25 Reasons Summary

As followers of Jesus Christ we want to see His church grow and thrive. We desire to see a healthy church that impacts society for the better. We hope to see a special people stand out for Christ for all the right reasons. Above all, we strive to honor Christ together as we help one another grow closer to Him.

A healthy church is a maturing church. Each member of the body is necessary for the whole to reach its potential. Anything that hinders body growth and body life should be cast aside. As the family of God, we have the joy and privilege of being active agents for Jesus Christ. We do this most effectively as a group. While salvation is individual in nature, body life is most certainly communal. Churches can be what God wants them to be when the people work as one to do the things God wants. Simply put, we all need each other.

Despite generally good intentions, professional pastors hinder body life and growth. For all the reasons I've listed in this series, they harm the church, forcing it into a passive mode of being. Salaried pastors come in between the people and their Lord, taking away many of the privileges that all the people should enjoy. Because of these things, the church as a whole ought to reject the entire concept of pastors as professionals. Instead, the body does much better to recognize elders who are already part of the family.

The church will see an immediate increase in spiritual vitality if it will do away with the professional pastorate. I hope this happens in my lifetime.

Alarming Facts About Pastors

Pastors of institutional churches face many challenges and difficulties. What is the solution to this? Traditional answers usually focus on being nicer to the pastor, supporting the pastor better, not expecting so much of the pastor, and paying the pastor more.

The folks at Fellowship of the Lamb have a different idea. Click here to read "Alarming Facts About Pastors." The authors offer a far different solution to problems within the institutional pastorate.

Why I Resigned From Professional Pastoring - Four Years Later

It's difficult for me to believe that it has been almost four years since I resigned from professional pastoring. Although the past four years have in some ways been difficult, I'm more convinced than ever that I did the right thing in resigning.

All through my time in seminary (2002-2006) I had been taught to look to the bible as our authority in decision making. Sometime late in the year 2009, after I had been a salaried pastor for about a year and a half, I decided that I should apply what I had been taught to my position as a pastor.

I wanted to find out whether or not pastors in the bible received salaries. Well, I found a lot more than I was looking for. Not only did I find no evidence for salaried pastors, I didn't find any evidence for modern pastors at all. Beyond that, what I saw of the church in the New Testament was drastically different from the institutional churches of today. All these findings sent me into a bit of a crisis.

Back to the pastoral salary for a minute. After much research, I came to see that pastors receiving salaries is based in two things: applying Old Covenant ideas to the church and misinterpretation of New Testament passages. First, I'd been told repeatedly that since priests in the Old Testament received support from the people, then pastors should as well. The obvious problem with this is that on this side of the cross we live as part of the New Covenant. Those O.T. practices have no bearing on us. Second, passages such as I Corinthians 9 and I Timothy 5 actually do not indicate that pastors should be paid salaries. I Corinthians 9 deals with traveling evangelists. I Timothy 5 speaks of "double honor," but there is no indication that this means salaries.

The more I studied the New Testament, the more I saw that modern pastors have little in common with biblical elders. The elders we read of in the bible were part of the church body; they were not outsiders. They didn't have formal theological education. They didn't stand out from the body. They were simply mature believers. They were good at serving others. Meanwhile, modern pastors are (usually) brought in from the outside, have theology degrees, and do many things that are different from what most of the rest of the body does. They are the clergy, while the body is the laity. The difference between biblical elders and modern pastors is so stark that they truly are two completely different things.

The more I studied the issue of pastors, the more I began to see what the church in the New Testament looks like. It was simple. It was a family. It was a body. It met for edification. It shared possessions. It gathered (generally) in homes. It ate together. To use a popular term, it was organic. The pages of the New Testament show us a body of Christ that has none of the institutional trappings that have shackled the church today.

After seeing all this, I couldn't remain a salaried pastor. After several months of study, prayer, and struggle, I decided that I simply had to resign. I could not in good conscience continue to either receive a salary or continue to be a modern day pastor. There just isn't any biblical basis for either.

Every believer is a priest to God. This is the beauty of the priesthood of all believers. The modern pastorate stifles this priesthood. Although this is not the intent of the clergy, it nonetheless happens. It is the system that causes the problems. I cannot be a part of it.

I resigned in September 2010 from the Southern Baptist church I had pastored for a little over two years. The folks of the church were wonderful about the whole thing. I still have good relationships with them. They do not agree with me on this issue; not long after I departed they began their search for another professional pastor. I'm not surprised by this. It's what most churches do.

I have no regrets. If the bible is going to drive how we live as Christians, then we cannot pick and choose the passages that we like. The bible gives no indication whatsoever that the modern pastorate should exist in its current form. Therefore, I had to resign. There's no going back.

Jon and I Have the Same Pastor!

My blogging friend Jon and I have the same pastor.  This is the case even though we don't live anywhere near each other.  Read more about it here.

We Must Be Precise

Robert Murray M’Cheyne, a Scottish pastor who lived from 1813 to 1843, stated the following, "The greatest need of my people is my personal holiness."

The above is an example of a quote gone wrong. What it is lacking is precision.

Since M'Cheyne was a pastor in the traditional sense, when he says "my people," I can only assume that he is referring to the people of the church where he was employed.

In this relatively famous quote, at least among pastors, M'Cheyne says that his people's greatest need is his own personal holiness.

Really? Is that truly their greatest need? I can easily think of ten things that his people needed more than his holiness:

1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit
4. Salvation
5. Sanctification
6. An attitude of servanthood
7. Scriptural knowledge
8. A loving church family
9. A holy hatred of their own sin
10. Their own personal holiness

M'Cheyne's quote lacks precision. I'm sure that if asked he would have said that the people of the church needed God far more than him. Since he was a solid Christian, there can be no doubt of this. However, his quote suggests otherwise.

How could the quote have been both better and more accurate? Here's my suggestion: "The greatest need of my people from me is my personal holiness." Simply by adding the two words "from me" we take a seemingly heretical statement and turn it into something that can at least be argued to be accurate.

As we write and speak, let's be careful. Precision is important.

"He Was A Working Pastor"

I think I've mentioned this previously, but I want to expand on it here.

When I first began serving as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church, I tried to get to know both the people and the history of the church.  As I was conversing one day with a sweet senior citizen, she began telling me about the first pastor of Chevis Oaks.  I'll never forget one thing she told me.  Her exact words were, "He was a working pastor."  What she meant specifically was that he worked full time at a local paper mill while at the same time serving at Chevis Oaks.  The bulk of his income came from the paper mill, while at the same time he received a small salary from the church.  He remained in this capacity for 25 years.

In contrast to the first pastor, every pastor since (including me) has worked full time for Chevis Oaks.  They have had no other occupation while serving the church.

You Too Can Be a Young, Hip Mega-Church Pastor

This morning Alice was looking at the website of yet another new church plant (sigh) here in Savannah. The church has one of those glossy websites where everything looks pre-packaged and businesslike. As usual, the website makes a big deal of the pastor.

Alice asked me what I thought the pastor looks like. That got me thinking. What do almost all young, hip mega-church hopeful pastors look like these days? It strikes me that there are three aspects of their appearance that are critical to success.

First, the hair must be gelled.

Second, funky glasses must be worn whether needed or not.

Third, facial hair must be present on at least the chin (full goatee is optional).

Even if you are not young, you can still aspire to be a hip mega-church pastor if you will simply follow the above steps.

By the way, when Alice showed me the photo of the new church planter/pastor in Savannah, he met all three criteria.

Let Us Be Careful About Questioning Motivation

As is obvious by now, I like to ask questions about the church. In particular, I ask questions about pastoral ministry. I read many others doing the same thing.

We must be careful in how we go about this. There is both what we should question and what, I believe, we need to avoid questioning.

We can and should call into question church practices that do not line up with scripture. This obviously applies to pastoral ministry as well as numerous other things. We can see practices. We can read what is in the bible. When these two things do not match up, then we both can and should ask, "Why?"

Where we must be very careful is calling into question the motivation behind the practices. The reason for this is that we cannot see the heart of the person who may be doing something that we believe does not line up with scripture. Concerning pastors, we have no way (other than asking them directly) of knowing why they do what they do.

Let's take an example: the traditional sermon that involves no group discussion. The practice of a pastor preaching a sermon to a church with no discussion involved is foreign to the New Testament. It is fair for us to call this into question. However, it is unfair for us to call into question the motivation of the pastor who does this. Instead of questioning his motivation in the blog-o-sphere, we should ask him why he does this. We may find that he believes this is the best practice for the edification of the church body. We may find that he is trying to gradually move toward opening up a discussion time after the sermon. We may discover that his church is transitioning to evening small groups that will talk over the morning sermon.

I'm troubled by the tendency in the blog world to openly question the motivations of institutional church pastors. I fairly frequently read very broad statements about how these pastors desire power, want the church people to think of them as "an expert," crave Pope-like status, seek domination of all aspects of church life, etc.

It strikes me that when we question pastoral motivation in sweeping brush strokes we are at the same time violating Matthew 7:1-5, "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

I've written about this subject before so I'll stop now. Please let me close by exhorting you (and myself) to ask good questions about any practices we see that do not correspond to biblical standards. In doing this, we do well to begin with self, for we can judge both our own practices and motivation.

We simply do not know the motivation behind most pastoral practices. We have no right to stand in judgment over their motivations. We must avoid doing so.

"Leader" or "Leaders"?

Several weeks ago I was talking with a friend of mine who has been a salaried pastor for a several years. Please let me say at the beginning of this post that this man has faithfully given of himself as he has served the church through good times and bad. My intention is not to say anything negative about him. Rather, I simply want to point out two different ways of thinking about leadership within the church.

We were talking about my resignation from the professional pastorate. The two of us (obviously) have different opinions on this issue. As we were talking, the subject turned to leadership within the church. After a few minutes, I realized that we were saying two very different things. While my friend repeatedly used the term "leader," I kept saying "leaders." This may at first seem like a small difference, but in reality it is a large one.

I know that my friend believes in strong pastoral leadership. In particular, the "senior pastor" must lead the church as it strives to follow Christ. Therefore, when he says "leader," he is referring to the senior pastor. I, on the other hand, was saying "leaders" because I was envisioning people within the church (both elders and non-elders) who lead through servanthood and holiness of living. They lead by example.

The conversation was pleasant enough, but I'm not sure that it accomplished much. Since our views of church and the pastorate are so different, it was almost as if we were speaking two completely different languages.

The more I ponder this conversation, the more I see what the confusion was. We were thinking of leadership in terms of how we think of the church. If the church is what the bible describes plus additions such as the big building, the programs, the budgets, etc., then leadership almost has to come in the form of one strong senior pastor. Someone has to be in place to keep track of all of the stuff that the scriptures do not talk about.

However, if church is what the bible describes and no more, then leadership can fall into the hands of multiple people. In fact, each person in the body can show leadership in his or her particular areas of giftedness. The elders should primarily display leadership through being sacrificial examples of servanthood to the body. No one man is needed to take care of all the extra stuff.

How we view leadership in the church necessarily stems from how we view the church itself.

In the end, the church does have one man as senior pastor. This is always the same man. His name is Jesus Christ. No one else need apply. The rest of us instead have the joy of together leading as servants under the benevolent rule of Christ.

Elders in I Timothy 5:17-21

Here we go. This is the final post in this series looking at elders/overseers/pastors. First the text:

I Timothy 5:17-21, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages.' 19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality."

This passage applies directly to elders so we can safely draw some conclusions.

What can we learn? The answer is quite a lot.

1. Elders are multiple.

2. Elders rule.

We must be careful with the term "rule." In the scriptures we never see elders who rule in the sense of what a king or dictator does. In fact, within the church we don't see anyone with any sort of power over anyone else. In 5:17, Paul is emphasizing the tasks of coming alongside, giving aid, caring for, helping, etc.

3. Elders who rule well should be considered worthy of double honor - especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

This one is loaded. Toward the end of this post I'm going to talk about what I believe "double honor" means. Let me now address "preaching and teaching." The original language says "word and doctrine." We must be careful not to read modern ideas back into the text. We simply see that these elders worked hard in teaching of the scriptures. We do not know the context, although church gatherings do make sense. Beyond this, we must not guess.

4. Two or three witnesses are required to admit a charge against an elder.

5. Elders who persist in sin must be rebuked in front of the church. This occurs as a warning to the others.

Let's return to the term "double honor." This is a significant phrase because it is the primary text used to support the idea that pastoral salaries are biblical. But is that what Paul is talking about? Let's see.

How can we know what "double honor" means? We must look at the specific words used in the immediate context and the broader context.

Paul says that some elders are worthy of "double honor." Interestingly, he then gives two examples of labor that is rewarded with what it deserves. A working ox deserves grain and a laborer deserves wages. Paul is showing that certain actions should lead to certain responses from others. Please notice that Paul does not say that elders are worthy of "double wages." The apostle could have used the specific word for "wages," but he chose not to. Instead, he used "double honor." This suggests that double honor is different from wages.

We can also look to how Paul used the term "honor" in two other places of close proximity within this very book. In I Timothy 5:3, Paul writes, "Honor widows who are truly widows." This is exactly the same Greek word for honor that he uses in 5:17.

What is Paul talking about? He is discussing how the church should care for widows who meet certain standards. It seems clear that Paul is talking about gifts, including financial ones. However, Paul is in no way suggesting that the church should pay regular salaries to widows.

The other occasion of the word "honor" comes in I Timothy 6:1. In this verse, Paul writes, "Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled." We clearly see that slaves are supposed to show honor (same word again) to their masters. What does this mean? It means respect. It certainly doesn't imply anything financial. Since when have slaves had to pay salaries to their masters?

We can learn more about the probable meaning of "double honor" by looking at the immediate context of the passage. I Timothy 5:19-22 deals with the issue of respect that should be shown to elders. If "double honor" means respect in 5:17, then the passage flows nicely in context. However, if "double honor" focuses on finances (or especially salaries), then there is a sharp and awkward change of emphasis between verses 18 and 19. Because of this, the context suggests that "double honor" refers to respect.

So what does all this mean? What can we conclude about "double honor"? I believe this phrase in 5:17 is primarily speaking about the church showing respect to the elders who labor in teaching the scriptures. Secondarily, it leaves open the idea of financial gifts from folks within the church. On the other hand, it does not suggest or imply that churches paid regular salaries to elders.

All the evidence points to these conclusions: Paul does not use the term "wages." Instead he uses "double honor." Paul writes the term "honor" two other times in close proximity. Neither of these suggest salaries. The widows passage does leave open the option of giving financial gifts. Finally, the context of the passage itself speaks of respect.

Therefore, let us show respect to elders within the body. Let us especially show respect to those who labor in teaching the scriptures.

Interestingly, the scriptures as a whole indicate that we should show respect to all people, both inside and outside the church. Also, all Christians ought to labor in studying the scriptures. Let us strive to teach the bible to others, both in what we say and in how we live.

Elders in I Timothy 4:14 and James 5:14

Now for the next installment of my protracted look at elders/pastors/overseers in the New Testament. This will be a relatively short post as we examine I Timothy 4:14 and James 5:14. Both of these verses use the term "elders."

To sum up: we don't learn very much about elders in these verses because they are not the primary focus.

In I Timothy 4, Paul is exhorting Timothy to teach sound doctrine and set an example of godliness in the church at Ephesus. Paul writes in I Timothy 4:14, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you."

Paul is commanding Timothy to not ignore the gift for ministry that God has given to him. This probably had something to do with teaching. Regardless, for the purposes of this post we see that this gift was given by prophecy and recognized by the church as the elders laid hands on Timothy.

What can we learn about elders from this passage? We see that they were important to the life of the church and that they were actively involved. That's about it.

What about James 5:14? James instructs, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."

This is a somewhat difficult passage to interpret. I'm not going to get into all that now.

What can we learn about elders? I think it is again clear that elders have an important role within the church. This role is a spiritual one - they are called to pray over him and anoint him with oil. Again, the information is sparse.

Complicating all this is an issue that is difficult in many of the passages using the word "elders." The author could be referring to men appointed to a certain role (see here) or the author could be writing about older men within the church body. Not surprisingly, there is likely much overlap between these two groups.

Although the above verses are important, we are limited in what we can learn about elders. As we have seen before, elders are important and active in the life of the church. Their ministry is a spiritual one.

As we have seen in other passages, non-elders within the church seem to be free to do all the same tasks as elders. They would certainly pray for healing.

In the end, we don't learn much - mainly because the focus of the writing is other things.

I have one passage to go in this series - one that deals specifically with elders. It is one that tells us much and is hotly debated. I'll throw my voice into the ring soon as I tackle I Timothy 5:17-18. Yikes!

Overseers in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1

I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 are familiar passages. Therefore, I'm not going to spend much time on them. I just want to point out a few things; I'm not being exhaustive:

-Paul is discussing elders and overseers. This seems to be the same role. In I Timothy 3 he uses the word "overseer," while in Titus 1 he uses both "elder" and "overseer."

-Overseeing is a "noble task." Paul sees this as something good for the church.

-Paul discusses character issues much more than skills. Godliness is more important than talent or education.

-Paul speaks in the present tense. In looking at a man's character, therefore, the focus should be on what he is currently as opposed to what he was years ago.

-Overseers must have good reputations both inside and outside the church. What is he thought of in his broader community?

-Overseers must hold firm to the gospel - for the purposes of both instruction and rebuke.

I wonder: as we think of the role of elders/overseers/pastors, do our expectations and assumptions line up with what Paul says here? Let's make it be so.

Salaried Pastors Are Not Evil Men

Salaried pastors are not evil men - at least not any more evil than the rest of us.

We must be very cautious when making assumptions about the heart motives of other people. Quite frankly, when discussing salaried pastors, I've heard and read (in comments on this blog and other places) some people make some very general and very negative accusations about the motives of salaried pastors. I do not think this is accurate, charitable, or fair.

As with most of us, I've met many pastors in my life who receive salaries from their local churches. In almost every case, I believe these men love the Lord Jesus, love the church, desire to serve the church, work hard, teach the scriptures to the best of their abilities, and do not crave power. More than anything, they desire to honor God by building up their churches.

Do I agree with all of what they are doing? If you have read this blog for any length of time, you know that is not the case. Do I think some of their assumptions about the church and the pastoral role are incorrect? Yes. Do I think they should receive salaries for their service? No.

Despite these differences, I do not believe that their heart motivation is evil. I suppose some pastors in this country do crave power and want to be seen as #1, but in my experience this is the small exception, not the rule.

We should feel free to question practices that we believe are unbiblical. In fact, this should be encouraged. On the other hand, let's be very careful about making automatic assumptions about the motivations of those who may be performing what we believe to be unbiblical.

Let's take an example: the pastor preaching the weekly sermon. When we look at N.T. church gatherings, the sermon is a foreign concept. Therefore, nobody should be preaching sermons as the church gathers. This is a fairly simple and straightforward conclusion - if we are willing to let scripture inform and direct all our belief and practice.

But what about the motivations of the pastor who preaches the weekly sermon? Is he automatically evil and power hungry? Does he love the limelight of standing before the church and proclaiming? Does he demand that others bow to his wishes because he is in control? Although there are some pastors who could be described this way, for the vast majority the answers to the above questions are a resounding "No."

It is true that some people see the questioning of the existence of the salaried pastor as a direct attack on his character. This is not the case. As I've already stated, we should ask hard questions about the functioning of the church. We should ask why churches provide salaries to pastors today when we cannot find this in the New Testament. In as gracious a manner as possible, we must keep asking these questions.

At the same time, let us be careful. We do not know people's hearts. Most salaried pastors believe that they are doing God's will by serving in their capacities. Most have been raised in a system of traditions that has never challenged or questioned salaries for pastors. Many attended seminaries that would never ask these questions. They've fallen into a system that exists. This doesn't mean they are evil.

Let us question unbiblical practices, but be careful about questioning motives.

Pastors in Ephesians 4:11-16

In continuing a discussion of the role of elders/overseers/pastors, we turn to Ephesians chapter 4.

Ephesians 4:11-16 says, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love." (ESV)

As always, the context of this passage is critical. In 4:1, Paul transitions to a discussion that is more application-based than he has addressed so far in this letter. The overall theme of at 4:1-16 is the unity of the body of Christ. Paul calls on all believers to live in such a way that brings about unity. He mentions various aspects of the Christian faith that all display unity ("...one Lord, one faith, one baptism..."). Paul then mentions grace that is given to each if us "according to the measure of Christ's gift."

After mentioning gifts given to the church, Paul writes in 4:11, "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers..." We must keep in mind that these roles fall within the context of gifts that Jesus gives to His church to bring about unity and maturity.

So, what stands about about pastors from this passage?

1. God gives gifts to His church.

God (Father, Son, and Spirit) give specific gifts. We must understand that it is God who does the giving to bring about His purposes. These gifts are mentioned in a few other places such as I Cor. 12-14 and Rom. 12.

2. God gives pastor-teachers to His church.

This passage mentions four roles within the church that are gifts to the church. God gives apostles, prophets, evangelists, ans pastor-teachers. The original language makes it clear that the words "pastor" and "teacher" go together. In fact, the word translated "pastor" is really the word shepherd. We can glean from this that God gives pastors to His church to, at least in part, teach and guide the flock. As we have seen from the role of elders in other places, the guiding seems to primarily take the form of providing godly examples.

It is imperative to see that pastors are given to the church. Thus, this role exists for the benefit of the church and not the other way around.

3. Pastors are to equip the saints for ministry.

This passage tells us one of the primary things pastors are to do. They are to equip the saints. How do they do this? We can surmise that teaching and giving examples are ways this happens.

Let's avoid placing our modern ideas of a pastor in a pulpit into this passage. More likely, we see mature, godly men coming alongside fellow believers and serving the church and community with them.

So we see pastors serve, but we don't see them do the majority of the serving. In fact, we don't see them do anything unique at all. They come alongside and assist - as one of the flock - in ministry.

4. Pastors equip the flock with the goals of maturity in Christ and unity in Christ.

God provides pastors as gifts to edify the church. This is the purpose of all spiritual gifts. Pastors come alongside others and provide guidance so that they will move toward maturity in Christ. This maturity then brings about unity of the body.

Overall, then, Paul tells us in this passage that God gives pastor-teachers to His church just like He gives other spiritual gifts to His church. God provides pastors to give godly examples to the church and come alongside fellow believers. As the pastors equip the saints, the goals are Christian maturity and Christian unity.

Elders in Acts 20:17-38

Acts 20:17-38 is a very important passage in discussing the role of elders/overseers/pastors within the church. I encourage you to read it prior to the rest of this post. Thanks.

The broader context of this passage is Paul's 3rd missionary journey. He is trying to get back to Jerusalem quickly in order to be there for Pentecost. For time's sake Paul decides to bypass Ephesus and stop in Miletus. Paul calls for the elders of the church in Ephesus to come to him. In saying a final farewell to them, the apostle reminds them of his example and instructs them in caring for the church.

What can we learn about elders/overseers/pastors from this passage?

1. The terms "elders," "overseers," and "pastors" refer to the same role in the church.

Acts 20:17-38 is a passage that uses all three of these terms. In 20:17 we read of Paul calling for the "elders." In 20:28, we see that the Holy Spirit has made them "overseers." Later in that same verse, we read that these men are to shepherd (pastor) the church. In the N.T. all three terms seem to be used almost interchangeably.

2. Elders are important to the life of the church.

Paul specifically calls for the elders of the church in Ephesus. This indicates that they play an important role. This is consistent with what we see in other sections of the N.T.

3. Elders should follow Paul's example in attitude and action.

In 20:18, Paul says, "You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia." I may be reading a bit into his statement, but I think Paul is telling them to emulate him. We know that in other places he tells Christians to copy his behavior.

In light of this, elders should serve with humility and long-suffering, declare and teach what is profitable to the church, proclaim the good news of Christ to all peoples, and care little for their own lives.

Of course, we should remember that all Christians are called to all of the above things as well. We should all follow Paul's example.

4. The Holy Spirit makes overseers.

In 20:28 we see that it is God who appoints overseers. It is His decision, not man's.

5. Elders are to be on guard for themselves and the church.

Paul warns in 20:28-31 of the coming of false teachers from both outside and inside the church. A primary duty of elders is to protect the church against false teachings. This obviously implies, then, that elders will be knowledgeable of the scriptures and what constitutes sound teaching.

6. Elders should work hard.

Paul's example to them was that of a tentmaker. He was able to provide for himself and those who were with him. He did not rely on the church in Ephesus to support him with a salary.

7. Elders are to help the weak because it is more blessed to give than to receive.

Paul makes it clear to the elders that they should help the weak, poor, and needy. Paul was able to give to those in need because he made money working with his hands. He reminds the elders of the importance of this because Christ Himself said that giving was better than receiving.

So what are the implications of this passage for us today?

The bible makes it clear to us that elders/overseers/pastors are important to the life of the church. I can't think of a N.T. church that lacked elders; therefore, all churches today should have them.

Elders, like all followers of Christ, should emulate Paul's attitudes and actions as he looked to Jesus. Obviously Christ is our ultimate example, but we can learn from Paul as well. We should be humble people who are willing to suffer for the sake of the proclamation of the gospel.

We must all recognize that it is the Holy Spirit who selects overseers. God makes the choice. In churches, we should look for God's decision about this and simply recognize who He has appointed.

Elders must know sound doctrine and be ready to protect the church from false teaching both outside and inside the body. Ideally we will all do this, but the elders in particular must be alert to this task.

If Paul's example is to be followed, then elders should work hard with their hands (not salaried by the church) in order to give to the poor and needy. The reason for this is based on what Christ has said: it is more blessed to give than receive.

Becoming a Statistic

When I was in seminary, the professors repeatedly lamented the fact that the average stay of a Southern Baptist pastor at a particular church was somewhere between two and four years. I heard various statistics, but they all seemed to fall in that range.

I've served as pastor of Chevis Oaks Baptist Church for about 2.5 years. This coming Sunday is my final day as pastor. God, in His grace, is allowing me to finish preaching through the book of Matthew on Sunday (I started about two years ago). What a great way to go out: preaching about our resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. We will miss our friends there and look forward to visiting.

So I'm becoming a statistic. Instead of staying for years and years, I'm leaving like so many others.

Well, not exactly like so many others.

It would be interesting to do a study (maybe one's already been done?) to find out the reasons why pastors leave churches after a relatively short period of time. Some leave to go to bigger churches. Some leave because the church grows tired of them. Some leave for moral problems. Some leave just to get away.

Some leave because they feel convicted about it. That's the camp I'm in.

I'm a statistic. So be it. At least I'm not leaving to go to a bigger church because "God has called me to go there." I wonder how many pastors God has "called" to go to smaller churches?

So I didn't stay as long as my professors would have liked. It's safe to say I'm not leaving for reasons they would like either. Oh well.

As a semi-interesting footnote, many of my professors pastored numerous churches in a wide variety of states. I always wanted to ask them why they didn't stay in one place for long.

Elders in Acts 15-16

Let's continue looking at elders, this time in Acts chapters 15-16.

In these two chapters, we see the word "elders" used six times (in bold font below), all referring to the same people.

It is difficult to determine the exact meaning of "elders" in these chapters. Is Luke talking about older wise men in the church in Jerusalem, is he referring to people who have been appointed (such as in Acts 14:23), or is he referring to both? I don't think we can determine from this text.

What can we learn about the role of elders from this passage? Let's see.

This is a long passage, but I'm including it here so that we will all read it again before discussing it.

The passage is Acts 15:1 - 16:5:

1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.' 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

30 So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. 31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement. 32 And Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with many words. 33 And after they had spent some time, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. 34 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36 And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." 37 Now Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

16:1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem. 5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.

Before we discuss the above passage, let's remember the context. Acts chapters 10-11 are critical. In those two chapters, we see salvation come to Gentiles. The Holy Spirit falls in a very visible manner, making it clear that following O.T. requirements is not expected for Gentiles to become Christians.

Now we move to Acts 15. We come across what many people refer to as the "Jerusalem Council." What happens during this gathering? What can we learn about elders?

To sum it up - I don't think we learn very much about elders in this passage.

We see a gathering taking place. We see a problem arise that the church has to deal with. That problem (do Gentiles have to follow the O.T. law to be Christians?) is the focus of this chapter. Elders are mentioned but not highlighted.

Much of the chapter is a lengthy discussion. The apostles are there, as are the elders. It seems that the church as a whole was involved. Verse four tells us that they were received by the church. Verses 22 -23 mention the apostles, elders, and "the whole church" and "the brethren." It is difficult to determine what role the elders played that the whole church did not.

After much discussion, there is a resolution. The group comes to the conclusion that Gentiles do not have to follow the O.T. law in order to be Christians. The key is that they did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved.

Did the church come to this conclusion on its own? It appears not. They were simply recognizing a truth we have already seen back in Acts 10-11. The Holy Spirit made it clear to everyone in those chapters that Gentiles are accepted by God through repentance and faith.

Also, who came to this conclusion in Acts 15? We learn a lot from Acts 15:23. In the first line of the letter sent to Antioch, it reads, "The apostles, the elders, and the brethren..." The implication was that the decision from the Jerusalem meeting came from the entire church.

So what about the elders? What did they do? What can we learn?

-The fact that they are mentioned implies that they are important to the life of the church. In the space of a little over one chapter, they are mentioned six times.

-The elders are involved in the decision making. While some verses suggest that the decision was that of the entire church, others focus more on the apostles and elders (see 16:4). My guess is that those in the church in Jerusalem looked to the elders as a model to follow in their decision making. This does not imply, however, any specific authority on the part of the elders.

That's about all I can find. Since this is primarily a narrative passage that focuses on other things, we don't learn much about elders. This does not imply that elders aren't important; rather, they just aren't the focus of this passage.

I wanted to look at this passage for two reasons. First, it contains the word "elders," and I intend in this series to look at all N.T. passages that use that word. Second, and equally important, the "Jerusalem Council" is often used as evidence for the authority of elders in the church. The thinking goes like this: the apostles and elders made the decision; apostles don't exist any longer but elders do; therefore, elders now have authority in the church. The big problem with this reasoning is that elders don't have authority in this passage.

We must be careful not to read into passages what isn't there. This passage is remarkably sparse on what we can learn about elders.

I believe we can safely say that Acts 15:1 - 16:4 teaches us the following about elders:

-Elders were part of the church.

-Elders were important to the life of the church.

-Elders were involved in decision making.

Based on what we see in 16:4, we can guess (not be certain) that others within the church looked to the elders as examples in how to think through this problem.

In the end, we don't learn much from this passage. Let's let the bible speak, not add to it, and not take away from it.

To learn more about the "Jerusalem Council," click here to read several posts that my friend Alan has written about it.

A Great Conversation

Yesterday I met three friends for lunch. The food was pretty good. Since I got a salad (trying to "be healthy"), it by default wasn't anything spectacular.

Despite the mediocrity of the food (next time I'm getting a burger), the conversation was great. These three friends of mine serve as full-time pastors at Ferguson Avenue Baptist Church here in Savannah. I must admit that it is refreshing that we all agree on issues related to salvation; we are all Reformed.

However, we disagree on many things related to the church and the role of the pastor/elder/overseer. For about two hours yesterday we discussed these things. It was not an argument. Rather, it was a healthy dialog about what the church should be. I was reminded that although we disagree on substantive issues, we actually agree on more than we don't. I really appreciated that one of the men said, "You can speak openly here." He said it with a smile on his face as if to tell me not to worry. They weren't prepared with some sort of attack.

I believe I brought up some things that will make them think. They brought up some things that I am pondering today (such as the impact of the synagogue on early Christian gatherings). It is good to be challenged in a gracious manner. They did this for me.

I wish I could say that all my interactions - whether by e-mail, phone, or letter - have been of this kind. They have not.

Back to yesterday. It was terrific. I'm so glad for men of this kind who are willing to just sit down and have a solid and fun conversation about important things. What a relief it was to know that no one was going to get angry and stomp out of the room! As followers of Christ, we should all be able to converse about important things without losing our tempers. That's what the world does. We ought to be different.

I'm thankful to the Lord for yesterday. It was a wonderful reminder of the unity of the church even when we disagree on some things. I hope to have many more conversations of this sort.

This Must Be Jesus' Mug

John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

I Peter 5:4, "And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory."

Overseers in Philippians 1:1-2

"Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (ESV)


Above is the familiar greeting at the beginning of Paul's letter to the Philippians. This is a typical Pauline way of opening his epistles. If you look at other greetings you will see that many are very similar. This one is unique, however, in that Paul mentions the "overseers and deacons." Because Paul uses "overseers," which is used interchangeably with "elders" regarding role in the church, I'd like to mention a few things we can glean from the opening of this letter:

1. Christ is the head. Paul reminds the Philippians of this by referring to himself and Timothy as servants of Christ Jesus. If Christ is the head, by implication no one else is.

2. Paul writes to the church. The contents of the epistle are directed to the church family. Paul even uses the word "all" to emphasize that he desires that everyone in the church hear what he has written. The apostle does not choose any special, select group of people to receive the letter.

3. Paul reminds them at the beginning that they all are saints. Paul is assuming that everyone in the church is, in fact, in Christ. Because they are in Christ, they are all considered to be saints. This is not because of what they have done, but because of what Jesus has accomplished. Notice that Paul does not elevate anyone to special status within the church. All are saints.

4. Paul writes to the entire church in Philippi. He assumes that all the Christians in Philippi compose the church at Philippi. Paul does not see any artificial divisions within the church such as we have today. Another way of putting it is that the whole church in that area was the church in that area; Paul saw no division in Christ.

5. Paul recognizes overseers and deacons. Paul mentions, almost in passing, the reality of both overseers and deacons in the church. In the manner he does this, Paul seems to be telling us at least two things. On the one hand, overseers and deacons are necessary and important for the life of the church (and they should be multiple). Otherwise, he would not have mentioned them. On the other hand, the brief manner in which the apostle mentions them after he addresses the church as a whole tells us that the overseers and deacons are significantly less important than the church body. We can safely infer that Paul sees them as existing to serve the body as opposed to being served by the body.

6. Paul wishes the church body grace and peace. The apostle's desire is only for the best for this church. The remainder of this letter is an exhortation to joy in Christ and unity of the body. Notice that Paul quickly moves away from mentioning the overseers and deacons. If we were not reading carefully, we could miss their being mentioned altogether. Again, this shows us that Paul did not view overseers as holding any sort of special, elevated, separated-out status or position within the church.

This greeting gives support to the idea that overseers and deacons exist within the church to serve the church. Servant-leadership in the name of Christ is the key (Paul uses Jesus' name three times in this short greeting).