Pastors As Teachers

Now we find ourselves arguing for pastors with no authority …

Chip, If you’ve done this before, I’ve missed it, but can you briefly sketch the extent of your idea of elder authority and provide a couple of examples?

[James K]

Dave, can we both agree that something can be pointed out as false without also giving the correct response?

Of course we can agree on that. There’s a place for such things just as there is a place on campaign signs for things like “I’m pro-life” or “Down with ObamaCare,” because there is no room for a big explanation, and with some ideas none is necessary. However, when it gets down to using those declarations to do something useful (like passing laws protecting the unborn), there has to be much more explanation, defense of the position, etc.

Since we are on a discussion site, I would say such pronouncements are “interesting” in order to throw a stone at the hornet’s nest and start a discussion, but when no further explanation is coming, I personally think such statements are less than useful — a bunch gets stirred up, but we don’t get any lasting results. And when it happens too often, the end result is that people will start ignoring the source of such pronouncements, even if they would otherwise have something interesting to say.

In this discussion, I think it would benefit the readers for those who think this series is way off base to show why that is true. Otherwise, what we are mostly going to get is “move along, there’s nothing to see here” from many readers who have seen this type of thing before.

The reason I asked the questions I did is not to try to trap you, but to understand. If a pastor is not, according to you, supposed to act as a dictator on one hand, but if he doesn’t command instant obedience on the other he is then emasculated, I’m not sure what that leaves. Hence, my example questions. I had more, but those were just a start. I think the bible is clear that church members “obey those that have the rule over them,” but that is only half the equation. That statement by itself says nothing about what the sphere of the pastor’s authority is that members are required to obey. If it’s everything, then you *do* have a dictatorship, and if it’s nothing, then obedience means nothing either. That means defining that sphere of authority is very important. That’s what my questions were trying to flesh out. And of course, you also then need to define the authority of the “whole church,” since that clearly means something in scripture as well. With a dictatorship, the whole church is then relegated to an unbiblical position, just as you claim is happening to pastors in this series.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Rob Fall wrote:

I would say it’s a matter of they are de facto leaders rather than de jure. Many Baptists treat their deacons in many respects in the same manner as the Presbyterians treat their ruling elders.

James K wrote:

Jim wrote:

I consider Deacons leaders

Based on…?

This is true Rob, but is it right? Baptists first abandoned, in general, the model of multiple elders. Then we elevated the deacon to the unbiblical role of leadership to replace the loss of elder. Now we find ourselves arguing for pastors with no authority while we hand authority over to the deacons.

BINGO!

[DavidO]

Now we find ourselves arguing for pastors with no authority …

Chip, If you’ve done this before, I’ve missed it, but can you briefly sketch the extent of your idea of elder authority and provide a couple of examples?

I’m sure you dont’ expect me to produce a tome on this, so I will try to briefly explain where I am at.

I start with some principles. Command and leadership language is used throughout the NT for the elder, from one of the very titles he is given in Bishop to words like rule, obey, and others that speak to both sides of the equation (the leader and those he leads). None of this language is ever used of the deacon. He is a servant without any authority beyond what is delegated with any task he asked to perform. The deacon is always under the leadership of the elder, never set up as the buffer to keep the pastor in check and protect the congregation

I avoid dictatorship in two ways. One is having multiple elders. The other is congregational rule. In this second area, I think JamesK and I would part ways. Because the congregation always has the authority to remove the pastor, this is the biblical check and balance and the real seat of authority. This congregational authority is vested in the pastor at the time of his calling and can be revoked as necessary.

With this groundwork in place, the actual fleshing out of leadership can vary some from church to church. The bishop is the administrator of the daily business of the church. Practically, I think the congregation should be involved in financial decisions that will be an obligation to the body and in church discipline. I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head where I think the pastor needs approval from the congregation. That doesn’t preclude him from opening discussion about other matters, seeking advice or even calling for a vote. Often that is the wisest way to maintain unity and fervency. I just don’t think it’s necessary.

Hi Chip,

Thanks. Succinct and helpful. And largely correct in my opinion.

I suspect any devils of disagreement would lurk in the the details of how the below was applied, but that would probably up to local congregational decision (or not depending on what a given pastor thought was appropriate to ask. Or did you mean “he is asked”?).

He is a servant without any authority beyond what is delegated with any task he asked to perform.

Oops - left out the “is, but you got the gist. The point is the deacon is given whatever authority is necessary to complete the tasks he is asked by the pastor to perform. That authority is not inherent to the deacon but is delegated from the pastor to the deacon along with the activity.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Practically, I think the congregation should be involved in financial decisions that will be an obligation to the body and in church discipline. I can’t think of anything else off the top of my head where I think the pastor needs approval from the congregation. That doesn’t preclude him from opening discussion about other matters, seeking advice or even calling for a vote. Often that is the wisest way to maintain unity and fervency. I just don’t think it’s necessary.

I agree Dave.