Let’s face the truth. Leaders and bosses can be jerks sometimes. If you go to church long enough, I will almost guarantee that you will have a story about when “my pastor/elder/deacon/minister/small group leader hurt me when he/she said or did…..(fill in the blank with discouraging comments, poor decision, unjust resolution… you get the picture). Jesus talks to the disciples several times about being a servant, and not lording authority over people like the non Christians. So, why don’t we just get rid of church leaders and just make it a democracy? It worked for America right? (snicker, snicker)
While Jesus was the suffering servant who modeled humility and love, the New Testament is once again clear on the fact that there should be appointed leaders in every church. In Titus 1:5, Paul’s command to Titus says, “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” Then Paul goes on to list what the qualifications for an elder are (Acts 14:23 has Paul and Barnabas doing the same thing for Galatia). Before you think that was just localized to Crete, he tells Timothy about church leadership for Ephesus in 1 Timothy 3:1. “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.” Overseer is often left as “bishop”, and Paul also talks about requirements for deacons in this chapter.
Why in the world would Paul spend so much time in these letters for two different churches talking about what leaders should be like if he didn’t want leaders??? It wasn’t just Paul that spoke of leaders, as Hebrews 13:7, 1 Peter 5:1, and James 5:14 all talk about leaders in individual churches. I would contend that our problem with church leadership isn’t that we have them, it is that our expectations of them are wrong and that too often too much power ends up in one man’s hands. Leaders are human, which basically tells us that they are sinners who need the forgiveness of Christ just as much as the members. While leaders are held to different standards in Scripture, we need to make sure that leaders are there to point us to Jesus, not to replace Him.
The issue which absolutely must be dealt with is how many churches have veered away from group leadership. No where do New Testament writers allow for one person to be at the “top” of a hierarchical church leadership structure making all the decisions. There is only one head of the church, and that is Jesus. Leadership is always discussed in the plural; elderS, deaconS, overseerS. As the early church grew, it took on the structure of the Roman Empire and other man made organizations having one leader who had the ultimate authority. Instead of provincial governors, the church appointed bishops (overseers) over an area of churches. The passages about bishops simply don’t support its use in this way. Elders and deacons were replaced eventually by a priest over each church. A priest??? are you kidding me? How clear is 1 Peter 2:9 on the priesthood of the believers? It only got worse, with more power concentrated in invented roles like cardinals and popes.
The Protestant Reformation addressed the abuse of power and misuse of the title priest. I can understand why they picked the use of the term pastor, with Jesus Himself discussing His role as the Great Shepherd. The problem often is that the pastor simply replaced the priest as being one man making all the key decisions for a church. What I don’t understand is why the reformers didn’t go back to using the terms elders and deacons alone? There is only one passage in the whole New Testament that uses the term pastor (Ephes. 4:11) and gives no definition of what that role really is. I can understand wanting to not use bishop due to how it was misused. The question I am often asked is, “If we don’t use the term pastor, wouldn’t there still need to be one “head elder” of each church?”
I suppose if we agree with the sentiment behind the question, we could even still use the term “pastor” for the head elder. I don’t have a problem with that. My question back would be why do we need one head elder? Here is where my experience in ministry kicks in. What I have seen is that without one person who serves as a “head” of a group/organization/ministry, there are often problems. Meetings meander on with no clear guidance or mediation, people often keep deferring to each other when no one wants to make a decision, or the group comes to a standstill when there is no clear majority on an issue. I know there are answers you could give to solving these issues without a leader, but I haven’t seen it work in the last 17 years. There also does seem to be some support for a “head elder” role in passages like Rom. 16:3-5, Philemon 1-2, Acts 15:22, Acts 21:18, Philippians 4:3, and some would say that Timothy acted in this role for the church at Ephesus for a time (1 Timothy).
The thought I want to leave you with is twofold. First, we clearly need and are commanded to have leadership to be called a church. This is one of the reasons the two guys on the golf course or buddies at the coffee shop don’t qualify as a church. They usually never have leaders. In the next post, I will take us through some Scriptures that explain why we need leaders. Second, we need to make sure that we return to the Biblical foundation of group leadership of our churches. I actually don’t care if you use the terms elders, bishops, deacons, presbyters, minister, pastor, etc…, so long as all the power in a church doesn’t end up in one person’s hands. That is usually a recipe either for disaster at the worst, or a church that never reaches its full potential at the best.
The Bible Nerd 