Viewpoints -- More On Church Organization. |
||
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
JESUS calls US to be |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
The Christian religion is the worship and service of Jesus Christ. It’s not Mary we worship, but her Son. We worship neither saints, angels, a law code, nor even God’s Spirit. It’s JESUS who is to be honored. The Bible is our guide. |
||
Date sent: Wed, 13 May 1998 ~
Subject: Freedom's Ring, No 29, Week 2 of 5FREEDOM'S RING ~ Cecil & Lea Hook ~ cecil@freedomsring.org
17196 NW Woodmere Ct, Beaverton OR 97006-4820
"Proclaim liberty throughout the land" (Lev.25:10).Servants and Surrogates - Cecil Hook
For some time I have been intending to raise some questions and throw out some different concepts about congregational organization. I am confident that my readers will accept some challenges of our traditional concepts and practices without becoming too defensive, for you know I am not trying to make law of my opinions.
Without constant reappraisal in all things, we can allow tradition to become law. In their commitment to know and do the will of God fully, some respected men among the Baptists have been reevaluating the Biblical role of elders. While we join in applauding their spirit, can we also demonstrate such a spirit of restudy among ourselves?
Do we have [that is, do we find in the New Testament] a rigid pattern for organization of God's people? The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:l6). It is the message of salvation through the atonement of Jesus, not a message of salvation through properly organized religion.
On Pentecost, "there were added that day about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:41). They were added to one another as the summation of the saved in one body, yet this adding them together was not necessarily organizing them. In subsequent days, "The Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved" (2:47). We can be assured that the Lord is still doing that. Congregational organization is not mentioned in that early setting. [Nor were non-apostolic leaders mentioned.]
In their association for worship and service, how were, and are, the saved people to be organized? If a certain form of congregational operation were essential to our salvation, then surely it would be outlined in detail and enjoined.
Some instructions and precedents are seen in the New Testament writings, yet no universal application is demanded, nor are they made to be life-or-death matters. It seems that appointment of persons to carry out certain activities relating to the group was always a matter of expediency rather than a matter of conforming to a specified pattern. In spite of this, some groups have devised their own methods of government by which they claim identity as the one, true church.
All disciples are servants of the Lord but not necessarily servants of the church. One does not need appointment and approval by others in order to exercise the gifts God has given him or her as long as it is a private ministry. Not all disciples are servants of the congregation. The church selects (approves, ordains, appoints) those who serve the needs of the group, some being designated as elders and deacons, and others to serve as teachers, preachers, song leaders, secretaries, youth directors, incorporation trustees, and such like.
Through the inaccurate translation of some words, we have been led to think of elders and deacons being appointed to authoritative, organizational offices. Pastoring, shepherding, overseeing, feeding, tending, ruling (by example and leadership rather than authority), are all more functional than official.
Those ordained to such works are called elders (presbyters), overseers (bishops. Supervisor is a synonym), and pastors (shepherds tending the flock).
We have transliterated the Greek word diakonos into deacon, attaching a special meaning to it to make it an office instead of a function. But the word means servant, minister. So anyone appointed to serve the group is a deacon, servant, and minister of the association of disciples. That includes our traditional elders and deacons.
Here we face a tricky situation. Many who serve the group, like teachers, pulpit ministers, youth ministers, and counselors do the works elders and deacons are chosen to do. But we do not call them elders or deacons because they fill a function rather than an office. They become surrogates of the servant elders, performing their functions!
Is something out of joint here? Officers may delegate responsibility, but can servants delegate their function to surrogates? I am asking, not answering!
Surrogates of Servants
There is an inherent tension between elders and preachers (as we commonly designate pulpit teachers) that comes from a deeper source than interpersonal relationships. The preacher becomes a surrogate of the elders, chosen by them to do their work of teaching, tending, and pastoring in general. He becomes their mouthpiece, obligated to project their aims and purposes.
He is educated and trained beyond their expertise but cannot lead any further than their concepts, if it "rocks the boat." While he fills an "up front" role generally perceived as authoritative, the elders exercise authority over him. They control his financial security.
Perhaps, much of our respect for congregational autonomy has come from our historical associations with the Baptists. They appropriately cherish that concept of church government. Most likely to our disadvantage, we have rejected two features that they have embraced. While jealously guarding congregational autonomy, they have associated for the common good with other congregations in a Convention on a voluntary basis. The Convention is not permitted to control the congregation, however. The other feature is the congregational operation with a pastor, or pastors, and a board of deacons.
Yes, I am aware that such a suggestion may be met with some alarm, but please don't stampede yet. Baptists have given a more general interpretation to the "qualifications" of elders which we have considered more as legal requirements.
They sometimes choose pastors who may be young and have no believing children. These are given the charge to shepherd, tend, and feed the flock, leaving the general functioning of the congregation in the hands of the deacons. We choose young men also but we deny that they can be pastors (elders).
Although Baptists seldom use the term elder, (we seldom use the term pastor or bishop), their pastor, or pastors, serve in that capacity.
That avoids the surrogate role. He serves in an appointed role rather than in doing the work of other servants. In this definition of function, he is accountable to the congregation, doing the work the church assigned him.
Last year when I first thought to write about this, I made some inquiries of Houston Hook, a cousin who is pastor of a Baptist church in Millsap, Texas. He sent me an article from the Baptist Standard (May 21, 1997) which told of their restudy of Biblical elders. Some different views are offered, but generally Baptists have held (and still hold) to the pastor-and-deacons concept, with the understanding that the pastor and elder are the same.
In a note to me, Houston expressed a stimulating thought that had never come to my mind. He wrote, "I personally have thought of elders as being mature, wise leaders instead of an official office in the church, and when the Bible mentions ordaining elders, I considered it to mean the ordaining of mature, wise leaders to the ministry of preaching, evangelism, or missions, etc." I suppose that I should not have been surprised at such an insightful, challenging idea, for we Hooks are all smarter than most people! :)
We don't speak of ordaining a preacher. In a more crass manner, we speak of hiring him, or in more pleasing manner of engaging him. Ordaining, or appointing, and supporting one who is already recognized as spiritually mature to the function of shepherding/evangelizing would be in harmony with Paul's instructions, "Let elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; for the scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,' and `The laborer deserves his wages'" (1 Tim. 5:17f). This, at least, offers some suggestion that not all mature, wise men (elders) are expected to function as preachers and teachers who feed the flock.
Original Elders
The Jerusalem church began under the supervision of the apostles, but few would claim that apostles are parts of a pattern for today. In the Scriptures no mention is made of selection of the elders in the Jerusalem church, however, they soon come into view. As heads of families in their patriarchal culture, elders are of ancient origin among the Hebrews.
Elders are mentioned in the gospels, they being honorable heads of families, members of the Sanhedrin, and community leaders recognized among the Jews. Since selection of elders is not mentioned, we may assume that some of the Jewish elders were converted and continued to receive that recognition.
It was later, and outside of Judea, [perhaps] among those unfamiliar with the Jewish concept and cultural practice, that "qualifications," or descriptions, of these men were given. Those Jewish elders were the kind of persons to be appointed to serve churches. The New Covenant writers favored the term elder, possibly because of its historic usage among the Jews.
Before mention is made of elders in Jerusalem, seven men were chosen by the church for a special service to the disciples. Were they ordained to an office or a function, or both? Whether they were appointed for indefinite tenure or for the filling of one need is not clarified. Later, other servants who met certain "qualifications" were appointed outside of Judea. It is not revealed if they composed a standing committee awaiting assignments to fill needs as they arose, or if each was selected for a function which might be terminated by its completion. It seems more expedient that each was chosen to exercise his gifts and abilities in certain functions to which his service was limited.
Those who seek to follow patterns today insist that a plurality of elders and a body of deacons are identifying marks of the true church, though the scriptures nowhere teach that. If that were true, a congregation would have to begin with elders and deacons, and converts would be added to them. Small groups with only novice male converts could not be identified with the true church.
Patternists insist on nothing more or less than a plurality of elders and deacons in each church. Few, if any, congregations hold to that pattern. They organize their work into departments, assigning them to individuals and committees. They choose trustees for legal incorporation. They choose song leaders, youth directors, secretaries, and maintenance personnel. They appoint, or hire, surrogate men and women to do the elder's work of teaching and shepherding the flock. They justify their actions by making a distinction between offices and functions.
According to the (il)logic, elders and deacons may hold the offices while others who are not qualified to hold the offices perform their functions. Did we lose the thread of reality somewhere there?
Traditional Concepts
During most of my career, several traditional concepts limited any expansion of my understanding of this matter. Non-defensive review in later years, however, brought to view possibilities that I would not have considered earlier. I will mention some of them briefly below. You may read more about them in Free In Christ, Chapters 6, 22, 23, 24 and in Freedom's Ring, No. 13 and 14. These are available in print and at our website.
Assuming that you are familiar with the references to elders and deacons, I have not been noting them in this essay. However, for your convenience I will list a number of them here: 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 14:23; Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 5:17. Your concordance will give a more general listing of the words used.
Plurality of elders and deacons in each congregation is still emphasized among us. It is true that every mention of them is plural. In Acts 14:23, it is said that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church. That is an indefinite expression, however.
To say that in the last election, for example, we elected governors in every state would not be understood to mean that we elected a plurality of governors in each state. "Elders in every city" (Titus 1:5) is not equivalent to "elders in every congregation" for there might be many congregations in a given city. In Jerusalem elders were always mentioned in the plural but the church is always mentioned as singular, yet we know that there were "house churches" in Jerusalem. These many congregational groups comprised the church there. Whether each house church had elders, or a corporate group of elders served them all, is unknown.
As an illustrated usage of the terminology, "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph. 5:25) neither obligates a man to love a plurality of wives nor for a wife to have a plurality of husbands. No objection is being offered for having a plurality, but I am objecting to the binding of it as a legal pattern.
Precedent may indicate an acceptable course without demanding it as a universally necessary pattern. For any group to perform any corporate activity, appointment of persons to carry out the activity is expedient, if not necessary. However, groups may operate for many years without having qualified males to fill the traditional office of elder or deacon.
Office or function? A man who is thirty years old and has no wife and believing children cannot qualify as an elder to shepherd / pastor the flock, we have always contended strongly. But we have had no objection to his being a surrogate elder, shepherding the flock! He cannot be one, but we can hire him to do the work of one! Not only is that an inconsistency of legalism, it is an admission that we make the role of an elder an office rather than a function.
Women, likewise, we have refused to appoint to be deacons, but she is appointed to function in roles of teaching, nurturing, and congregational service in general which traditionally are supposed to be the functions of elders and deacons. Again, that is a misguided concept of office instead of function. Elders and deacons are appointed to service, not to fill some authoritative office listed on the church letterhead.
The difference between elders and deacons lies in the area in which they are to selected to function. Every appointee is a servant of the group and should not be appointed without due consideration since he or she is functioning with the approval of the church (1 Tim.5:22). But what about the authority of these congregational representatives?
Authority: who has it? No person, or group of persons, has authority over your soul. None can make rules for God or bind their interpretations thinking they are spokesmen for God. The word generally translated rule in 1 Timothy 5:17 is not a word expressing authority, but it means to stand before, to lead, to attend to.
Elders should do that. When authority is exercised by a body of elders who also select any new ones to be added, they become lords over the flock (1Peter 5:3), and church autonomy is lost to presbyterian or episcopal rule.
There is another facet to authority. Any body of people can authorize others to function for them, even as we elect public servants for that purpose. And the authority lies in the corporate group, rather than an appointee. A congregation cannot make rules for God. A congregation may authorize persons to organize, supervise, teach, publish a bulletin, lead singing, or paint. The appointee's authority extends no further than the function.
Extended service. I was always taught that the service of an elder is limited to the congregation that appoints him. If we are speaking of an office or authority, that would be a reasonable assumption. However, if we are referring to function, who can limit his ministering to the spiritual needs of any who are brought to his attention? Although I was never designated as an elder while feeding and shepherding, I have served more than one congregation at the same time regularly. When we are free of that authority concept for shepherding, it puts things in a different light. Our service knows no parochial boundaries.
"Qualifications": Are Paul's descriptions of elders sent to Timothy and Titus lists of legal requirements or general descriptions? Were different requirements made of those to be appointed by Timothy and Titus? If they were legal check-lists, then each man would have needed both lists. There is considerable variation between the two lists the men were to work from. We try to combine them today, but Timothy was in Ephesus and Titus was in Crete, and they could not have done that. However each man could see that Paul wanted them to choose wise, spiritually mature, honorable men similar to the elders of Jewish culture.
Unless we are predisposed to look for limiting patterns, we see more clearly that no real pattern of organization is specified which, when disregarded, would jeopardize the souls of all within the church. Flexibility allows for the use of judgment of any group to determine what is most effective and expedient for its own particular needs.
Most of us will agree, for example, that a church may appoint a building committee or minister search committee even though there is no pattern for such organized groups. Since the composition, culture, and capabilities within various churches around the world are not identical, why try to force a rigid pattern on their operation? It is by their function, not fitting an organizational mold, that they serve God's purposes.
By their continued usage, terms develop traditional meanings. This has happened to our common designations of pastor, elder, preacher, minister, deacon, and servant. Would we not do well to translate those designations into terms of modern usage? Persons, without regard to gender, can be appointed to areas of service in which they are gifted and be given designations that describe their function. We might use terms like supervisors, project leaders, care-givers, counselors, pulpit teachers - well, you can be more creative than I am at this moment. We can use terms that do not reflect "holy organization" or authoritarian rule. Function is the key!
In our modern culture, we think in terms of organization, definition of power, and jurisdiction. Because of our mobile society, it is difficult to think of certain men coming to be respected as elders as they did in ancient Jewish culture without being elected. So we specify these men by appointment, not to qualify them, but for recognition of them as approved leaders.
Perhaps I should have a more definite and conclusive bottom line for this disjointed piece. My aim is to urge openness for new considerations rather than for simply defending traditional practices.
