FOLLOW THE BIBLICAL INSTRUCTION
After listing the qualifications for an elder/overseer/bishop/pastor
in the church, Paul gives the reason for oversight in verses
10 through 16—
those who would deceive the church through false teachings.
10 through 16—
those who would deceive the church through false teachings.
(I will go over the qualifications as listed later.)
The point I have been making is the necessity of having
more than one person in leadership within the local church.
Having only one person in charge opens the door for
deception.
There is a prophetic proverb given in Zechariah 13:7—“…smite
the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered…” (spoken prophetically of the
Lord Jesus and His disciples).
With only one overseer, it is fairly easy for the enemy
to destroy a flock.
Satan easily finds the weakness within the lone
individual and exploits it so that the group is rendered ineffective for the
work of the ministry. Whether that weakness is moral or doctrinal matters not
to the enemy of our souls.
We’ve all seen a church become a tumbleweed when the
pastor is taken down through a moral failure. That church can survive, but is
weakened in the community.
What we don’t see so readily are the devastating effects
of a pastor led off into doctrinal deception.
Without a plurality of leadership, the opportunity for
the enemy to gain entrance through the lone leader is always available.
Of course, there is no guarantee that plurality is an
impenetrable wall. I have experienced that first hand in the second church I
helped establish.
What, then, does plural leadership look like?
Is there someone who has the ‘final say’?
Must there be consensus for every major decision?
How do we shift from a pastor/leader to a leadership team?
Is there someone who has the ‘final say’?
Must there be consensus for every major decision?
How do we shift from a pastor/leader to a leadership team?
Good questions that are not easily answered—
- due to only knowing what we’ve always known;
- due to the lack of clear explanation in scripture;
- due to fear of something new;
- due to men and women wanting to protect their position
As one who has studied and observed this situation for a
few decades, I offer my opinion. Please understand it is ONLY MY OPINION.
A LITTLE HISTORY
Denominationally, the Presbyterians are the closest to
operating from a plural leadership model. Many will say that the episcopal form
of government followed by the Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics and others
also use a plural form.
The Charismatic Renewal was known more for its emphasis
on teaching than on the gifts, and that teaching led to many changes in how “church”
was done.
One such aspect was the establishment of elders within
the local assembly who functioned under the pastor in the oversight of the
church. This model is still followed by many today.
Structurally, both the Presbyterian model and the
charismatic model can work.
The greatest weakness with the charismatic model is the
charismatic pastor/leader—and I am not referring to whether he speaks in
tongues or prophesies.
If the pastor chooses his elders, the weakness is obvious.
He is only going to choose those with whom he can get along, thus effectively
building a body of “yes-men.” “Yes-men” will go where the leader goes.
If the pastor is not to choose elders when trying to
establish a biblical model of leadership, then who should?
Biblically, the answer is an “apostle,” or one sent by an
apostle.
How many apostles do you know?
There weren’t many to begin with, and there aren’t many now.
And many of those who say they are apostles aren’t. (Rev. 2:2)
There weren’t many to begin with, and there aren’t many now.
And many of those who say they are apostles aren’t. (Rev. 2:2)
In the face of the apparent dilemma, I believe there is a
solution.
But first, a personal anecdote.
I was thrown out of the last church I was in by an autocratic leader for the sin of wanting to have a home Bible study. Four years before that, he had personally dismissed all the elders in that church, so that he was the lone authority. After I arrived, I brought up the question of plural leadership. I was told that it was being considered. I was also told that one particular person had been considered for leadership, “but he doesn’t bring anybody to church.”
Therein lies both the problem and the answer.
The problem, as stated
earlier, is that we have left off the Bible in exchange for the doctrines
of men. (Matt. 15:9)
This particular requirement was not presented within a list of
requirements. It was given as the reason why a certain person could not serve
in leadership.
I trust that you can at least agree with the ludicrous
nature of such a requirement, let alone its unbiblical nature.
If you are the pastor of a congregation and you would
like to begin the process of implementing plurality of leadership, then I make
the following suggestion:
Follow
the Bible
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome here.
Feel free to critique, criticize, question, or otherwise make your voice heard in relation to this post.
I only ask that you keep it civil and appropriate to the post.
Thanks.