There comes times when you are put to the test. Everything that you have theoretically and theologically defended as the “Biblical way” rises or falls at that moment. You knew the test was coming, but you didn’t know what it would look like. And by the nature of testing, it usually comes in ways that still surprise you, if only slightly.
Five years ago I planted a church with two other pastors. All three of us were reformed in our theology, experienced in the ministry, and willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of the church plant. We were a church of three pastors and no members – how’s that for strong leadership!
For the first several years of the church we focused a majority of our efforts on establishing within our congregation a clear biblical understanding of eldership. We pastors worked to great lengths developing our polity, leadership standards, ordination process, and pastoral authority. By the fifth year two men had completed pastoral training and joined our pastoral team, most of the “work of the ministry” was being accomplished by trained church members, and our congregation had been protected from any contentious or divisive influences from within or without the church.
Initial goal: Establish as solid Biblical church shepherded by a plurality of qualified pastors = Mission Accomplished!
Part of that process required testing. The integrity of our leadership, the strength of our resolve, the unity of spirit, the commitment to biblical convictions, the way we handled finances, mistakes, challenges, failures, big decisions, small decisions… all of these issues and a thousand more were providentially tested. One of the most complex tests is the manipulation test.
The manipulation test is one that every pastor faces at some point. The manipulation comes is a variety of different forms depending on the circumstance and/or structure of the church. Many pastors survive this test only to become fatigued, drop their guard, make a few capitulations and find themselves in a huge mess. I faced it in the first church I pastored; I never compromised but still lost the battle to powers that existed in the church years before I got there.
But in the church that we planted with a plurality of pastoral leadership things are drastically different. The most important thing is that no one pastor can be manipulated in our church to capitulate to the agenda of someone within the congregation and lead the church astray. Every pastor is accountable to the Pastors’ Council. Even if a pastor were to become weak in his resolve he would find himself corrected, strengthened, and protected by the other pastors. The manipulative party would find that he has come against a strong, biblical structure in a pastoral team that makes it impossible to beguile, finagle, scam, exploit, dupe, or hoodwink.
In fact, once in such an environment I have found that pastors aren’t even as susceptible to such evil influences because the biblical structure itself has bolstered confidence, resoluteness, and authority. Furthermore, since the pastors sense the safety and support of the structure they are more likely to express more humility and compassion, because there is no fear of needing to protect one’s self. Thus one’s pastoral ministry has less anxiety and apprehensions.
It’s not only biblical, it works. Hmmm. Go figure.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Great thoughts, Jason!
delightful, Jason. I’m wondering, so do you see a “plurality of elders” as composed of men who get their living from the gospel, or can it be men who have a different vocation and who serve as ‘elders’ also? I’m curious.
Jason,
We operate with elders in leadership as well. The spiritual leadership of the church is crucial. It should not fall to one man who could be too strong or too weak.
JRush
Sam, I am absolutely convinced that “elders” in the New Testament are synonymous with “pastors” as an office of the church or gifts to the church. Thus, we believe that every pastor/elder must be qualified according to the NT standards. He may hold a secular job as well as be a pastor at that point, but all of our “elders” are pastors with equal authority and pastoral responsibilities in our church. BTW, out of the five pastors in our church, only two at this time are paid a salary by the church.
but all of our “elders” are pastors with equal authority and pastoral responsibilities in our church.
Jason, how would you understand 1 Timothy 5:17 in light of the above statement regardign absolute equality among elders? Just curious, because I’m wrestling through these issues in my own understanding as well.
1Tim. 5:17 is the biblical basis for paying a pastor a salary.
“Let elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”
First, notice that this verse implies that among a plurality of elders in a church, there are those who are especially laboring in the teaching ministry. That is consistent with the teaching in the NT that the pastors duties and responsibilities are vast and varied. Within a plurality of elders there will naturally be certain pastors who are better at certain responsibilities than others. That does not mean all pastors are responsible for all duties being done properly. Rather, it means that as a team all the duties are done and the pastors oversee each other and keep each other accountable.
But the responsibility of teaching, especially the Sunday pulpit ministry, is a duty that requires so much time that the pastor that primarily has that responsibility needs to be paid so that he may spend the hours needed in sermon study and so forth.
All pastors must be “apt to teach”, but the pastor on our team that is the most gifted in this area is the one who hold the primary responsibility for the pulpit ministry. With that said, all pastors are on call to fulfill that duty if needed. And any one of our pastors could. We train our pastors in hermeneutics and homiletics.
In short, the final standard for any man to be ordained to the pastoral ministry in our church is that although they join a team of pastors with equal authority, they could if providentially required pastor this church by themselves.
If you are wondering, therefore, we do not have youth pastors, senior adult pastors, etc. We have pastors. And these pastors carry the burden of the entire church as part of calling and duty before God. But we have delegated different ministries to each pastor for primary oversight. In those ministries, the pastors equip church members to do the work of the ministry.
One day a week, all of our pastors gather for a four hour Pastors’ Council where we report on our ministries, pray for our church, keep one another accountable, and seek the Lord’s wisdom in decision making. As needed, the chairman of our deacons, church members, or others may be invited to attend a part of that meeting so the pastors can receive direct input on particular matters.
But back to your particular question. Whether a pastor is paid or not by our church does not affect their authority that is based upon the Scripture. I wish it were financially possible to pay all of our pastors — I think it would improve the quality and quantity of our ministry. But we do with what the Lord has given us and make sure that those who need it most are given a salary.
Chris, when we began our church we talked to several elder led churches that we respected. One of these churches has paid elders and lay elders and there is a distinction. Although not exclusivley, the lay elders seem to handle the administration among the congregation i.e. discipline, etc and the paid guys the spiritual matters, teaching, etc. While all men sit on the elders council, if you are around them you notice an obvious distinction between the two.
We couldn’t find any biblical reason for the distinction. When we asked them why it was structured like it was the answer was a long philisophical version of it was like that when the church started and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
With that being said it is apparently a much debated issue.
Jason-
Perhaps I misunderstood you statement that I inquired about.
but all of our “elders” are pastors with equal authority and pastoral responsibilities in our church.
For clarification, does the “equal” modify “authority” alone, or both “authority” and “patoral responsibilities”?
Thanks for helping a thick-headed brother!
Jason, would it be fair to say that you divide your church’s pastoral responsibilities between those called as pastors and that no single individual has the authority to dictate to any or all of the others how their responsibilites are to be carried out?
No one pastor’s authority categorically “trumps” another. Rather, each of the pastors serves under the collective authority of the whole group.
In other words, you cannot, by virtue of your position, single-handely direct one of the other pastors to change direction in an area of ministry he has been given oversight. Fair characterization?
Bret,
Yes, you are exactly right. You guys do the same, am I correct?
Jason – it is. And I heartily concur with the benefits you have mentioned in the post. One other benefit to such an approach to pastoral leadership has been that it is an assassin to my ever creeping ego, which I hope is benefitting my life as a shepherd of God’s people.
I know you asked Jason, but I want to answer.
Bret, I would say that is a fair assesment. Honestly though I was not sure if that would actually happen and if it did if it would work. When we began we knew what we wanted the end result to look like, but for me it was hard to get out of my mind the bad structure I had seen growing up.
I can truly say now after 5.5 years that the freedom I have in my pastoral roll is a dream come true for anyone who does music. The pastors as a group have discussed what we want the music of our church to look like, but unlike most men who handle music in churches, ultimatley its on me to decide how to get there.
I don’t have to worry about one man falling into the trap of his preference or succumbing to the whims of a few complainers, and then dictating to me that I need to make some major change for some emotional reason.
I spent about 4 hours with a man last week who was brought into a church that has elders to be the minister of music. His first question to them was what do you want the music of our church to be? He was then told that was his responsibility and calling so get to it. They were didn’t have an answer from the elders as a group.
So he precedes. However, he quickly learned they did have an answer they just didn’t know it. It was obvious to them of what they didn’t want, but all of the blame for the supposed mistake was on this lone man. However, I put the blame on the elders lack of communication, and the fact that whoever is responsible for that should be on that elder board.
In our structure I never run into this problem. I have been told on occasion by an individual pastor that he didn’t like some song I did. Which is fine, and sometimes I had already decided I didn’t like it either and I definitly take that into consideration. Yet, the responsibility to continue or not is on me.
I told Jason yesterday that one of the things I like most about the Elder structure is that it keeps me humble.(Lord know I need the help) While I will stand firm on anything I firmly believe in it is hard to be completley stubborn in the midst of 4 other ordained men.
Geez – all you need to do is embrace Pedobaptism and you become Prebyterian!
On a serious note – from what the Bible says about pastors and elders it is clear that there are three – and only three – qualifications to be a pastor:
1) Godliness
2) Good doctrine
3) Ability to teach
As 1 Timothy 5.17 says to us, there appears to be two sorts of elders – basically those who labour in teaching and those who don’t. This is probably the main difference between elders who “rule” (and are not paid) and those who “teach” (who may or may not be paid).
To my mind, if we accept Sola Scriptura for what it is, then these three qualifications ONLY are what we should be looking for in a potential pastor. Forget things like strategic vision, organisational skills, counselling ability and business acumen – these are peripherals and may or may not be useful.
Godliness, Good doctrine and ability to teach. That’s what you need to be a pastor.
(The “Plurality of elders” is known as a session in the Presbyterian church)
As an ex-member of Jason’s church and an ex-member of the pastor’s council. I must admit that the benefits that Jason spoke of are dead-on.
First and foremost though at MVC is the amount of training and preperation that those who believe are called to be pastor’s must go through – it is truly intense.
Now that I am in the midwest where the church structure is one pastor vs. the congregation. I miss the protection, fellowship, and comraderie of other like minded and called brothers. And while no earthly structure is perfect, I think a plurality of pastor’s/elder’s, where all are equal in authority is a great model and one I hope to replicate here at some point.
I believe one of the biggest benefits is that if there is a plurality of pastor’s it is much more difficult for congregation manipulation and power wielding to take place.
My heart goes out to pastor’s that are held hostage to a degree by their congregations.
Chris -
You asked a good question…
Jason -
I think you should answer Chris, not on the matter of Elders having equal authority, but rather the issue of “should elders have equal responsibility”.
Sure, I thought I did answer that question, but let me try again.
Elders are equally responsible in the sense that each man has been called by God to pastor the church, so each will be held accountable to God for all the ministry of that church.
For example, I am primarily responsible certain teaching ministries and Pastor Scott is primarily responsible for worship ministries. The question is, am I equally responsible for worship ministries and he for teaching ministries. The answer is YES.
If I am teaching heresy, Scott should hold me accountable. If Scott is developing worship songs that are unbiblical, I should hold him accountable.
Equal in responsibility means that our pastors as a team carry the responsibility of the church. We have organized the ministries under specific pastors, but as a whole we are responsible.
If I were to not be able to fulfill my duties, any of the other pastors could fill my place and are responsible to do so.
If Scott could not sing, I could step into that role and make sure it gets done.
—- Oh I just looked at my clock and have radio interview to do with Gene Cook. I will pick this up later…..
Thanks for the feedback, Jason.
I quite agree with you that plural leadership includes the concept of collective responsibility, or burden (HT: Jerry Wragg). However, I think 1 Timothy 5:17 (among other texts) is highlighting that, even among elders, there is diversity in the distribution of gifts. And this goes beyond a simple division of labor that the elders have agreed upon. The reason that some elders are to be compensated so as to pursue their ministry full-time is owing to their giftedness, sovereignly bestowed by God. In this sense, it can be confusing then to speak of elders as possessing equal responsibility. For example, I don’t believe that God holds the lay elders in my congregation responsible for fulfilling the ministry that he has called me to and gifted me for. I’m just concerned that, in the interest of rightly upholding the principle of plurality among elders, we have mistakenly defaulted to the concept of equality among elders, a concept that I don’t find to be explicitly Scriptural.
Thanks for letting me think out loud here.
I would agree with you if I believe that the Bible taught that there was an office of “lay elder.” I don’t say that as a “slam” against your position, but only mention it as the point of distinction. I respect your attempts to Biblically structure your church and rejoice that you believe in a plurality of elders. And the distinction between our two elder structures is something that I may write about on Fide-O since it seems it would be helpful for those who are trying to formulate and implement this in their church.
Our view of 1Tim. 5:17 is not that Paul is teaching that there are different elders. He is teaching that there are different circumstances and different needs. So the issue is not authority or title or position but financial needs. Men should, if at all possible, equip themselves for ministry and involve themselves in ministry at their own expense. The eldership then decides if it would be beneficial to the church to support these elders financially (in full or in part) so that they would have more time for ministry.
So the issue is not “type” or “equality” but “time” and “needs” of a church and her elders.
For example, I know churches whose “teaching elder” (and I use that term in the context of this thread) does not get paid and other elders within the church do. Why? because in that circumstance the financial need is not there because the “teaching elder” has an ample source of income from other sources. Since he is not paid, is he then a “lay elder”? Of course not.
Again, I don’t see a “lay elder” vs. “teaching elder” distinction in the New Testament. I see one office filled with men who are equally qualified and responsible for the welfare of the church. On a needs basis certain elders are compensated and others are not. Like I said, I wish that all elders were fully compensated so that the maximum amount of man-power is available for ministry 24/7. And we believe ALL elders deserve the churches financial support but many times that is just not practical. All elders “work hard,” but those who work hard in the teaching ministry should be considered first for any funds available for salaries. If he doesn’t need it, then use that money to compensate which ever elder has a need. And whatever one’s salary is does not elevate one’s authority in the church.
So this verse does not teach that there are two kinds of elders. Nor does this verse teach that there are two kinds of financial policies. Nor does it teach that some elders teach and some do not. In fact it teachs just the opposite. Read it again: “Let elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” Who should be paid? All elders who rule well. Technically I hope that is all of our elders!!!!
Footnote. Notice too in the verse in question 1Tim. 5:17 that “ruling” and “teaching” are parallel concepts. Paul says that we should honor all elders who rule well, especially those who rule by laboring in the word and doctrine. So “teaching” and “ruling” are parallel responsibilities. They are synonymous. Thus a syntactical study of this verse reveals that there is no distinction between a so-called ruling-elder/lay-elder vs. teaching elder.
Nor does it teach that some elders teach and some do not. In fact it teachs just the opposite. Read it again: “Let elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” Who should be paid? All elders who rule well. Technically I hope that is all of our elders!!!!
Jason, I think you just turned the meaning of the verse on its head! The very clear indication of Paul’s words points to a distinction among the elders in their collective labor. I.e., all are worthy of honor, but some, by virtue of their ruling well and laboring hard in preaching and teaching are worthy of double honor. You read your own impression into the text when you stated that all of the elders should be in this category. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Paul just say, “All elders, by virtue of their ruling well, especially in their diligent labor in preaching and teaching, are worthy of double honor?” It seems to me that your observation simply guts the text of its intended meaning.
Please note, I am not arguing for two offices among the eldership per se. Rather, I am simply trying to understand how this text, with its clear indication of diversity among the eldership, fits with other NT teaching on the office of elder. (For the record, this is not a new debate. Many have wrestled mightly with the meaning of this verse, which is why Baptists and Presbyterians, though both Reformed, have historically disagreed on this matter of ecclesiology.)
Chris, I am glad that you are not arguing for two offices among the eldership.
But since you think I have turned the meaning of this vers on its head, let me ask you: Who does Paul say should be counted worthy of double honor?
You propose that he said those who by virtue of their ruling well and laboring hard in preaching and teaching are worthy of double honor.
I said, “All elders, by virtue of their ruling well, especially in their diligent labor in preaching and teaching, are worthy of double honor?”
How are those two different? How can you say that my statement gutted the meaning of the text?
You may disagree with how to apply this polity, but to say that those who don’t agree with you have turned the verse on its head is a bit extreme.
Now, back to my interpretation of this verse, my main argument is that this verse is a defense of compensation not a defense of responsibility distinctions.
In our church setting, this means that all pastors are ultimately responsible as a collective team for the pastoral responsibilities of the church. We delegate the duties based on giftings, strengths, and abilities. We compensate financially as needed and give first priority to the pastors who are working full time in the Word.
If your distinctions are valid, then you are assuming that some of our elders are not laboring in the word and doctrine. Hmmm. I would not try to convince them of that
Each one of them are teaching in multiply capacities within our church, each one of them are theologians, each one of them study with great diligence. We have men on our staff who do not labor in word and doctrine, but they aren’t elders! And two out of our five elders need compensation. We hope to add compensation to a third soon.
And as Paul said we honor all elders who rule well especially those whom our church wants to spend at least “forty hours” in the word and doctrine this week.
I said, “All elders, by virtue of their ruling well, especially in their diligent labor in preaching and teaching, are worthy of double honor?”
Jason, you didn’t actually say this. I was suggesting that, according to the line of reasoning you applied to the verse, Paul would have been better off saying this. Of course, he didn’t say that. Rather than identifying all elders as falling into the defined categories of “rul[ing] well” and “work[ing] hard at preaching and teaching” Paul is identifying that some among the larger body of elders meet these descriptions. He is identifying a class within a class, if you will. our statement, “Who should be paid? All elders who rule well. Technically I hope that is all of our elders!!!!” seems to me to assume the opposite. I suggested you gutted the text of its meaning because you assumed that these descriptions should be true of all elders, therefore Paul must be talking about all elders. Instead, Paul seems clearly to say that only some of the elders in Ephesus could be said to “rule well” and “work hard at preaching and teaching.” I’m not sure how you could understand that text any differently.
In our church setting, this means that all pastors are ultimately responsible as a collective team for the pastoral responsibilities of the church. We delegate the duties based on giftings, strengths, and abilities. We compensate financially as needed and give first priority to the pastors who are working full time in the Word.
I have no problem with this arrangement. In fact, you’ll recall that I first argued that the distinction between elders being highlighted in 1 Timothy 5:17 is based on giftedness. So it sounds like we are in agreement at this point.
If your distinctions are valid, then you are assuming that some of our elders are not laboring in the word and doctrine.
Um, Jason…they are not my distinctions; they’re Paul’s
Better to say, Jason, that some, according to Paul’s use of the terms, are not laboring to the degree that others are. Again, I think that goes to the heart of giftedness.
In the arrangement at MVC, who shepherds the shepherds?
We believe in a practice a “first among equals” principle in our eldership. We believe there is such a principle in the NT among the Apostles. (Acts 2:14; 5:3; Luke 22:32; Mark 14:33; etc.)
I am viewed as a leader among our pastors. I never exercise authority over the other pastors, but I strive to strengthen and encourage them.
My accountability to a group of equals prevents me from being corrupted by the temptations of imperialism. The pastors foster my development and protect me by admonishing my pride and flaws. (Prov. 27:17).
We don’t have different titles. I am not called “pastor” and the other men “elders.” There is no distinction in our pastoral authority. As I said, all of our pastors are fully equipped to pastor our church single-handedly if providentially required. Any of our men could fill the pulpit duties if providentially required. Though we gifted differently and have different strengths and weakness, we do not allow that to effect our authority or equality.
We divide our responsibilities, but also, we believe that we are all ultimately responsible for the entire ministry. Such an attitude fosters a very real sense of accountability and humility and quality in what we each do.
Chris, I forgot to say again how much I appreciate your questions. As a church planter, I believe these questions go to the heart of successful church plants. Jerry Wragg was the one who seared into our conscience — “Establish your leadership and biblical authority even if it takes you five years. And protect it. Then your church will grow on a solid foundation.” — Jerry Wragg (2001)
We built our eldership model for three years when we started this church. Today, my pastoring experience is “heavenly.” I am completely free to practice my strengths, my gifts, and enjoy my ministry — surrounded by men whom I love and trust. And we haven’t even mentioned how this has effected our marriages and families! God is indeed good to us.
Thanks for your helpful dialogue, Jason. I appreciate your diligence to be biblically sound in both your understanding and practice. Your ministry is a help to many, including me.
It sounds to me like you have an excellent situation at MVC–a true model of shared ministry among God-called and -gifted men. I hope I didn’t detract from that by my questions. My questions are only meant to stimulate some discussion about the relationship among elders in a situation where plural leadership is both sought and employed. As you well know, error always lurks on both sides of truth and this matter of biblical leadership is no exception. I’m simply striving to find the biblical balance in these matters of polity, a pursuit I know you are committed to as well.
Jason, I appreciate the humility with which you serve alongside your fellow-elders. This is so important–I, too, am thankful for brother-elders who check my pride and overzealousness (there’s plenty of it). I understand that this is ultimately for the good of the church and the glory of her head, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Interstingly enough, our situations sound very similar. This is no doubt the fruit of wrestling with the text and passionately pursuing its application to our lives and ministries.
Again, thanks for taking time to entertain my questions. I’ve been sharpened by it, Brother!
Jason,
Great stuff, brother. I praise the Lord both for designing the church in this way and for the specific elders I have the privilege to serve alongside. Thanks for the encouragement and for highlighting the wisdom of God.