The Problem with the “Deeds, Not Creeds” Mentality Is Its Anti-Intellectualism

rauschenbusch

“Christianity is a life, not a doctrine” –Walter Rauschenbusch.

This idea has captured liberal congregations in the past, and today is the rallying cry for many who claim to be Christian conservatives. One reason that Christians often shy away from defending Scripture is because cool-shaming is a reality, especially among some of the university-age set.

Full article by Alex Wilgus here.

When Grace Ceases to be Grace

bridges quo storms

“Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to bestow it in the presence of human merit.… Grace ceases to be grace if God is compelled to withdraw it in the presence of human demerit.… [Grace] is treating a person without the slightest reference to demerit whatsoever, but solely according to the infinite goodness and sovereign purpose of God.”

Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace: Living Confidently in God’s Unfailing Love (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2008), 35, quoting C. Samuel Storms.

Zechariah and Elizabeth

zechariah_elizabeth

Zechariah and Elizabeth were barren; Israel was barren. The childlessness of a godly couple in their old age is mirrored by the spiritual dryness of the of the people of God. Israel had not heard a prophetic voice for centuries. No man living could recall hearing a prophet. Zechariah, an Aaronic priest who is chosen by lot, burns incense at the hour of prayer. It  is then he is met by Gabriel, who announces the birth of a son, who is to be named John. All of his and Elizabeth’s hopes and prayers were answered, although Zechariah cannot believe it. He is struck silent. The reproach upon Israel was soon to be lifted, just as the reproach of childlessness was from Elizabeth.

 

It may seem odd that Luke spends so much time on the birth story of the forerunner of Christ. It does not seem so odd, however, when the greater story is considered: a priest, of the tribe of Levi is burning incense in the temple, according to the Law, following the centuries-old ceremonies that demand repetition daily. During this temple ministry, a son is promised, but not one who will be a priest like his father. John will be a prophet, in the spirit of Elijah; the first prophet in centuries. Something new is coming.

 

Note also that John, of the tribe of Levi, will prepare the way for the final High Priest (Hebrews, chapters 5-8), the Saviour, the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” (John 1:29). “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). Levi gives way to Judah. Someone New has come.

 

In that same Holy Place in Herod’s great temple, Zechariah receives the first indications that the temple system is not eternal, but shall be declared irrelevant in the Kingdom of God. John will not carry on the temple traditions, but announce a new atoning sacrifice in Christ. Levi gives way to Judah.

 

In all of Christ’s ministry there is no miraculous sign or event in the temple, until the last day of the temple’s place in God’s economy: “ . . . And the curtain of the temple was torn in two” Luke 23:45. Jesus taught that the temple is to be destroyed. Because of the cross, its purpose is finally complete. It can now serve no other purpose. Limited access to God, restricted to the priesthood, is over. Access now is for “. . .  as many as were appointed to eternal life . . . (Acts 13:48).

 

The ceremonial Law is now complete, and the old covenant is ratified.

In a ceremony in the Holy Place, the end of the Holy Place is foretold.

Blameless In Your Lifetime

Luke describes the parents of John the Baptist, Zechariah and Elizabeth, as “righteous before God, walking blamelessly (ἄμεμπτος) in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.” (Luke 1:6)

Paul, describing himself before his conversion, describes himself likewise: “as to righteousness under the law, blameless (ἄμεμπτος) (Philippians 3:6).
Prior to the cross, that is, before Christ’s death and resurrection, Zechariah and Elizabeth are commended for their righteousness.
After the cross (the historical death and resurrection of Christ), but yet before he is converted, Paul’s blamelessness under the law serves as a foundation, a reason, for his rejecting Christ and for his persecution of the church.
Then, after his conversion, Paul counts it all as loss:
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:7-11).
Before a man is converted to Christ, his blamelessness under the Law is fuel for his hatred of the church; following the cross, his blamelessness under the Law is understood as an impossibility, and a loss.
Following his conversion to Christ, a man in Christ knows his blamelessness before God has a different foundation.
Paul still claims that to be blameless is a Christian’s virtue (Philippians 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:13).
It is expected that the Christian will be “blameless,” but not under the Law. No one alive today can, be in Elizabeth’s and Zechariah’s position. If we are to be blameless, it is by grace, and not by Law.
The Law will show us what righteousness looks like, but, because of our weakness, cannot get us there. Only God’s grace can:
Romans 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

 

We are still accountable and expected to be blameless. Are you? How are you?

On Gaining a Market Share of People Hungry for the Word of God

piechart

The question of Biblical literacy came up in a recent Facebook conversation, and it is a concern for many of us here. I wonder if we are not a victim of our own success, in a way. In the earlier years of the RM, and in the first half of the last century, many Americans were well-read in the Scriptures. Theological liberalism began to attack the Bible, but many Christians doubled-down on the Bible during that time, and Bible teaching demonstrated to be very important, by its frequency: Sunday School, Biblical preaching, Sunday night, Wednesday night, etc.

The RM took the Bible seriously. That is why I am no longer a Lutheran. I was raised in the liberal LCA synod, was confirmed, but was introduced to the Bible by other high school students from First Christian Church in Council Bluffs. These students told me what the Bible said about being saved, and how. That’s something I never heard in the Lutheran church.

I became a Christian there, and without knowing it, a member of the RM (Restoration Movement). I might add that it was High School students, and their college friends, who recruited me to attend Manhattan Christian College.

What impressed me, at age 15, was that the Bible was so important, and this church took it seriously. I wonder if that is so much the case today. We have taken the Bible seriously for so long, that we assume we are still doing it, without remembering that each new generation must be taught to have that same concern.

Don Carson, in speaking of the Gospel, says that though a generation or two take the Gospel very seriously, later generations begin to ASSUME the Gospel. So the Gospel is less proclaimed, but assumed, as other things are done: arts, music, counselling, social work, other ministries, etc., etc.

So I wonder if we, sometime in the 70s or 80s, began to do “other things,” and tacitly set aside the Bible. In the 1800s, philosophy is said to have taken “a hermeneutical turn” which has changed the course of philosophy from that time to the present.

In evangelical churches, not only the RM, I think we have taken a “relationship turn,” in our approach to all things, including Deity and Man. This is marked by a move away from propositional Revelation to feeling, from Word to deed, from foundations to structure. Relationships became the main thing–and it was around that time that we heard that “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship.” Interestingly, my liberal Lutheran church national youth group was called “Lutheran Youth Encounter.”

Some call it Neo-orthodoxy, a move to separate “fact” from “truth,” but I’ll stop digressing.

In the rush to keep people coming back to church, there has been a subtle change to treat disciples of Christ as the customers of Christ, so that people who profess Christ as Lord must be constantly wooed back to Him. We want them to like us. My take on the entertainment-as-worship phenomena is that is not so much that non-Christians won’t come if they’re not entertained, but it takes a circus to keep people, who are supposedly Christians, coming back. A man or woman who understands the seriousness of their lost-ness will be put off by levity, not drawn to it. How can a person who truly understands their guilt before God, be beholden to silliness in preaching? Is it the Word of God and His Spirit that draws a man to Christ or the band?

It takes a special kind of immaturity to be captive to entertainment, and that especially so when the consequences of falling short are eternal.

Staying with this consumer motif for a moment, we can see then that churches simply aren’t selling what people are buying. If there are faithful, Bible-preaching empty churches on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights, it could mean that there is an oversupply of Bible. That overstock is not  fault of the church. There is, indeed, a famine for the Word of God, but no felt hunger among the starving (Amos 8:11). People need the Bible, but aren’t aware of that need. Replacing what is needed, the Word of God, with other business will save no one.

If we are trying to gather a shrinking market share of people who want Bible, and entertainment works, then that will be what is done; I think that this has been the trend for over 30 years now. If “Christianity lite” edges out the gravitas of the Faith, Sunday after Sunday, there will be few left who really do hunger for the Bible.

When I say “doing other things,” I’d like to offer some examples, and ask some questions:

  1. How often does preaching get set aside for other things on Sunday mornings? Special services, reports from missionaries (which do need the time, but need a longer time), skits from the youth group, all are used to replace preaching.
  1. I have seen advertised, from all sorts of churches, “An Evening of Praise” or “An Evening of Worship.” Are you aware of the success of anything like, “An evening of preaching” or “A night of teaching,” with back-to-back Scriptural exposition? Why would this not gather as large a group of people as would something involving music and drama?
  1. Has our preaching shifted from Scripture to needs based subjects? I firmly believe in the need to address needs, but from what I can tell, much preaching is no longer exegeting the Bible and applying it to life as the text brings them up, but first looking at problems faced by many and then finding texts to address those problems. This, though, tends to fragment our understand of Scripture, and makes the Bible more of a go-to book of advice.
  1. If you preach, in sermon planning do you start with Scripture, or your audience? Why?
  1. I assume that if you are reading this that you are a preacher or an elder. How many times have you read the Bible through in your life? Have you done so?
  1. Are students graduating from our colleges and seminaries Biblically literate? Have they read the Bible through? In what things are they literate?
  1. How soon after becoming a Christian did you read the Bible?
  1. If you were to start publically reading the Bible each Sunday (1 Timothy 4:13), and assuming you followed a plan or lectionary so you don’t just cycle through favourite texts, would your church push-back, and say that’s too much Scripture, or that it takes too much time?
  1. Can you imagine a worship service with no preaching, but just worship, offering, music and the Lord’s Supper? Can you imagine a worship service with only the Lord’s supper, offering, and preaching, but with no music? Which of these two are harder to accept?

I can think of others, but the few I listed above give some hint as to the kind of trouble we have in our churches now.

I do believe that the average preacher,  elder, deacon, and church member knows much less of the Bible, is reading it less, and comprehends much less of the Biblical worldview than even 30 or 40 years ago.

Speaking now to the older preachers: Do you remember in the 70s, the Baker Book House catalogue that came out two or three times annually? Almost all the books sold in that catalogue were reference works about the Bible or theology. Even the early Christian Book Distributors catalogues leaned heavily upon doctrine, theology, Biblical studies, commentaries and Biblical languages. Now consider the top-selling books today: Christian fiction, relationship repair, and Bible study guides that state the painfully obvious that could be gleaned by a simple reading of the Bible (Lucado and Warren come to mind). Among Christian bestsellers are few books that actually enable one to understand Scripture better. We are awash in books, but know the Bible less.

If the pool of people who really respond to the preaching of the Bible is small, and shrinking, it is our duty to cultivate and grow that pool.

I think that elders and preachers need to encourage the reading of Scripture, in their entirety, more. This means that Christians ought to expect to read the Bible through, repeatedly, for the rest of their lives. Preachers and teachers must be reading more than what is necessary for the next lesson or sermon.

I also think that preachers and elders ought to model, and encourage, the “plucking out the eye” and “cutting off the hand” of much of popular culture. It simply is not that important to be up on every song, movie, play, novel, trend or sporting event. We only have so many hours in our lives, and we need to get past the entitlement mentality when it comes to our entertainment.

So, are we doing other things, or doing what matters?

The Cure for Legalism is not Antinomianism.

I respond to a tweet from Richard Rohr, OFM, whose take on the Law fails to maintain its proper use. His full article here.

I appreciate the sentiments in this article, and I agree that legalism is a problem for many. To be a legalist, though, is not to affirm the moral truth of the Law. Legalism is not the careful keeping of God’s Law. What legalism is, is to rely upon the Law a means to salvation. The problem with this article is that Rohr treats the Law as the problem, rather than sin (breaking the Law) as the problem. His concern over legalism leads him to deny the proper place of the Law. Rohr says that the Law is only “. . . to get you seriously engaged with the need for grace and mercy; they were never an end in themselves (read Romans 7:7ff).” This is missing the point of the Law.

First off, Rohr creates a straw man argument in saying that “they (the Law’s rules and regulations) were never an end in themselves.” The Bible never says the Law is an end to itself  (Psalm 19:7; 37:31; 40:8 and many other places); rather, one important purpose of the Law is to reflect the holiness of God, and how His people may please Him.

Secondly, Rohr seems to want to cut off any use of the Law as a way to know the character of God. He seems to limit the purpose of the Law to “getting us seriously engaged,” and not as a means to keeping us seriously engaged. But the moral character of God did not change at the cross, and the cross does not take away the moral requirements of the Law. The Law cannot  (because of our weakness) save; but the saved seek to grow in sanctification, which is at the least, to keep His Law.

Rohr’s first two Bible passages do not at all say what he says they do:

Rohr says that Paul said this: “ ‘Cursed be the law,’ Paul even says (Galatians 3:13)”

But Paul really said this:

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’”— Galatians 3:13 (ESV)

Failure to keep and obey the Law brings a curse, but that curse is not the Law itself. Paul never uses this language to describe the Law. Rather, reliance upon the Law brings a curse. This is an important distinction, because Rohr’s approach denies the Law its rightful place as a rule of life for the Christian, and sure and true guidance for the Christian who desires to please God (John 14:15, 21, 15:10).

The curse comes not because of anything at fault wi-th the Law, but with us. That is why Christ became a curse for us. That’s grace.

Rohr: “But it seems Christianity has paid little heed to Paul’s revolutionary message, or even to Jesus who says six times in a row, ‘The law says, but I say!’(Matthew 5:21-45).”

What Jesus said: “You have heard” (Matthew 5, verses 21, 27, 33, 38, 43) and “it was also said” (Matthew 5:31). Jesus was NOT saying what Rohr is claiming. Jesus is not doing away with the Law, nor is He saying that He is somehow setting it aside; actually, quite the opposite (see Matthew 5:17 and below)

Jesus is not quoting the Law in these sayings. Jesus is quoting the Rabbinical interpretation of the Law. This is evident because, when Jesus quotes Scripture, He says, “It is written . . .” (Matthew 4:4, 6, & 10). Here He does not. He says, “You have heard.” This is a reference to the oral tradition of the Rabbis. That this is a Rabbinical interpretation is also evident from the last “you have heard,” in  Matthew 5:43:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’”

This is not a statement of Old Testament Law. It is a Rabbinical commentary.

Furthermore, Jesus makes it clear that the Law is not abolished, by saying,  “17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (ESV)

Fulfilment and abolishment are two entirely different things. What Jesus says is that the Law will not pass away until it is kept perfectly, that is, fulfilled, and it was done so in Christ. In fact, Christ’s “you have heard” statements reaffirm the deep and spiritual nature of the Law, not merely the outward appearance.

Legalism is a real problem, and it lays at the theological foundations of Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholicism, and every man-made religion. It is man striving to reach God.

But the cure for legalism is not antinomianism (lawlessness), but Grace. Grace is what God applies to us when we are brought to the end of our abilities by the Law. It must be kept in mind that the Law was good when I could not keep it; now, in Christ, who kept it for me, the Law is still good.

I personally believe that legalism among professed Christians is much less a problem than antinomianism, because there appears to be so little difference between Christians and non-Christians morally in our present age. If the Law, properly used as a means to show our need for Grace, but also as a perfect rule of life lived with the power of the Holy Spirit, was better taught today, the distinction between believer and unbeliever would be clearer.

Taking Up the Cause of Satan

Crown-of-Thorns-Website-Banner

We are most likely familiar with the Devil’s temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The third temptation I understand as a sort of peace treaty offer from Satan. It is if he is saying, “Look, Jesus, you are here to claim ownership over the all the kingdoms of the world, and I’m willing to put an offer on the table. Jesus could rule the world with the Devil’s blessing. There could have been a truce between Jesus and the Devil on earth. But under such a truce, every human being must subsequently die in their sins and go to hell.

It is here that Jesus says, “Scram, Satan!” (ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ, hypage satana). The ESV has it right, “Be gone!” It is a strong command to “Go away!” (Matthew 4:10).

Notice though, that Jesus has to say the same thing to a disciple, a disciple who had just had something great revealed to him: that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Jesus blesses Peter by affirming that this revelation was directly from the Father in heaven, and that upon that same confession the church will be built (in the four gospels, only Matthew speaks of “the church”).

This disciple, recipient of divine-direct revelation, immediately begins to reject the mission of Jesus:
Matthew 16:21–22 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”

Notice Jesus’ reply:

Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

The phrase I underlined, ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ· (hypage Go! opiso Behind! mou, satana) has the same strong command, but with an important difference: while the Devil, as Satan was told to “go away” in Matthew 4:10, Peter, addressed as Satan, is told to “go behind.” Same stern command, but to a very different location. Peter is told to get behind Jesus.

Jesus chose Peter, but Peter was thinking as a man, and his thoughts were not on the things of God, even though he had received divine revelation as to the identity of Jesus as the Christ. Indeed, knowing that Jesus was the Christ, made it all the more urgent, in Peter’s understanding, to save His life. He was certain that he could save the Saviour.

Unlike Satan, Peter was not cast out, nor told to go away, but to get behind Jesus. Peter could only think like a man; he needed to put his thoughts behind God’s thoughts. He needed to let Jesus do the thinking. We must understand that our understanding of the will of God, our comprehension of what God is doing, must always be placed behind Jesus.
The importance of this can be driven home by comparing the motivations both of the Devil and of Peter. Satan’s motivation and Peter’s were very different. Satan sought to divert Jesus from His mission, to gain Christ’s allegiance and end His mission before the cross. Peter sought to save Jesus from the cross out of his ignorance, his imperfect and uninformed love for Him.
But regardless of motivation, the result is the same: if the will of the Devil or of Peter had prevailed, Christ would never have met the cross, and no human being could survive the wrath of God.

Are We Creating Elders or Leaders?

Why the Carver Policy Governance Model must be rejected by Christian churches.

A long-running trend among churches of the Restoration Movement (RM), their colleges, seminaries, and publications of the RM, is to speak of, and be concerned with, matters of Leadership. I would venture to guess that for the most part, when speaking of those who organise, govern, lead, control, supervise, do administration, plan, and set goals, the term leader is pre-eminent. When I speak of leadership in this article, I am doing so as understanding a force that is not the same as eldership, not because leadership is a bad term, but it is a term that marks a different trajectory than is marked by eldership.

My question is, when using the language of leadership, if we are not creating a new category, parallel to the one expressed in the New Testament: elder. The language of leadership, in its modern form, can be very confusing: leaders can be autocratic, they can be consensus builders; leaders can work alone, they can work in committee; leaders can push, leaders can pull. Much of the current literature on the subject is concerned with the type or style of leadership appropriate to an organisation. This is, I believe, in part because there are so many philosophies, systems, and models that leadership can take. It’s been probably thirty years ago that I saw an ad for Leadership Journal, saying, “if it was meant only pastors, we’d have named it, ‘pastorship journal.’” This is the shift in terminology, and where it might end, that concerns me.

Some are uncomfortable with the idea of “leadership” rather than “pastorship,” so in the Christian world, it has been suggested that the term “servant” be prefixed to the word “leader,” (servant-leader) so that it is clear that the leader in the church will be like Jesus (“But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”” Matthew 20:25–28, ESV). This needs to be carefully considered when applying it to a ministry, and the question must be raised, “How do I serve, and lead?” A man in leadership must not consider every task as his task. For example, the apostles, who were growing in their understanding of the Gospel, realised that not everything is their place of service. Thus, they choose others to look after the daily distribution of food to the tables (Acts 6:1-7). They served by prayer and preaching.  What must also be noted is that there is no hint that the daily food distribution was considered beneath the apostles; rather, there were two legitimate tasks, and these tasks required two groups of men.

Returning to the parallel category of leader, I suggest that there is a danger in doing so because it creates a class of Christian worker that is outside the understanding of the New Testament church. The New Testament teaches a way by which the church is to be lead, organized, taught, guided, and administered. This task is to be done by the elders of the church, and the ministry, beginning with the eldership, is to be supervised by the eldership.

Within a couple of centuries of the founding of the church, eldership became hierarchical. That is, eldership in individual congregations was supplanted by over-elders, as churches in geographically important places (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome) began to be seen as having a greater importance and influence. Much of this reflects the thinking of the day, which itself was hierarchical, both from the Roman government and the military.

The early RM rightly opposed the hierarchical government of Protestant denominations. Today, we can still observe the damage as theological liberalism and apostasy reign in denominational headquarters and seminaries and impose false doctrines upon local congregations.

Eldership, as opposed to leadership, is very different:

  1. Eldership is not hierarchical. That is, it does not follow the structure of the government, the military, or corporation. These structures are not in themselves wrong, and they have their place in broader society; but they do not belong in the church of Christ. There should not be a “top-down” leadership structure in the Christian church.
    1. The New Testament uses a military metaphor to describe the Christian life and struggle (cf. Ephesians 6, Matthew 16:18, etc.). Military chain of command is never used to describe how the church functions.
    2. “Gentile leadership” is held up as an example of how leadership ought not to be. (Matthew 20:25-28).
  2. Eldership is not passive. It does not set policy and then hand the working out of that policy to professionals. Eldership must remain involved in keeping with its Biblical mandate (oversight, teaching, defending) in ways that many leadership models will not permit. At this point, a clarification of terms is necessary.
    1. The New Testament office (note: singular!) of elder, overseer, and pastor has been mis-taught for centuries, and that has worked its way into our thinking. What follows is not new from me, but has been restated many times in the history of the church. Culturally, hierarchy is always at the door, and, because it works so well, often invited in. Consider the following:
      1. Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders (πρεσβυτέρους, presbuterous, “presbyters”) of the church to come to him.” (Acts 20:17, ESV). Note the term highlighted. He was calling together the people in charge of the church in Ephesus. These were referred to as elders.
      2. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους, episkopous, “bishops” or “overseers) to care for (ποιμαίνειν, poimainein, “shepherd” “pastor) the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28, ESV). In this verse, Paul is saying that the elders are overseers (bishops). Their task is to shepherd (pastor) the church, who is the flock of God. Please don’t miss this: Paul calls the elders together, and addresses them as overseers (bishops) and commands them to shepherd (pastor) the flock.

Today, a pastor is usually a full-time church leader, who usually preaches on Sundays. A bishop oversees server churches in an area. An elder serves on a church board, and may or may not be involved in teaching ministry.

The New Testament knows nothing of this kind of distinction.

But today, if an elder were to use the term “bishop” to describe himself, it might sound odd, as though he were usurping a role to himself that he did not deserve. If five elders were to say they were pastors, one might think the church had a large staff! But this is hierarchical thinking that is engrained in our thinking today. Consider the terms again:

  1. Elder: a male who is older and more mature in the faith. This term is primarily descriptive of the person.
  2. Overseer: one who supervises the work of the church. This term is descriptive of the role, or function, which is oversight.
  3. Pastor: one who looks after sheep, one who feeds, defends, and leads. This term is descriptive of the task, which is the ministry of the Word and prayer.

Modern thought has separated these so that they describe men in different roles, as though the roles are themselves different.  I do not believe that this can be reconciled with the New Testament model of church governance.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 describes the requirements for an overseer (bishop, episkopos). If an overseer is an elder, and an elder is a pastor, these requirements are describing the expectations for the same man.

  1. In Acts 20:28, overseeing and pastoring are linked. In 1 Timothy 3:2, the overseer must be “able to teach.” Teaching is an integral role for the elder/overseer/pastor.
  2. Titus 1:5-9 again links the terms “elder” (vs 5) with “overseer” in verse 7. Furthermore, the teaching (pastoral feeding) and rebuking error (pastoral protecting) are requirements in verse 9.
  1. Eldership, then, is the following
    1. An office that is held by a man who has experience in the faith, taught, and able to teach. An elder is a man who is old enough to have lived his faith.
    2. Oversight of the congregation, and delegation of tasks to deacons.
    3. Feeding the flock by preaching and teaching.
    4. Defending the flock by rebuking error, both moral and theological.
  2. Therefore, Eldership is not:
    1. Passive, and uninvolved in the teaching and defending ministry of the church.
    2. Hyphenated: the New Testament does not speak of Youth Pastors, Family Life Pastors, Visitation Pastors, Worship Pastors, Music Pastors, Creative Arts Pastors, Sports Pastors, or Senior Pastors (for the elderly). There are roles and tasks in the church that do focus on specific people and needs, but the term pastor should be reserved for men who are in fact, elders.
    3. The New Testament does not speak of “Elder Emeritus,” i.e., too old to be useful but still treated with the honour of having served. It should be kept in mind that age itself is an honour in the Bible, and something to be respected. Elders are removed from office for sin, false teaching, and death. Physical and mental aging may also cause an elder to recuse himself from his office. Biblically, age is equated with wisdom, and so the term for the office implies experience.
  1. Leadership is not necessarily eldership, but eldership necessarily leads.
  1. By removing Biblical terminology, we run the risk of removing the Biblical office and replacing it with something foreign to the New Testament.
    1. Elders teach. Who teaches in your congregation?
    2. Elders direct. Who directs in your congregation?”?
    3. Are people doing the work of an elder, but under a different name? I.e., do you find saying, “Meet Henrietta Finkelstein, our Youth Pastor,” un-troubling when it would be very troubling to say, “Meet Elder Henrietta Finkelstein”? Dear Henrietta may indeed “work with youth” in some capacity, but if she’s a pastor, she’s an elder, and that’s a problem (1 Timothy 2:12).
  1. With the adaption of “Carver Policy Governance Model” (name for its founder, John Carver) by many church boards, church hierarchy returns in full force. The following quotes are from an article supporting the Carver model. The full article may be found here.

“One of the key principles embedded in Policy Governance is that the board holds one person accountable for achieving the institutional ends — the Chief Executive Officer. . . .

 In the Carver model of Policy Governance the board focuses upon developing policy consistent with mission, values, and ends of the organization. Once these are defined, it empowers the CEO, within specific limitations, to ensure that the organizational resources are focused upon accomplishing the desired ends. In the context of a local church, the board (which most often includes the lead pastor) would establish the policies, including the key ends they want the church to achieve. It then hands off to the lead pastor the responsibility to employ all of the resources of the local church to accomplish these outcomes. This model creates significant clarity for the lead pastor and the board as to their respective responsibilities. So long as the lead pastor is guiding the local church to achieve the outcomes within the limitations specified, the board supports the lead pastor in his role. Reporting lines are clear. The accountability of all other paid staff is to the lead pastor, not the board.

Does this mean that other elders or deacons who form the church board have no role in ministry leadership? Not at all. However, if they are assigned a ministry role in the church (i.e. small group leader, facility oversight, member care, etc.), they are accountable to the lead pastor for that role, not the board. They do not report to the board, but to the lead pastor. It may also be the case that the board assigns them a specific board responsibility (i.e. audit oversight, personnel matters, etc.) and in this case they are accountable directly to the board. So the members of the church board need to be clear as to the nature of their responsibilities and to whom they are accountable for their accomplishment.”

I believe this model is popular, because it works. But many things work that we don’t want to do in the church, and the church governance shown in the New Testament ought to prevail. This leadership model is unscriptural, for it creates a hierarchy where it should not; it elevates one elder above other elders, and makes the several accountable to one. Furthermore it creates unbiblical offices, CEO, lead pastor, etc., within the church. It also, artificially and unscripturally, separates the eldership from the office of overseer and pastor. If all elders are pastors, how is it that “other elders and deacons” are “accountable to the lead pastor?” This distinction is unnecessary and unhelpful. It also effectively sidelines the elders of the church from the ministry of teaching and protecting the church.

The standard of eldership set forth in Scripture, beyond the moral standards (which are daunting), is rigorous. To be able to teach and defend the faith takes an investment of one’s life and energy, beyond the simple agreement to serve on a board. If I serve on a board of an organization which is not a church, I understand that there are professionals who are working in the organization to whom I must defer in matters of expertise and skill. I know that that I can only see to it that the general policies of the organization are maintained. But if I am an elder, I have a holy obligation to “be that expert,” at least as far as God’s grace allows, and to be fully committed to knowing God and His Word. Knowing God and His Word, then, I must teach it and defend the flock. This ministry cannot be outsourced to other experts; it is the task of the elders to fulfill.

The Christian and Social Justice

“The doctrine of grace must also be found unacceptable by humanitarian-based theological pragmatists, because grace allows one to accept without guilt what is not deserved. To have something that another does not have, or to have something that is not earned, by inheritance, by ‘luck,’ by gift—in other words, by grace—is unsupportable for those theorists and requires the imputation of guilt. Only grace can expunge guilt. Social justice advocates are hostile toward Christianity precisely because the latter stands on grace, which the former hates. Christians taken in by the social justice argument have a social ethic at war with their deepest convictions and are, therefore condemned to futility. The only theology consistent with humanitarianism is works-righteousness, or Pelagianism.”

Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983, p 240