

  • commitment—the target person agrees with a decision and makes a great effort to carry it out.

  • compliance—the target is willing to do what the agent asks but is apathetic about the request.

  • resistance—the target person is opposed to the request and actively tries to avoid carrying it out. The target can respond in several ways but ultimately will be against accomplishing the request.

Yukl (1998) provides a table summarizing the general categories of power researchers use to understand how power impacts leadership. They are:

1. Positional power

  • formal authority

  • control over reward

  • control over punishments

  • control over information

  • environment control

2. Personal power

  • expertise

  • friendship

  • charisma

3. Political power

  • control over decisions

  • coalitions

  • co-optation

Essentially, since followers tend to relate to leaders as parents through symbolic status, in the relationship between leader and follower, one can think of positional power as a parent-child relationship, and personal power as a parent-adult child relationship (Hawthorne and Martin,1993. p.657; Hirschhorn, 1988, p.154).

Positional Power Corrupts

We also have Yukl’s (1998, p.195) warning, “The notion that power corrupts is especially relevant for position power.” In an experiment by Kipnis (1972) where leaders are given high positional power, related by Yukl (1998, p.195), the dangers of excessive position power were borne out. As a result of using high positional power, these leaders:

1. Perceived followers as objects of manipulation
2. Devalued the worth of subordinates
3. Attributed subordinate efforts to their own power use
4. Maintained more social distance from subordinates
5. Used rewards more often to influence subordinates

These are not the attributes desirable in leaders among the saints, nor are they descriptive of biblical leadership practices. Paul (I Thess. 2:7,8) told the Thessalonian church: “But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.”

In studies to consider whether effective and ineffective leaders have and use the same types of power, Yukl (1998, p.188) concludes, “Overall, the results suggest that effective leaders rely more on expert and referent (personal) power to influence subordinates.” Yukl (1998, p.188) relates that studies by Warren (1968), Thambain and Gemmill (1974), and Yukl and Falbe (1991), indicate that the use of positional power usually produces compliance. Since the church is a transformational organization seeking to induce high levels of commitment among members, this outcome of positional power is undesirable. Personal power, however, is summed up by Yukl (1998, p.188) as having results that “positively correlated with subordinate satisfaction and performance.”

Servant leadership/Lateral leadership

Robert Greenleaf (1970, p.7) coined the term, “servant leadership” in describing a model very similar to what Jesus proposes. Greenleaf (1970, pp.22, 32) similarly sees positional power as at best producing compliance (at worst, resistance), and recognizes the superiority of personal power, “Leadership by persuasion has the virtue of change by convincement rather than coercion. Its advantages are obvious.”

Current leadership research has provided a good amount of support for Jesus’ servant-leader proposition. Leaders in Jesus’ servant leadership model are left with what Jay Conger (1998, p.vii) calls “Lateral Leadership,” calling it a “revolution in how we manage others,” a model based purely on personal power.

Biblical NT Servant Leadership

Jesus gave in Luke 22 what on the surface seems to be an impractical command about leadership in the church:

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.”

This statement rips from the arsenal of leadership the use of positional authority to influence other believers. The Apostle Peter (I Peter 5:1-3) reiterated this relinquishing of positional power for leaders with, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage (positional power), but being ensamples to the flock (personal power).”

Biblical NT Leadership is not decision making

Leadership being service to others and not decision making for others is really a profound distinction. It highlights the qualitative difference between leadership within the church and leadership in the world.
Fundamentally, among the saints there is no authoritarian power over others based on position. There is only a resultant, voluntary influence based on a historical relationship through service and sacrificial example through maturity. No one can “command” respect and obedience because they ARE an elder (etc.). Instead, they may appeal to their acts of past and ongoing love and sacrifice for you–which we see Paul doing on occasion.
While a person in a community can be recognized as this kind of person over time (variously referred to as pastor, elder, bishop, but usually as elder), they never “arrive” or “achieve” an authority based on position. It is based on ongoing service (not education, wealth, gifting, knowledge, ability to speak well, etc.).

Leadership being service to others and not decision making for others is really a profound distinction. It highlights the qualitative difference between leadership within the church and leadership in the world.

Fundamentally, among the saints there is no authoritarian power over others based on position. There is only a resultant, voluntary influence based on a historical relationship through service and sacrificial example through maturity. No one can “command” respect and obedience because they ARE an elder (etc.). Instead, they may appeal to their acts of past and ongoing love and sacrifice for you–which we see Paul doing on occasion.

While a person in a community can be recognized as this kind of person over time (variously referred to as pastor, elder, bishop, but usually as elder), they never “arrive” or “achieve” an authority based on position. It is based on ongoing service (not education, wealth, gifting, knowledge, ability to speak well, etc.).

Being a servant is the aspiration and the most highly respected role among the saints, where submission is as mutual as is ministry to one another.

Being a servant is the aspiration and the most highly respected role among the saints, where submission is as mutual as is ministry to one another.

Jesus’ most profound example and encouragement of this style of leadership occurred on the night He last shared the Passover with His disciples. The disciples that day had been arguing who among them would be the greatest. In a household, the least of the servants was tasked with washing the feet of visitors. None of the disciples had been willing to do that. At the end of the passover meal, Jesus rises from the table, removes his outer clothes, wraps a towel around His waist, and picks up a basin from the corner. So, Jesus becomes the least servant among them, and washes their feet, one disciple at a time, and drying them with the towel. Finished, He explained (John 13:12-15):

“Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” In John 13:1, just before the passover meal, we are told concerning the servant Jesus, regarding His disciples, “he loved them unto the end.”

This example was not only about servant leadership, but about loving those we lead; indeed, demonstrating and giving example that we love all men (Rom 13:8-10). That is the true secret of servants.

Conger, Jay (1998) Winning ‘Em Over.
Greenleaf, Robert (1970) The servant as leader.
Hawthorne & Martin (1993) Dictionary of paul and his letters.
Hirschhorn, Larry (1988) The workplace within.
Kouzes & Posner (1995). The leadership challenge.
Yukl, Gary (1998) Leadership in organizations.

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Variations in Service Focus and Time Spent

Friday, September 24th, 2010 by Art

itinerants_elders_saints3

Posted in Church Planting, Discipleship, Elders (Pastors), Saints, The Church | No Comments »

Filled with the Spirit

Monday, September 20th, 2010 by Art

“Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost”    -Luke 1:41

Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, is a woman the bible specifically tells us “was filled with the Holy Ghost.” Yet her story remains as invisibly tucked away in our bibles as it was in that little village of the hill country nearly 2,000 years ago.  With so many today seeking insight on the filling of the Holy Spirit, Elisabeth offers us an unexpected insight about the required preparations for being so filled.

At sixty years, Elisabeth is still a lovely woman. But she carries a wounded spirit. Her eyes alone tell much of the story. They are sad, yet tender, caring selflessly and understanding deeply. Stooped, humbled by life, wrinkled, and yet there is a certain grace about her. She is the wife of a priest, a pious man, promising in his youth, yet he has not achieved much over the years. His eyes are more distant, emptier somehow, all his early dreams as a young man long worn out of hope, long ago accepting loss. He is not quite bitter; there is more a deep sadness, making him look frail and unsure of his step. Zacharias and Elisabeth, you see, are childless.

And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.              -Luke 1:7

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Discipleship, Elders (Pastors), Itinerants, Saints | No Comments »

Is Leadership A Healthy Christian Aim?

Friday, April 30th, 2010 by Art

This article by Steve Williamson says something worth hearing. Here’s the first few paragraphs…

As I move in and out of a variety of Christian circles, I hear much talk about developing Christian leaders for the next generation.  Christian bookstores are brimming with bestsellers touting the latest “leadership secrets” of Jesus or popular Christian celebrity.  Many churches and Christian schools target the development of “leaders who will make an impact” as a necessity for their institution to survive in the Christian marketplace.  Christian parents and seminary candidates are seduced by slogans such as “Preparing Christian Leaders for Tomorrow’s World.”  Clearly, this kind of thinking sells.  Christian day schools, colleges, and seminaries are using the leadership lure in their marketing, guaranteeing that their graduating students will be Christian leaders after they graduate.

That’s quite a promise.  But is it a good one?

Leadership is never an aim for the Christian in the Bible.  In the English Standard Version, “lead” occurs 128 times in 124 verses while “leader” appears 85 times in 80 verses.  Comparatively, “serve” appears 322 times in 294 verses while “servant” occurs 1060 times in 939 verses.  Word usage alone, of course, does not settle the question, but those are compelling numbers. Further, the Christian is never commanded nor even encouraged to lead (except when already in a position of leadership, see Romans 12).  What is modeled, extolled, and commanded is servant-hood.

Read the full article

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Saints | 1 Comment »

In Search of the Right Way

Monday, April 12th, 2010 by Art

The church today is filled with new models and new ventures, new approaches and new theories. We know the church is broken and we are groaning for change. In our desperation, we are turning everywhere to seek the right path. Logic, pragmatism, social theory, leadership theory, business models, marketing methods. Some, in their desire to find the right way, are re-examining the scriptures. Where better to turn? T. Austin Sparks well said, “The whole New Testament (Bible, if you like) is concerned with how things ought to be.”

It is not a difficult matter to ask how things should be when we read scripture. Nor is it difficult to see how far we are from the way things should be. While it looks deceptively simple to move from one to the other, it is enormously difficult to do so, because we rely on ourselves for a work that is foremost spiritual in nature. For example, in I Chron 13 God finds fault, not in David’s desire to move the Ark from where it should not be to where it should, but in how he chose to do so.

The Ark should be in Jerusalem, but it lay in the house of Abinadab for twenty years after the ill-conceived plan to use it as a weapon against the Philistines. David consulted with the leaders and with the people and all agreed it should be brought home.  This was the simple part, much like the task facing the churches today. It isn’t that we don’t know what is wrong. So what does David do next (and what will we)? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Itinerants, Saints, The Church | No Comments »

“Apostolic” – The Shorthand that Short Changes the Work

Friday, March 19th, 2010 by Art
It wasn’t only apostles who were itinerant: evangelists and prophets were (are) as well. Titling all this “Apostolic” invites overlooking the full spectrum of the work done by itinerants in the scriptures, the types of teaming and focus that was (is) in play, and it leaves most people with the traditional misconceptions of evangelists and prophets.
Also important, to limit the itinerant work to the role of apostles usually invites keeping the general misconception of itinerant work as being primarily church planting and leaves church care in the background of the itinerant work (at best). Church care was actually the thing Paul and others invested most heavily in—where those churches were embroiled in troubles. Church planting per se, where churches are planted in areas where none previously existed (not at all in the way so-called “missionary endeavors” and church planting strategies are conceived today) was the smaller part in terms of time and manpower in the records in the NT.
I prefer using the term itinerants in general to help the church see a missing function properly without being burdened and distorted by the faulty traditions we’ve built around each of the three itinerant biblical roles. I think it may be helpful to use a simpler, more inclusive description like “itinerant.” It lacks positional power nuances, and emphasizes their non-permanent role and activities regarding any one church (similar to what we call today using indigeneous principles–they weren’t there to lead the church).
Note that the only named apostles in the NT, besides the twelve, are Paul, James (Gal 1:19; 2:9), Silvanus (Silas) (I Thess 1:1; 2:6; 2:2 cp Acts 16:22,25), Barnabas (Acts 13:2-4; 14:14; I Cor 9:6), and Apollos (I Cor 4:6,9; cp I Cor 3:1-8, 22).  My understanding is that both Timothy and Titus were evangelists, not apostles, based on Paul’s exclusion of using the term “apostle” regarding Timothy in Col 1:1, their instructions (II Tim 4:5 taken in its plainest meaning, II Tim 2:2, Titus 1:5, etc.) and the itinerant work of Philip before and after the conversion of the eunuch. Note their itinerary:
Timothy:
• Acts 16:1-4 Paul finds Timothy in Lystra, and Timothy begins teaching believers with Paul there. (52AD?)
• Acts 17:14 Timothy in Berea (53AD?)
• Acts 17:15 (see I Thess 3:1,2) Timothy in Athens, establishing believers (54AD?)
• I Cor 16:10 Timothy in Corinth teaching (59AD?)
• Phil 2:19 Timothy in Philippi serving believers (64AD?)
• I Thess 3:2 Timothy in Thessalonica, establishing believers
• I Tim 1:3 Ephesus (65AD?) teaching elders
• Apparently Paul calls Timothy before his work is done, and so sends Tychicus there II Tim 4:12  Tychicus is another itinerant (Titus 3:12).
Titus:
• II Cor 7:6,7 In Macedonia, comforting Paul
• II Cor 7:13,14 in Corinth, Comforting and carrying a message from Paul
• Gal 2:1 in Jerusalem
• II Tim 4:10 in Dalmatia
• Titus 1:4,5 in Crete setting the church in order where it was faulty and ordaining elders
• Titus’ “job” in Titus 1:5 is temporary—see Titus 3:12
Timothy is supposed to teach the “teachers”- the elders (II Tim 2:2 commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also), similar to modern seminary teachers, with notable exception as to delivery with training provided on-the-job (OJT) in the field, person to person. Traveling seminary is part of the work of itinerants in developing new elders (though that terminology brings much unwanted traditional baggage). In Titus 1:5, they also set in order the things that are wanting (as in I Tim 3:15), somewhat similar to modern church consultants and interims, minus the long fees and the brief engagement schedule.
This is partly why elders had to be “addicted” to hospitality – the itinerants would remain with them in their everyday lives while in the locality (see leadership development). As would the church most frequently gather in their homes. They would teach leadership; I prefer thinking of this as leading in servanthood among a people given to servanthood (the church) in large measure as Timothy learned from Paul, “But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.” II Tim 3:10,11
This “fully-knowing” another’s life and lifestyle, values and interactions under all sorts of conditions, and while together in active ministry, is the biblical OJT/Mentoring Model for leadership development. Most of the men appointed as elders were only saved for 6 to 18 months, in the patterns of Acts, as opposed to our modern training regimen in university and seminary. Sadly for these dedicated men, this education takes them and their families away from their assembly where they are known and loved, isolates them, and then sends them to a church where no one knows them, to become the lone/senior pastor. They are not, thereby (being strangers to the community) able to meet the biblical qualifications of an elder/pastor.
Biblically, we see leadership developed within the setting of a local body. One to few discipleship, spending lives together while undertaking actual responsibility and work within a body, appears to be more effective and efficient, and a biblical pattern worth reconsidering. Note that biblically, you cannot fulfill the qualifications of an elder (pastor, bishop, overseer) without being well known by the local faith community and the local secular community.
Our mistaken view of evangelists may come from an episode recorded about Philip.  First, this is taking a small incident where Philip was called away for this one visit from Acts 8:5-8, where he was ministering to the scattered believers Acts 8:4, and to which ministry he continued throughout the northern region of Israel subsequent to the eunuch’s conversion in Acts 8:39,40.  A closer look at the scriptures shows that Philip was involved in an itinerant ministry to the scattered saints and churches before and after the dramatic conversion of the eunuch. This itinerancy, and not the singular conversion of the eunuch, describes the work of evangelists.

It wasn’t only apostles who were itinerant: evangelists and prophets were (are) as well. Titling all this “Apostolic” invites overlooking the full spectrum of the work done by itinerants in the scriptures, the types of teaming and focus that was (is) in play, and it leaves most people with the traditional misconceptions of evangelists and prophets.

Also important, to limit the itinerant work to the role of apostles usually invites keeping the general misconception of itinerant work as being primarily church planting and leaves church care in the background of the itinerant work (at best). Listen to Paul, “Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches” (see II Cor 11:23-29). Church care was actually the thing Paul and others invested most heavily in—where those churches were embroiled in troubles. Church planting per se, where churches are planted in areas where none previously existed was the smaller part in terms of time and manpower in the records of the NT.

The term “itinerants” in general may help the church reconsider the missing function properly without being burdened and distorted by the faulty traditions we’ve built around each of the three itinerant biblical roles. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Itinerants | No Comments »

Our Lord’s heart for the churches

Thursday, March 11th, 2010 by Art

Our Lord tells us he stands in the midst of golden candlesticks, which are the churches. Can you imagine the image He wants us to see in our mind’s eye? The intimacy. He has given His life for these saints and He has sent them into the world to carry on His great work of redemption, given to them the ministry of reconciling the world unto Himself. They are now the lights to the world. He stands there in the flickering lights of these lamp stands. His first words to them are, “Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” (Rev 1:17,18)

Here are His counsels:

Remember, repent, and do the first works (Rev 2:5)

Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer (Rev 2:10) Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Elders (Pastors), Itinerants, Saints | No Comments »