It’s about 1:00am and I’m sitting in a coffee shop at the Istanbul airport, waiting for my flight to Athens later this morning. It’s been an interesting day.

I left Bergama (ancient Pergamum) about 9:30 this morning (technically yesterday morning!). (I got so wet in the rain trying to find my hotel in Bergama that I wake this morning with a doozy of a cold!) Had quite a bit of driving to do. It’s about 1000 kilometers (approx 700 miles) from Bodrum (where I started) to Istanbul and I still had about half of that left to do today (yesterday? I’m tired. You get it.).

I drove north through lands rich in history. Went past Magnesia (where the great Themistocles met his end–a story I’ll reserve for another time). Spent about 1.5 hours on the site of ancient Troy. Not a great deal to see (mostly foundations–much like Mycene). But being in Priam’s city, thinking of Homer’s story, was a great thrill for me. You could almost hear the armor clanking and the swords ringing and the shouts of both the Hellenes and the soldiers of Ilium.

I love the story of Heinrich Schliemann, the wealthy entrepreneur turned amateur archaeologist. Scholars at the end of the 19th century were in the midst of a radical reappraisal of the past and–in particular–ancient documents purporting to report that past. The Old Testament was under critical attack–none of it could be trusted! But Homer was also subjected to the critics’ knife. Homer was not a solitary poet but a stitched-together pastiche of sources (sound familiar?). His story was myth and fable with no historical basis (again, familiar?). He was a fun read, but his references to characters, incidents, geography and culture were poetical fancy.

Schliemann–unschooled in such matters and, as a result, unspoiled–took Homer seriously. Pouring over the Iliad, noting geographic references to rivers, mountains, distances, and seasons, he traveled to Turkey and decided that a modern mound named Haserlik was in fact ancient Troy. He started digging. He learned archaeology as he dug. He made monumental mistakes and monumental discoveries. Critics blasted his techniques and reports (never mind that those same critics had assured anyone who would listen that there was no Troy!). They called him all sorts of names. But Schliemann–for all his failings–at least had the satisfaction of believing Homer and, in the end, proving the accuracy of his story. There was a Troy. And it took a passionate amateur to discover it, not the ivory-towered intellectuals more in love with their theories than with the sources. (Once again, sound familiar?)

Leaving Troy, I kept going north looking for the ferry crossing spanning the Bosphorus, linking Asia and Europe. I was expecting to find the ferry at Canakale (pronounced ChaNAkale), but the only road sign was towards the black hole of the “central market”–an invitation to enter the labyrinth from which escape is difficult and fender-bender is likely. So I kept going, noting an the map a fragile blue-dotted line between Lapseki (about 30 kilometers north) and Galibouli (English=Galipoli of WWI fame). Lo and behold, a sign! A ferry icon and the word “Galibouli”!

(The Turks make no allowance for non-Turkish speakers. None of their signs have English translations for words like “Ferry” or “Exit” or “Life-threatening-road-conditions-ahead”. And very few of the people I’ve encountered in Turkey speak English. I don’t know if this is due to poor data-sampling or a poor educational system–the latter I think.)

A left-hand turn and there it was, a big beautiful ferry. I parked, found someone who spoke English, asked the appropriate questions, put the car in line, paid my 25 Lira, and drove onto the ferry. A quick 30 minute crossing and I was headed north again.

This section of Turkey is some of the prettiest I’ve seen. Rolling agricultural landscapes. Vast coastal vistas with ships plying between the Black Sea and the Aegean. Shepherds and flocks of sheep dotting the hillsides and crowding the road.

I had intended to stop about an hour out of Istanbul and find a hotel. But the closer I got, the more nervous I got: about the unknowns of getting to the airport … about toll roads for which I had no tokens (they do things differently here!) … nightmares about getting lost in Istanbul with its 13 million souls and 13 million ways to take a wrong turn and vanish from the face of the earth. So I kept driving.

Part of the deal with my rental car (acquired from a cheap, no-name company that has no rental return place at the airport) is that I show up in the International Departure lane and let the company’s representatives find me and claim the car at 8:30am. (I know … there’s cheap and then there’s stupid!). Another part of the deal is that I picked up the car empty and was supposed to return it that way (they hope to make a little money off the extra gas left in the tank). So here I was, driving toward Istanbul, no tokens for the toll road, all the signs in Turkish, not an airport icon in sight … and my gas gauge is reading in the red! 40 kilometers out, I was getting anxious. 30 kilometers out, I was starting to sweat bullets. 20 kilometers out and I thought I’d missed the turn off for sure. (I mean, lots of major airports are 30, 40, 50 kilometers from the city center). Finally I saw the airplane symbol and the name “Ataturk (something)”–about a kilometer before the turn off. I made the turn, drove through a murderous morass of traffic, got to the airport, dove into a exit that I prayed led to short-term parking–for if it did not, I was sunk!–parked the car (hallelujah–I haven’t gone to church today, but I worshipped at that moment!), and melted into a puddle on the floor mats.

That’s how I ended up at a coffee shop in the airport in the wee hours of the morning. Now I just have to hope that when I exit the OtoPark, there is a sign that will lead me to the International Departures terminal, that there is a space I can pull the car into, that no one is going to force me to move on at the 3 minute mark, and that someone actually shows up to take the car! Then, finally, I can get on a plane to Athens and sleep!

Ain’t international travel fun!

Finally arrived at my hotel in Bergama. Since it’s been raining so much, I probably won’t get to see this site—which, by all accounts, is supposed to be wonderful. After I’m done with this email, I’ll try to fight through the rain again and visit the museum (which is also reputed to be good. At least the museum has a roof!) Hopefully tomorrow will be clear and I’ll have a chance to run around the ruins once before I head north to Istanbul.

I wandered about for 2 hours trying to find the hotel once I arrived in Bergama (in the rain!); their map on the internet is useless! Finally made it. But I left my backpack in the car (didn’t want to lug it around as I searched) and will have to go retrieve that for some dry clothes!

While I was looking for my hotel, a nice young man (whose confidence in his English far surpassed his proficiency) tried to help me. He looked up my hotel on his phone and came up with an address I didn’t think was right, but … I waited for a break in the rain at a coffee shop (having a Turkish coffee with about 5 old men who apparently had nothing better to do than sit in a little hole-in-the-wall shop, sip tea, and gossip) and intended to go off in the direction the young man thought I should go and then double-back to where I thought the hotel actually was. But as I stepped from the shop, he was there with his car keys, offering to take me to the hotel. Having been burned by friendly strangers before, I was leery. But he had a nice face and I decided that I didn’t want to give offense. So we walked to his car, he drove me to what he thought was my hotel (actually, it was a completely different hotel with the only thing in common the word “Pansiyon”). He really was trying to be helpful—just didn’t know any better. I got out, thanked him profusely, walked into the hotel, explained that I was in the wrong place, waited for the young man to drive away, and then had to walk about 1.5 miles back to where I started—in the pouring rain! Still took me another 30 minutes to find the place.

But now I’m drying off a bit, doing some email work (like this!), and contemplating braving the rain once more. I hate to be this close to world-class ruins and artifacts and not take advantage. I will try to get to the museum (if it hasn’t washed away). But I might just take the day off, work on labeling photographs, and try again in the morning.

Hopefully this won’t be my last foray into Turkey. I think this area has some good potential for putting together a “Footsteps of Paul” trip and bringing some groups this way. The museums and sites are certainly worth it. The scenery is often spectacular. The towns are mostly poor and unsightly (how dare those subsistence-level people leave their trash lying around and their laundry flapping!).

But if I do decide to add this trip to my list (Greece and Italy at present), I’ll have to come back to do some more exploratory work and will get to revisit the sites I missed this time. Ahhhh … it’s dirty work, but somebody has to do it!

Very few sites I’ve visited in the mediterranean region (and I’ve been to a few) are as impressive: well preserved, high-quality, and extensive. You can almost hear the sandal-slapping of ancient feet as you walk around. We moderns think we’re so superior with our technology and our scientific methods. But here, 2500 years ago, were indoor toilets and intricate water-management systems and elaborate finishes and great civic facilities. Apart from refrigeration (and associated air conditioning) there is little the ancients had to do without—unless you count the internet and iPads. Of course, there were the minor inconveniences of no antibiotics or anesthesia. But if you didn’t cut yourself and never needed anyone to cut on you, you’d hardly notice the difference!

It was absolutely perfect weather today—60′s with a light breeze. Just when I started to get overheated (climbing the Sacred Way), I just moved into the shade and enjoyed a few quiet and cooling moments to reflect on the flow of history and the vagaries of time.

It was chilly this morning—maybe in the 40′s? The temperature warmed quickly, however (into the 60′s), and the drive north was beautiful: great sea vistas, looming mountain ranges, fields newly planted and orchards of olive trees. The landscape is so like Greece. In the ancient world, this area was called “Ionia” and was settled extensively by Greek expats—merchants, farmers, sailors, and soldiers. Must have seemed like home to them.

It was the settlements of Ionia that started all the trouble with Persia in the late 6th/early 5th centuries B.C. They rebelled, suffered the predictable consequences, and rallied their Greece compatriots (notably the Athenians) to their cause. The ruins of this area are very like the ruins of Greece—same architecture, same pantheon of gods, same civic structures.

I drove from Bodrum north to Didyma—the Twin—the site of one of the largest temples in the ancient world: The Temple of Apollo (who was the twin of Aphrodite—hence the name). The site itself was something of a disappointment—small, limited primarily to the temple itself. The temple was worth the trip, however. It was huge, with 60 foot-tall pillars (that’s a six-story building!), two vaulted walk-ways leading down to the exedra (the open-air center of the temple), and massive porticos all around. The detail work (entablature, bas reliefs, decorations on the pedestals and capitals of the columns) was first rate.

I spent an hour or so, walking around the ruins, bought an ice cream, and hit the road again. North once more. 10-12 miles to Miletus—one of the largest and most important cities in the ancient world. Paul visited here twice—that we know of.

The first visit (noted by Luke in Acts 20) was at the end of Paul’s third missionary journey. He was headed home from Corinth (a difficult and contentious visit), sailed across the Aegean to the Roman province of Asia Minor (that includes Ionia and is roughly equivalent to modern-day Turkey), and needed to see the elders of Ephesus. But he couldn’t afford to stop in Ephesus: too many connections … too many people who would delay his trip to Jerusalem. So he sailed down the western coast of Turkey and stopped at Miletus—about 20 miles aways—sending a message to the elders to meet him there. It was at Miletus that Paul said his wrenching goodbyes to the men he had entrusted with the spiritual health of the church in Ephesus, charging them to be the shepherds the Holy Spirit had called them to be, and warning them of future problems in the church—many of those problems originating among the elders themselves!

The second visit involved one Trophymous—a companion and work-mate of Paul—who fell ill at some later point in Paul’s travels (that presumably occurred after the conclusion of Acts and Paul’s “appeal to Caesar”) and had to be left behind “at Miletus” (see 2Ti 4).

The ruins are a wonder. They are dominated by a theater that once seated 15,000 people (some scholars say 25,000!). The theater is well-preserved and includes a well-defined “orchestra,” a columned seating area for visiting Emperors (among them Caesar, Augustus, and Tragen), and huge access tunnels that allowed spectators to move quickly and efficiently to their seats. There is an inscription here (“For the Jews and Godfearers”) that reserves a block of seats. This is surprising since Hebrews did not usually dabble in theater. However, the diaspora Jews were more liberal than their Judaean counterparts and could have overcome their thesbi-phobia. (They probably had praise teams in the synagogue as well!)

Around the theater are the remains of an ancient palace structure, a heroon (ancient tomb and shrine), and a barracks for soldiers (rulers in the old days liked to keep their troops close). Beyond the theater are the skeletal protuberances of temples, gateways, stoas (ancient porches), and agoras—all framed by pools of stagnant water, the echoes of the sea that once lapped at the feet of ancient Miletus. Miletus was a thriving port city, sited at the mouth of the Meander River (whose wandering course gave us the word “meandering”). But the river silted in, stranding Miletus 4-5 miles from the sea, and ending the wealth that flowed from trading and, hence, its dominance of the area.

Oops. I’m about 50 yards away from a mosque and the time for prayer is just being sung. They broadcast this call over loudspeakers from the minarets that grace each mosque—loudly! It is so out of character—this religiously dominated culture—for those of us accustomed to the secular nation and the separation of church and state. Odd. Arresting.

One of my primary memories of Miletus will be auditory: the hum of bees (they were everywhere, feasting on the flowers and hedges that were in profuse bloom), the quarcking of frogs (the waters of the swamps drew them by the thousands), the voices of ghosts haunting this site, speaking of things Greek and Roman and human.

I’m sitting on a roof-top café near my hotel in Selcuk, just a couple of miles from Ephesus. I go there tomorrow.

Got some good rest last night. Out early after breakfast. Visited St. Peter’s castle where they have the National Underwater Archaeological Museum. Great displays of ships and artifacts raised from the sea-floor in this area. Very interesting. And some beautiful vistas.

Walked all over the city. Peered through the gates of the site to the Mausoleum—the tomb of King Mausolos, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Nothing much to see now. Guide books said not to waste the entry fee, so …

Got a sandwich and came back to the hotel for a quick power nap. I’m having coffee now and doing some reading about the sites I’ll visit tomorrow: Didyma, Miletus, Priene. Will be driving north tomorrow to get to those sites and will be staying at a hotel near Ephesus in Selcuk.

Roads are good (so far) and driving here is much like driving in Greece. In fact, the two countries and peoples are very similar. Must be why they hate each other so much.

Every four hours or so (starting at 5:00 this morning!), the call to prayer screams out from the minarets. Doesn’t last but for a few minutes, but the rhythm of life it creates is different from any other place I’ve visited. The call is offered in that high, ululating cadence that is so eastern and distinctive. But it has almost a playful quality to it … interesting.

As I was walking to the Starbucks, a fire engine was blocking the street, backing up traffic for a ways. They were unlimbering the ladder and had a fireman in the bucket with a net. Stopped to watch. He was trying to collect a huge bird (some kind of macaw? Colorful parrot of some species). It flew off to the top of another palm tree and they had to pull in the ladder, move the truck about 20 yards, and start all over again. People stopped to gawk and were laughing and pointing. The more things differ, the more they are the same.

I’ll probably get dinner at the same spot tonight (Musto’s Restaurant). The “linguini with seafoods” really was that good. Hope you are all well.

Once upon a time, the work of elders was considered “a noble task.”[1] Those who did the work well were shown “double honor.” (Does that mean twice the salary?)

These are not sentiments normally associated with elders in our authority-cynical age. Even when some measure of “nobility” and “honor” are ascribed to elders for the work they do, it is primarily their personal work that is referenced—their care and feeding of individual sheep, their humble and loving characters. The work elders do together—meeting, deliberating, planning, deciding—is usually described in less flattering terms.

Church members tend to be suspicious of what goes on “behind closed doors” and vaguely resentful of decisions made about matters they would much prefer to decide for themselves. A favored hobby of many ministers is either lamenting their exclusion from these meetings or complaining about having to sit through them. And even elders regard elders’ meetings as the onerous cost to be borne for wearing the shepherd’s mantle.

It seems that no one likes elders’ meetings. They happen too frequently, take too long, and result in too little.

How odd! For when elders met in the New Testament, God did things that rocked the first century world. When elders gathered to pray, spiritual gifts were bestowed and people were healed and whole cities surrendered to the gospel. When they deliberated together, decisions were made that brought peace to fractured churches and clarified central theological beliefs and encouraged mission efforts in far-flung corners of their world. Their meetings resulted in bold initiatives and meaningful ministry and faithful doctrine.

Those meetings sound … well … fun! They sound like meetings people would look forward to and enjoy participating in and be encouraged by. They sound like the spiritual highlight of the week, the time when God’s Spirit could be experienced most profoundly and God’s kingdom advanced most powerfully. They sound like gatherings where godly men wrestled with godly issues in pursuit of godly goals.

I’d love to attend meetings like that. Wouldn’t you?

A Failure of Imagination

We don’t expect much of elders’ meetings anymore. We do not attend with the anticipation that God’s Spirit will show up or lives will be transformed or the gates of hell might quiver and fall because we meet. We do not believe as we walk into elders’ meetings that we are about to do soul-shaping, life-changing, world-disrupting work. We do not suspect that God might intend—through the attitudes we display and the priorities we pursue and the vision we seek and the faith we muster—to accomplish inconceivable, leg-slapping, jaw-dropping wonders.

And so, because our kingdom ambitions are stunted, our reach is tragically small. We aim low and hit our target. We expect little and are rewarded by achieving it.

This lack of imagination explains why we spend our meetings focused on facilities and funds … dancing to the narrow tunes of our people’s complaints and comfort zones … chasing rabbits across the wasteland of pointless debate … praying pro forma and underwhelming prayers … consumed with programmatic details … wringing our hands over the latest instance of spiritual immaturity among our members … and wondering why we are meeting instead of being at home with our families. It explains why our meeting places are never shaken and we so rarely feel the Spirit’s fire and we do not leave meetings filled with an irresistible boldness (in contrast to what is described in Acts 4:23-31).

To be fair, we come by this lack of imagination honestly. We’ve learned to be modest in our hopes. This modesty has been modeled for us by elders who have gone before and the kinds of meetings they experienced. It has been beaten into us by churches who would rather we not dream or challenge them to something spiritually significant. It is the inevitable outcome of a theology that does not welcome the Holy Spirit and a faith-practice that does not pursue him. It is the lack of spiritual ambition that derives from the sad suspicion that people don’t really change and churches no longer turn the world upside down and our actions won’t make much of a difference in the end.

Satan doesn’t need elders’ meetings to blow up or adopt bad policies or promote heretical positions.

He just needs elders’ meetings to end in a whimper … and for elders to grow satisfied with that state of affairs.

An Immodest Alternative?

The first step to more effective elders’ meetings is revaluing the work God has called elders to do. There is something noble and honorable about the shepherding work of caring for sheep individually. And there is also something noble and honorable in the work elders do as, together, they lead the flock.

So what can be done? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Let’s expect God to show up in our elders’ meetings, to walk with us through our meetings, and to use the results of our meetings for his glory and the advancement of the kingdom.

Do you invite God to be present with you as you meet? Do you anticipate that his Spirit will pervade the people in the room, shape their hearts and minds, and direct conversations and conclusions? Do you see elders’ meetings as “holy ground” where faith-filled men gather in the presence of a powerful God to do work of eternal consequence?

If not, you should resign immediately. Go join the Kiwanis Club. Find a place where God’s presence and God’s power is not required, where plans and purposes can be addressed by merely human activity.

If, however, you intend to stand beside the likes of Paul and Timothy, Peter and Mark, Barnabas and Silas—if you want to do kingdom work that makes an eternal difference for the souls of the children of God—not only must you recognize that an unleashing of God’s power will be necessary in that work, you should expect to witness and be part of something miraculous.

Let’s commit an act of faith and trust that, when we meet, God meets with us. And where God is present, transformative things happen. Walk into every elders’ meeting in anticipation of that.

2. Let’s dare to develop some kingdom ambition.

“Ambition” has a bad reputation. When ambition is personal and selfish, it deserves the bad name it has. But when our ambitions are for the Kingdom, when our aspirations and dreams focus on God’s purposes, ambition can be a holy thing.

Jesus came to save the world—a hugely grand objective. Paul understood his mission as encompassing the entire Gentile population—no small aim. The disciples were tasked to “preach the gospel to all creation” and “go into all the world” and “make disciples of all nations.” God intends for the gospel to turn the world upside down and transform lives and right the problem of Satan and sin.

Elders do not serve God’s best purposes by keeping their spiritual aspirations small. Tiny ambitions simply demonstrate that we don’t really believe God is in the room (see #1 above). It’s not enough for elders to circle the wagons and make programmatic tweaks and manage petty squabbles. God has greater things to accomplish through us. But unless and until we lift our eyes to higher hopes, we will content ourselves with goals that are small enough for our own powers to achieve.

Elders’ meetings should be opportunities for towering dreams, immodest proposals, and life-changing plans. If the meetings you attend don’t take your breath away, leave you nervous and excited, and make you walk with a purposeful stride, you’re meeting beneath your calling.

3. Let’s embrace boldness as a gift of the Spirit.

The members of the council were amazed when they saw the boldness of Peter and John. (Ac 4:13)

“Give us, your servants, great boldness in preaching your word….” They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. (Ac 4:29-31)

Saul … went all around Jerusalem with them, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. (Ac 9:28—Paul’s boldness is mentioned by Luke in several passages.)

But the apostles stayed there a long time, preaching boldly about the grace of the Lord. (Ac 14:3)

Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. (2Co 3:12)

Because of Christ and our faith in him, we can now come boldly and confidently into God’s presence. (Eph 3:12)

I will continue to be bold for Christ, as I have been in the past. (Php 1:20)

For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid … (2Ti 1:7)

You can’t turn a world upside down without some boldness. In the first church, boldness was characteristic of leaders and closely associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit. While boldness can be a vice when found in unworthy people (e.g., 2Pe 2:10), it is invariably regarded as a virtue when evidenced in the lives of godly leaders.

If contemporary church leaders suffer from any malady, it is not from the disease of being overly bold. Elders, on the contrary, are characteristically cautious. “Boldness” feels a lot like “recklessness” to many elders. They want to proceed prudently, make sensible decisions, demonstrate wisdom and discretion in their leadership. I’m for all of those things. What we do is too important to permit a lack of prudence and sense and wisdom.

But prudence can easily morph into paralysis. The desire to be “sensible” can become a justification for inaction. And debate over “the wise course” often keeps us tied in leadership knots.

Most elderships could use a bit of boldness. Boldness is the necessary balance to every eldership’s fear of mistakes. Boldness gives evidence of the presence of God’s Spirit. Boldness demonstrates a confidence that God is in control and is greater than our missteps. If boldness doesn’t break out in your meetings from time to time, you have to wonder whether you’re in the same business as Jesus, Paul, and Peter.

4. Let’s take seriously the Scriptures that honor shepherds and teach healthy and proper attitudes towards elders.

It may seem immodest or self-serving, but we need to talk about the noble role of shepherds more. Preachers need to hold up elders before their congregations, honor them, and model the kind of respect that is an elder’s due. And shepherds need to honor each other (or, at least, the role they share): publically praising those who serve well, giving tribute to those of their number who are retiring, and taking very seriously the process of nominating/choosing/and training new elders.

“I am the good shepherd.” (Jn 10:11—Jesus wore the “Shepherd” title gladly. It was a role he relished and reveled in. When we take up the shepherding role, we engage in one of Jesus’ favorite functions.)

“The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.” (1Ti 5:17)

“Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task.” (1Ti 3:1)

And we need to talk more about the relationship between church members and church leaders. So many of our people allow their elder attitudes to be shaped by bad elder experiences: the domineering elder who insisted on his way; the passive elder who would not act out of conviction; elders who were doctrinaire or narrow-minded or relationally challenged. Such experiences are not to be discounted but must not prejudice us against godly shepherds who are attempting to conduct godly business.

Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you. (Heb 13:17)

In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. (1Pe 5:5)

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. (1Ti 5:19—The practice of verbally dissecting church leaders, whether pastoral or ministerial, has reached epidemic proportions in today’s church. When church members do not respect spiritual leaders with their tongues, they will not respect them with their lives.)

I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household … (1Ti 3:14-15—This “conduct” regards how the church is to select godly elders and how they are to interact with them—respectfully, trustingly, obediently.)

The notion that we should recognize, honor, and submit to spiritual authority (any authority, in fact) is not a popular concept these days. But unless we teach, practice, and model such regard, how will churches ever develop the kind of respect and deference that are so desperately needed in these spiritually dangerous times?

It’s difficult to meet effectively and lead boldly when the role of shepherd is neither valued as “noble” or respected and admired by those we lead.

5. Let’s dust off a theology of “calling” for shepherds.

God has always raised up spiritual leaders for his people, whether prophets and priests under the Old Covenant or Apostles and elders under the New. We need a fresh appreciation of God’s involvement in the appointment of shepherds. Not only does such a view underscore the legitimacy of church leaders, it also highlights the spiritual authority that comes with the role.

“… the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” (Ac 20:28—The role of shepherd is not conferred as the result of congregational vote or some kind of popularity contest. It is a role conferred by the Holy Spirit.)

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. (Ac 14:23—Notice the spiritual care exercised by Paul and Barnabas in appointing elders, the prayer and fasting involved, the intentional “commitment.”)

Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands … (1Ti 5:22—This instruction to Timothy is given in the context of his relationship with elders and has ordination overtones.)

Shepherds are not just good men who are granted a certain credibility because of their experience and accumulated wisdom. They are, in a very real sense, God’s men, chosen and called for their shepherding work, whose credibility is rooted in this calling. I would encourage you to look at the following link for further information about a theology of calling: http://timwoodroof.com/tims-writings/archives/a-theology-of-calling/.

Elders who understand they are “called” meet differently from elders who are merely “elected.” They have a different sense of mission and urgency. They answer to a different voice. “Called” elders don’t vacillate and act from fear of the sheep. They don’t sacrifice theology for the pragmatic or popular. We desperately need elders who feel the hand of God on their lives. We have too many who mainly feel the hands of the congregation on their throats.

6. Let’s value our meetings, guarding our agendas diligently, protecting our time together from the petty and peripheral and nonessential.

The archetype for this diligence is, of course, the decision of the Jerusalem Apostles to keep the main thing the main thing. A growing church was presenting the Apostles with a growing list of needs and decisions. When widows were overlooked in the daily food distribution, the Apostles—while fully capable of addressing this need themselves and very aware of the importance of the issue—valued their calling and mission enough to say “No” to their personal involvement. The work of Apostles was prayer and preaching. Others could see to details of church life.

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing … the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” (Ac 6:1-4)

The result of this decision speaks for itself: “So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly …” (Ac 6:7)

When elders do not understand their primary work, when they are not diligent about protecting their time and efforts from the details of church life, when they make the mistake of confusing proper concern with personal involvement, they rapidly lose their effectiveness and find themselves “in the thick of thin things.”

The key issue facing shepherds and their effectiveness as a leadership group boils down to a decision about what they talk about … and what they refuse to talk about. It boils down to a question of whether matters that matter will be the focus of their limited time and attentions. Elderships who truly believe they can make a difference will reflect that belief by focusing on matters where a difference counts.

Conclusion

Elders’ meetings can be the spiritual mountain peak of every elder’s week. They can forge a path through the murky waters of an uncertain future. They can be the compass that permits the church to keep the main thing the main thing. They can ensure that Kingdom work is done by the Kingdom’s people for Kingdom ends. They can foster Christ-like maturity, encourage meaningful ministry, diagnose spiritual ills and prescribe spiritual remedies, and challenge God’s people to lift their eyes to higher goals. They can recharge the batteries of the church’s leaders, lift up the hands of the church’s staff, and plant the seeds for the next generation of shepherds.

Being a shepherd, working together with fellow shepherds, should be a “noble task.” And it can be. But that will require us to re-value the shepherds’ role, reaffirm the shepherds’ significance, and reorient the shepherds’ aim towards goals that are worthy of the adjective “noble.”

[1] 1Ti 3:1; 5:17

You need to know what you’re cooking (i.e., the reason why you’re meeting). You need a recipe that specifies the required ingredients (the agenda). You need to have all the makings and tools at hand (gathering the information, people, and resources necessary to make good decisions and implement actions). You need to stay at it until you’ve created a tasty treat (or—in the case of meetings—keep working until you’ve reached a conclusion to your discussion that justifies the time and energy invested).

And you need some skills.

Baking is more than ingredients and ovens; there is technique as well—you have to know how to let dough rise and rest, how to use a rolling pin, how to beat egg whites, how to clarify butter. In the same way, meetings are more than agendas and conference tables. There are skills required to cook a successful meeting, procedures to follow, habits to develop. Just as bakers learn “culinary disciplines” in order to produce pastries, elders must learn “meeting disciplines” in order to conduct effective meetings.

Other articles in this series address the importance of good leadership, clear vision, fervent prayer, thoughtful agendas, etc.—the ingredients that make for effective meetings. This article focuses on process—not what we talk about so much as the habits required for talking effectively.

Let’s begin with the Seven Sins that, though wickedly tempting, are the death of effective meetings.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Meetings:

1. Undervaluing meetings. Many elders don’t take meetings seriously enough. They skip meetings, arrive late, leave early, answer their cell phones, engage in side conversations, and otherwise fail to fully engage in the meeting process. An absent elder (whether absent physically, mentally, emotionally, or spiritually) changes the dynamics of the elders’ meeting, limits the decision-making abilities of the group, and undermines the integrity of the group process. While I’m firmly convinced that “The meetings are not the work” (there is vastly more to shepherding than meetings!), I do think that meetings are an important part of shepherding work. When elders don’t take meetings seriously, they cripple one of the most critical functions of church leadership.

2. Chasing rabbits. You’re marching along in orderly fashion, attacking the agenda, getting things done. Suddenly—there on the side of the road—a rabbit jumps up from a clump of grass. (Some “By the way” comment is made. A fellow elder brings up a difficult interaction from last Sunday. One of your compatriots has “just a quick question” about a ministry.) Immediately, everyone around you throws aside the agenda, abandons the intended path, and rushes off in hot pursuit of that “wascally wabbit.” By the time every bush has been beaten and every rabbit hole explored—and the exhausted troops finally gather again to resume their journey—the sun has set, the energy is drained, and the important matters you had planned to discussed must be postponed once more. Rabbits are such soft, cute creatures. But they kill more meetings than any other beast in the forest.

3. Over- and under-participation. Every group of elders has their strong, silent types … and their strong, talkative types. I’ve known entire meetings to go by with some elders uttering not a mumbling word … and other elders waxing eloquent and long on every subject raised. There are elders who won’t speak up even when they feel strongly about a matter … and elders who insist on having the first (or last) word on each topic discussed. Some technique for “leveling the playing field” must be employed in elders’ meetings or personalities and passions, temperaments and tendencies, will allow some elders to dominate and other elders to avoid the risk of sharing their views. The result is biased meetings that give the illusion of consensus, but lack the full participation—the communal wisdom—that shared leadership requires.

4. Group Think. All of us are prone to lazy and illogical thinking. But groups are especially vulnerable to this because such thinking tends to be modeled, reinforced, and legitimized by the group itself. It is difficult (for instance) for highly cohesive groups (like elderships) to hear critical, dissenting, and cautionary voices—we’d much prefer to avoid conflict and enhance group harmony. This ‘hunger for harmony’ is but one of a long list of thinking errors to which groups are particularly prone. As a group, elders can easily slip into some (or all) of these bad thinking habits:

1. generalizing single data-points (“He doesn’t like this” becomes “Lots of people don’t like this”);
2. either/or thinking (“Either he’s scripturally qualified or he’s not; and based on what I’ve seen …”);
3. poisoning the well (“He’s a youth minister and you know how spiritually immature they are”)
4. straw men arguments (“I don’t want a praise team. Anyone who needs a worship crutch like that has deeper spiritual problems”);
5. begging the question (“We tried that 20 years ago. Didn’t work then, won’t work now”);
6. slippery slope objections (“If we encourage clapping in services, we might as well move in the drum set”)

Poor thinking leads to poor decisions and failed policies. People end up getting hurt. Ministries lose traction. And the church never moves beyond the illogic of its leaders.

5. Not respecting time—Just because you meet with other elders in a room doesn’t mean you can bend time. Yet we often meet with the expectation that time is a flexible, stretchable thing. We don’t start on time. We have unrealistic expectations about what can be accomplished in the course of one meeting, trying to cram too many matters into a single discussion. We waste precious time talking about minor matters and run out of time for discussing important questions. We extend the length of our meetings without regard to the impact of attention span, fatigue, and exasperation on effectiveness. Individual elders take up the available discussion time with rambling, think-as-you-talk comments that—in the end—muzzle other elders and limit discussion. Time marches on. And elderships that do not master time will be mastered by it.

6. So what? After all the words have been spilled and everyone has had their say and the dead horses have been thoroughly beaten, what is the result? Believe it or not, discussions in elders meetings do not take place for the purpose of airing opinions and unburdening minds. They are meant to lead somewhere: to reach some definitive decision, to take some specific action, to make some appreciable difference. Yet I’ve watched elders discuss and debate a topic, worry and wrangle some hapless subject, without ever reaching a “So what?” Either we talk a matter to the point of exhaustion (when we’re simply too weary to bring the talk to a conclusion) … or we are overwhelmed by the complexity of an issue and find ourselves suffering from the “paralysis of analysis”  … or we decide there is safety in ambiguity … or we realize we don’t have enough information … or we show a preference for procrastination over purposefulness … or a decision is made that no one “owns” or follows through on. There are dozens of reasons not to decide, not to conclude, not to act. And elders are likely to reach for any of them rather than invest a little more effort in order to make all the dialogue culminate in a point.

7. Not remembering—A great deal happens in the course of most elders meetings. A variety of topics are discussed, numerous issues are raised, a few decisions are nailed down, assignments are made, talking points are rehearsed. And, if elders are not very careful, very little of it is remembered—or remembered in the same way. Meetings are meaningless if there is no collective memory of what goes on in them. In part, this “amnesia” is a direct result of failing to take regular, detailed minutes—recording the events of a meeting on paper so that decisions and plans are captured for the memory-impaired. In part, though, “amnesia” is a result of a lack of accountability. Why bother remembering you said you would do this, visit with that person, make some call when no one else remembers that commitment and holds you responsible for it? The results of this memory loss are meetings that cover the same ground repeatedly, assignments that fall through the cracks, issues that never quite reach closure, and follow-up that doesn’t happen.

Good meeting habits:

If elders are to avoid these “seven deadly sins of meetings” (and I believe elders—especially—ought to avoid sin of every sort!), there are some good meeting habits they can develop. These habits require a level of intentionality, discipline, and commitment that will prove challenging to some groups. They will not develop easily or without pain. But with a little effort and leadership and humility, these habits will encourage more efficient, focused, and effective meetings.

I should warn you—prepare to be overwhelmed. I’ve listed twenty good-meeting-habits below. But I don’t expect you to implement them all tomorrow. In fact, more effective meetings are only one habit away. Pick a few. Concentrate on a handful. Start with one or two. Your meetings will be blessed as a result.

Habits that address sins of undervaluing meetings:

1. Expect your fellow elders to fully engage in meetings: ask them to turn off their cell phones/iPads/pagers/cochlear-implant-communication-devices/SETA antennae, etc.; request that they respect meeting times by being present and punctual; invite them to give themselves fully to the discussions and deliberations at hand (no side discussions, preoccupation with other issues, inability to let go of a discussion topic and move on). A regular reminder of the importance of what God does through elders when they meet, of the kingdom matters at stake, will help elders remember why they are meeting.
2. In our modern world, travel and scheduling are constant factors to be considered. You can bemoan that fact and try to do elder business with whoever is in town. Or you can find creative ways to make attendance possible even when fellow elders are traveling. Skype, GotoMeetings.com, FaceTime, conference calling, and other technological innovations make it possible for elders to be present even when they are absent. Making this technology available and encouraging its use underscores the value of having every elder at every meeting.
3. Elders who miss too many meetings should be encouraged to resign. Meetings are an important part of an elder’s work. Elders too busy to attend meetings are too busy to serve effectively. Every elder is called on to field questions, defend decisions, and champion directions—whether or not they were part of the process that resulted in those decisions and processes. To speak for the elders requires being with the elders in their meetings. So set the bar for attendance, get everyone’s commitment to that standard, and then hold each other accountable to meet it. (BTW, when meetings are unavoidably missed, the absentee elder should be expected to read the minutes carefully and become fully briefed about what transpired.)

   Habits to address sins of distraction:

4. Shoot rabbits. Develop the discipline of recognizing and labeling distractions, sidetracks, and false trails. (Sometimes it helps to anoint one of your number as the “rabbit detector” with the specific mandate to squash rabbits and all who run after them.) And—once you’ve cried, “Rabbit!”—have the discipline to stop chasing it! Quit the pursuit! Leave off shaking bushes! Get back to the agenda!
5. Develop a “parking lot” for discussion topics that come up during the course of the meeting but are not on the agenda. Something as simple as a pad of paper and a pen can serve you well. Agendas are not crystal balls and those who make them are not omniscient. Sometimes good, discussion-worthy, needed topics arise in meetings. Treat them with seriousness. Write them down. Come back to them at the end of the meeting or put them on the agenda for the next meeting. But don’t allow such issues to bully their way to the front of the line and demand your immediate and exclusive attention. Your agenda may not be perfect, but you need to trust it as a guide to what is important rather than merely urgent.

   Habits that address sins of over- and under-participation:

6. Learn how to raise a topic for discussion, lay an adequate foundation for conducting the discussion (information, background, context, reasons why the discussion is important), and then do an initial survey of every elder. Go around the table and ask each elder to summarize his views/thoughts/ suggestions in two or three sentences (and not compound, run-on, conjunction-infested sentences!). This quick survey will get everyone’s thoughts on the table quickly, show where there is agreement and disagreement, and resist the tendency of any one voice to sway the discussion before it even begins.
7. As a group, commit yourselves to the ideal of ‘balanced discussion’—the notion that the more elders who speak to an issue, share their viewpoints, and suggest their solutions, the more likely the elder group is to make a good and godly decision. By ‘balance’ I don’t mean some misguided or absolute equality (each elder speaking exactly as often and as long as every other elder). I do mean that quiet elders should be encouraged to speak up and voluble elders encouraged to show restraint. Elders who won’t speak up should be called on by name. Elders who won’t shut up should be lovingly rebuked. This is a leadership function, of course, and will require a commitment of the whole group to the value of “balance.” [Obviously, the larger the leadership group, the harder it is to achieve balance. Breaking the group down into subgroups may be the best way to hear many voices rather than a few. See #9 below.]
8. On occasion, assign a “dialogue monitor.” Ask one of your number to bring a pad, pen, and stop watch to your meeting. Have this person count how often each elder speaks up and time how long he talks. Publish this data in the minutes for the meeting—by name. This simple technique will clearly highlight over- and under-participation and encourage elders to self-monitor.
9. Use the power of subgroups: Dividing elders into smaller groups (for prayer, discussion, brainstorming, etc.) increases participation, filters out weaker ideas, and gives people an efficient way to think through and try out possible solutions. It ensures that every voice is heard without requiring the entire group to process each voice. This is especially powerful for times of prayer, when different groups can pray intensely for specific things—there is always more to pray for than we have time to voice.

Habits that address sins of group-think:

10.  Learn to delegate. Especially in the early stages of discussing some plan or topic or point of controversy, there is always the danger of “sharing ignorance.” Talk can tend toward opinions or knee-jerk-responses or viewpoints unsupported by evidence. Assigning the question to an individual or subgroup; asking for research, careful thought, and a written proposal; and allowing some time for the issue to “percolate” is not just efficient—it is wise. It reinforces the integrity of elder decisions—decisions based not on personal bias or groundless opinions but on prayer, thoughtful reflection, good evidence, and communal wisdom.

11.  Don’t be afraid of voting. I know … voting can be polarizing, divisive, and unnecessarily confrontational. Everyone would prefer to reach conclusions by consensus (which is actually a kind of vote that doesn’t require anyone to raise their hands). But there are times when a formal vote is needed. When, for instance, a small group of elders dominates discussion, leaving scarce room for input by others, a vote is a way to level the playing field and give each elder a voice in the decision. (The weight of discussion may give the illusion of consensus but a vote could indicate that opinion is less-than-unanimous.) When the decision is important and difficult and contested, a vote will allow elders to “put their name” to a decision (or indicate their dissent). A vote will also tend to quantify divisions within the group and bring up the question of trusting group decisions—how to support a decision with which you do not agree. Not every issue raised in an elders’ meeting requires a vote … but some do. Knowing the difference is an important skill in conducting effective meetings.

12.  Don’t allow anonymous people to attend your meetings. One of the finest lines elders tread is that between disclosure and confidentiality: situations that need to be talked about but people who have asked to be protected … feelings and viewpoints which the elders as a whole should be aware of but owners of those feelings and viewpoints who prefer not to be named. What are elders to do? I guess there are times when—simply for informational purposes—situations can be talked about without requiring people to be named. But as a general rule, elders should not allow reports about, anecdotes of, or threats by anonymous people to influence their decisions. Nothing poisons a discussion quite so thoroughly as, “If we do this, I know five people who will leave the church … they’ve told me so but have asked me not to mention their names.” It doesn’t help elders to hear, “There’s a marriage about to blow up, but the couple doesn’t want anyone to know.” Anything offered anonymously—whether via unsigned notes or elders claiming to speak for unnamed sources—should not be given a hearing in an elders’ meeting. If we can’t know “who,” we don’t need to be vulnerable to the “what” and “why.”

13.  Insist on good data. When you think about it, elders are asked to make decisions, set direction, and settle differences on the slimmest of evidence. (A single data point is generalized to a significant segment of the congregation. Opinion is treated as fact. One side of a conflict frames the conflict as a whole. We often suffer from a lack of background information and context. We haven’t interviewed the people most responsible for or affected by a ministry. There is no “due diligence” behind our decisions.) Although I don’t believe things ought to be studied to death (or that gathering evidence should be used—essentially—as a tool for derailing discourse), I am convinced that good data is necessary for good decisions, planning, and diagnosis. So if you don’t have data, recognize that and gather it. Interview the right people. Ask the appropriate questions. Learn the backstory. Make a site visit. Do a congregational survey (resources like SurveyMonkey.com and Adobe Forms makes this quick and easy). Data is inconvenient. It takes time and effort to collect. It may tell you things you don’t want to hear. But when the stakes are eternal, a little inconvenience is a small price to pay for effectiveness.

14.  Welcome, nourish, and encourage against-the-grain thinking. Members of groups naturally gravitate to “roles” that suit their nature: the resident conservative, for instance … the conciliator … the detail, dot-the-i person. In many elderships I’ve worked with, someone has appointed themselves to play the role of “contrarian.” Doesn’t matter what is under discussion: this guy points out the problems, weaknesses, dangers, and difficulties. He doesn’t like any plan (but rarely offers his own, curiously enough!). He is consistently negative. (I once had an elder tell me, “My default answer to any proposal is “No.”) Sadly, the greatest disservice such people do to elderships is not their discouraging voice but the bad name they give to dissent. Dissent is critical to good group decisions. We need to hear cautions, warnings, and against-the-prevailing-tide opinions. When such comments come from unexpected elders, when someone who is not the resident “Negative Ned” speaks up with cautionary words, the group needs to listen and weigh. Viewpoints that counter the consensus cannot be given veto power over the group … but neither should they be treated as unwanted distractions as the herd concentrates on running over a cliff!

15.  Recognize, label, and resist bad thinking. Not every question addressed by elders is logical. Often matters are decided on the basis of tradition, emotion, avoidance of pain and problems, or relationships. Be aware of how and why things are decided (it’s OK, for instance, to say, “Let’s not jump off that bridge just now”). But don’t try to justify every decision as the result of logical, rational arguments. On the other hand, when logic is the basis for a decision, make sure it is good logic. The list of logical fallacies to which groups are prone is long: ad hominem arguments (where the merits of a question are trumped by the demerits of the one who raises it), slippery slope arguments (where a dubious cause/effect relationship is drawn to frighten and divert), either/or distinctions (where only the extremes are considered and no middle ground is allowed), etc.. Talk about instances of bad thinking in past elders meetings (I bet you can find some good examples). Educate each other about the kind of thinking pitfalls groups fall into and the difficulties that result. And give everyone in the group the right to “call a time out” (even give the hand-signal!) when fresh instances of poor thinking occur. … don’t succumb to group think pitfalls … most often caught after the fact as a leader reflects on and discusses the meeting just past.

Habits that address sins against time:

16.  Set meeting times and honor them. If the meeting is supposed to start at 7:00, then start at 7:00. We train ourselves to tardiness by slipping start times, waiting for late comers, delaying while coffee is made, and otherwise failing to kick off meetings when we said we would. And, even more importantly, if the meeting is supposed to end at 9:00, honor that promise—even if parts of the agenda must be postponed or dropped altogether. It’s amazing how a hard-and-fast closing time will keep discussions focused, prevent distractions, and keep an agenda moving. It’s equally amazing how a flexible end-time promotes meandering, vague, and unproductive discussion. Trust me: your fellow elders are much more likely to arrive early, work hard, and stay on task if they know their efforts will be rewarded by an on-time ending.

17.  Work the agenda to make best use of the clock. A thoughtful agenda is an eldership’s best hedge against the relentless march of time.

• It allows you to put the most important matters first (if you run out of time, you don’t have to sacrifice matters that really matter).
• It allows you to estimate how much time each topic of discussion should take and to plan the meeting accordingly.
• By segmenting the meeting in this way, you can measure the pace of discussions (determining at various times during the meeting whether you need to speed up or drop something from the agenda in order to cover the planned topics).

Habits that address sins against decisiveness:

18.  Make sure that discussion leads to a conclusion, some actionable decision that moves the issue forward. That “actionable decision” could be nothing more than tabling the matter for further prayer, thought, and study. It could be an assignment or a verdict. You should be able to write a one sentence (or one word!) summary of how discussion concluded: “Matter tabled until next meeting” … “Staff directed to study and make proposal” … “[Elder Name] will set up appointment to meet with this couple.” If you don’t have something to write down as a result of your discussion, you haven’t taken the discussion far enough. Just a little more effort can result in

19.  Assign an “owner” to every issue. Ask one of the elders to adopt the subject, proposal, decision, etc., discussed by the group and “shepherd it through to a conclusion. Many issues addressed by elders are complex, affect a number of people and ministries, and require time to develop. Someone needs to “own” the issue, holding its hand from introduction to conclusion, being responsible for ensuring that matters talked about are also decided and implemented. “Who owns this?” should be a question asked often in every meeting. Remember: a job that belongs to everyone belongs to no one.

A Habit that addresses sins against memory:

20.  Let’s assume you’ve covered the “minutes” base by asking a careful, precise, and utterly unbiased elder to serve the group as “secretary.” Let’s assume also his minutes are clear, accurate, and minor literary gems. Most groups see the production and distribution of minutes to be the sum total of a secretary’s work. But there is one step more that will provide a great service to your elder group. Ask your secretary to keep a separate list of “ARs” (Action Required—an old Intel term): who owns what? … what assignments were made in the meeting? … what “homework” does the group (or individuals in it) need to do between meetings? If the secretary can comb out these ARs  from the furry body of his meeting minutes, he will end up with a short list of the most pressing and ongoing business of the elders. By emailing elders individually and reminding them of their personal ARs, by ensuring that these ARs appear on the next meeting’s agenda for reports on results and progress, the secretary will move the elders’ work forward and increase their effectiveness level.

Would you expect such a business to run smoothly, keep a firm focus, and make a steady profit? Would you ever imagine that “musical chairs” could prove an effective way for a group of people to manage a company?

Yet this is precisely the model we (often) adopt among groups of elders. We recognize (however reluctantly) that someone has to lead the leaders: there are agendas to set, after all … meetings to schedule … cats to herd. Yet we approach the issue of “leading the leaders” with great concern.  We are suspicious of anything that smacks of preferential treatment and favoritism—even among ourselves (perhaps especially among ourselves). There is an unstated fear that one elder, if permitted to lead other elders in their deliberations, might prove too influential, too partial and prejudiced for the welfare of the church.

So, instead of addressing this leadership role theologically, we default to an egalitarian ideal. We could ask questions like, “Which of us has God best equipped to lead us in effective discussion and decision making?” “Who among us has the spiritual gift of ‘administration’”? “Are there one or two of our number whom God has granted special and extensive experience in leading meetings and helping groups function?”

But the solution we most often employ is democratic rather than theological. “All elders have the right and responsibility to wear the mantle of chairman. It is only fair that each elder takes his turn in this role. We need to pass the Chairman role around among ourselves regularly and frequently. Let’s assign leadership alphabetically, on a rotating basis, meeting-by-meeting or month-by-month. In this group of equals, ‘fairness’ is the governing priority for assigning the leadership role.”

I understand why elders move in this direction. As Americans, we are bred to appreciate egalitarian ideals. As disciples, we trust humility (that keeps us at the foot of the leadership table) more than a confidence in the calling and gifting of God (that might draw us to the head of the table). As progeny of the American Restoration Movement, we find the whole question of the Spirit’s gifts and calling immensely troubling. And, as broken human beings, there is enough pride in us all to covet our own turn in the chief seat—whether or not we can make effective use of it once we are seated there.

We’ve heard the horror stories of ‘chairmen gone wild.’ We know the importance of checks and balances to any system of power—political or spiritual. Given a choice between the rock of inefficiency and the hard-place of abuse of power, we’d prefer to flounder on the rock thank-you-very-much.

However, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the cost of this egalitarian stance is anything but exorbitant. Loss of focus and consistency. Vacillation of leadership style. Disparities in leadership skills and effectiveness. Confusing hand-offs. Dropped balls. Failure to follow through. Agendas with changing priorities. Different meeting rules and divergent meeting management. Uncertain decisions. Unclear communications.

When leadership of the elder group is passed (sequentially and regularly) to different men—with different personalities and preferences … with varying levels of leadership skills and experiences … influenced by diverse constituencies and sensibilities … with assorted understandings of and commitments to the stated goals and directions of the church—the result can be nothing other than confusion and ambiguity and ineffectiveness.

The Necessity of a Leader for the Leaders

First, let’s be clear about the need for a role like ‘chairman of the elders.’

If elderships are to avoid the amoebae-like gropings of any collection of leader-less people, someone must be willing (and the group must allow that person) to provide direction, boundaries, and disciplines.  There is a need for such leadership before meetings: scheduling, setting an agenda (esp., planning meetings with the vision/mission of the church in mind), determining the number and priority of discussion items, rounding up the information/people that will allow for good decision-making. There is a need for leadership during the meeting: working through the agenda in a disciplined way, limiting discussion, keeping the conversation focused, quashing detours, encouraging participation by all, discouraging over-participation by the few, ensuring that discussion draws to a timely and decisive conclusion. And there is a need for leadership after the meeting: follow up, holding people accountable for assigned tasks, communicating with impacted people and ministries, evaluating decisions, keeping an eye on the horizon for new opportunities or challenges (to name just a few!).

I’ve know elder groups who believed they could do all this through some sort of loose consensus—without resorting to any formal leadership role at all.  “We’ll just figure this out as we go along.” These elders were fooling themselves. And the results were awful.

Most elder groups, however, admit the need for some kind of leadership role among themselves. But they effectively undercut that role with their egalitarian ideals—ignoring the reality that few of their number are actually gifted and skilled to provide this kind of leadership, and (as a result) asking people who have neither the time, talent, or temperament to assume this leading role on a regular basis. But it gets worse. Not only do we habitually have the wrong people doing this important job; we make sure that no one person (wrong or right!) has a chance to do the job for long enough to be effective. We keep the tenure of “chairman” so abbreviated, there is no possibility of developing momentum, a working rhythm, and good meeting habits. Even when someone suited to the task fills this role, he doesn’t have enough time to shape an effective group process. “Oops! It’s the end of the month! Let’s see who’s up next in the rotation!”

Think of what it would mean for our meetings if:

1. we identified the elder best suited to lead the group effectively, an elder of character and kingdom consciousness …
2. we invited and gave permission to that elder to do the leadership work essential to the group’s effective functioning, and …
3. we then allowed his leadership a long enough time-frame for him (and us) to hit a stride, develop a rhythm, and fall into some habits encouraging effectiveness.

Characteristics of a good chairman

Effective leadership depends on charactered and spiritually-gifted leaders. Deciding to appoint and empower a ‘leader of the leaders’ is a good idea, but only if the elder group is able to identify the right leader.

As you consider your fellow elders and discuss who God might be calling to play this leadership role, there are a few characteristics that should shape your deliberations:

1. This person should be someone who has the gift of “administration” (or—in some translations—the gift of “leadership.” See Romans 12:8). Whatever this gift involves, surely it permits an elder to “direct the affairs of the church well” (1Ti 5:17) and to “manage God’s household” (Tit 1:7).
2. The right person would be spiritually mature and experienced. His leadership would be permeated by a deep sense of the purposes of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit and the mission of God’s people.
3. He would be strong enough (in personality, vision, and maturity) to facilitate an effective meeting even when diverse and strongly held opinions are voiced.
4. He should be thoroughly familiar with the history of the church and with the leadership history of the elders: past decisions, policies, church governance documents, etc.. He should know the vision and mission of the church by heart and be passionately committed to pursuing that vision.
5. He should be able to draw out responses from everyone at the table in a way that organically leads to consensus among the participants … or makes clear the fundamental divide that faces the group.
6. He should be savvy enough to know when it is time for elders to stop discussing and make a decision. He should know when a decision is arrived at by consensus or when a formal vote is required. He should also be wise enough not to force a decision but to understand the importance of “tabling” an item for later prayer, discussion, and resolution.
7. He should be able to follow up on decisions, communicate with people and ministries who are impacted by those decisions, and hold people accountable for responsibilities delegated to them by the elders.
8. This person must be able to avoid favoritism, opinionated stances, and partiality in any form. He must be willing to treat his fellow elders with absolute respect and fairness. He must consider himself the servant of the elders (in particular) and the church (in general).
9. He should be willing to resist an elder (or any other party) who may be pushing a personal agenda or bias. Just as he himself avoids partiality and dogmatism, so he is committed to protecting his fellow elders and their decision-making process from the partiality and dogmatism of others.
10. He should be a person who values the team as a functioning unit, believes in their collective wisdom above his own, and refuses to exercise undue influence in the decision-making process.
11. He should be willing and able to devote the time required (in and out of meetings) to meet his leadership responsibilities effectively.

Finding such a leader, entrusting him with spiritual authority, empowering him to lead the rest of the elder group, submitting to and supporting his leadership as an elder group, and giving him enough time in this leadership role to encourage good meeting habits, is challenging. There will be dangers and difficulties involved.

But the alternative is even more difficult and dangerous. The absence of leadership is every bit as harmful as the abuse of leadership. But whereas allowing someone to exercise strong leadership may result in an abuse of power, not allowing someone to lead will certainly result in confused, ambiguous, and meandering leadership—if something “confused, ambiguous, and meandering” can be called leadership at all.

Most elders I know get stuck on occasion in the tension between the singular and the plural.

So much of the important work of a shepherd is done by the individual elder: comforting, counseling, mentoring, teaching, investing in the lives of others, praying, seeking God’s will.

And yet there is a necessary plural component to the work of shepherds. Shepherds run in packs! And some of their work must be done together, as a team: overseeing, visioning, making decisions affecting the church as a whole, taking disciplinary actions, etc.

A Theology of Group Leadership

In the New Testament, church leadership seems to take two distinct forms.

When churches were forming in the first century, there was usually a singular leader (the “missionary”) who taught, converted, trained, and matured an initial generation of disciples. Think of Philip’s work in Samaria, or Barnabas in Antioch, or Paul in Philippi and Corinth and Thessalonike.[1] (Nor was this just apostolic leadership, by the way—a leadership exception granted only to those who belonged to Jesus’ inner circle. Timothy seems to exercise this kind of leadership for the church in Ephesus as does Titus in Crete and Silas in the Macedonian churches.)

In time, however, solitary leadership gave way to group leadership, the missionary moving on, leaving behind a clutch of elders appointed to “oversee” the church. You can see this transition from singular to plural leadership evidenced in Paul’s appointment of elders for the churches of Asia Minor (Ac 14:23) and in his instructions to Timothy and Titus that the time had come for the appointment of elders in their respective churches.

Elders were intended to have a wider ministry than the important but personal work of mentoring, counseling, and maturing. In the New Testament, it is evident that elders as a group had a leadership role to play in their churches. They laid hands on budding ministers[2] and gave their collective blessing to mission efforts.[3] They met to discuss and decide matters important to the health and growth of the church.[4] They received and distributed funds donated for the ministries of the church.[5] They welcomed delegations from other churches (being viewed as authoritative arbiters of controversial issues), heard and responded to reports, made decisions and wrote letters addressing questions of theology and policy.[6]

This leadership role for elders is underscored in the New Testament by the descriptions given of the work of elders. In addition to the personal pastoral role of caring for individual sheep, there was a collective pastoral role involving the care of the flock as a whole. Elders are called “overseers” of the church,[7] a role and responsibility granted by “the Holy Spirit.”[8] They “manage God’s household” and “direct the affairs of the church.”[9] As “shepherds of the church,” they “watch over the flock” and “guard” against attacks on the body of believers.[10] Singly and together, they have a duty to promote and protect the core doctrines of the church.[11] As Peter tells his fellow elders, the church is “under your care.”[12]

While the New Testament never uses the word “eldership,” it clearly teaches that elders have a group function, that their leadership flows out of their mutual calling and conjoined work. It was the Jerusalem elders (together with the Apostles) who determined a policy about Gentiles that would shape the future witness and growth of the world-wide church. It was the Ephesian elders, called together by Paul, who were admonished—in their collective capacity—to “keep watch.”[13] When Paul reminds Timothy of a leadership action taken by the elders as a whole (they “laid their hands on you” and conferred Timothy’s ministry gifts), he uses a word meaning “body of elders” or “elders as a group” and implies that there are things elders do together that transcend what they can do singly.[14]

In a word, elders in the New Testament church met. And when they did, important leadership functions flowed from their time together.

Were there times when New Testament shepherds moved independently among the flock to offer care and encouragement and training to individual sheep? Certainly. But there were also times when New Testament shepherds gathered at the gate of the sheep pen to discuss the health of the flock and the pastures of tomorrow and the challenges of coming winter.

If churches of Christ experience problems with elder-leadership, it is not because such leadership is illegitimate or because “real leadership can’t happen by committee.” There is simply too much evidence in Scripture that (at least in the first century) church leadership was shared leadership. Rather, I would suggest that our difficulties arise from two related issues:

1. We have allowed elder-leadership to become exclusive, limiting legitimate leadership—authoritative leadership—to elders alone. As a future article will argue, there are other voices required at the leadership table if effective church leadership is to emerge.
2. The second issue bearing on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of communal leadership in our churches, however, is the simple fact that we don’t practice the necessary habits that make group leadership function. We don’t develop the attitudes and skills that allow a group of elders to lead with vigor and vision.

Skills for Shepherding

There are two distinct skill sets required for effective eldering—one skill set for the singular work of a shepherd and one for the plural work of shepherds. They are related to each other. And, in some sense, they are dependent on each other. But they are not the same.

Considerable time and ink have been invested in thinking about the personal qualities that equip someone to serve as a shepherd: character, compassion, conviction, etc..[15] These individual attributes and competencies are necessary to be an effective shepherd (singular).

But there is also a skill set—a distinct skill set—that equips elders to serve together, as a group, in cooperative leadership: skills related to focus, efficiency, big-picture-perspectives, decision-making, follow-up, accountability, conflict-management, group-discernment, and deference to the greater wisdom of the group (to name but a few). These group competencies are necessary to being effective as a team of leaders.

And it is precisely these group competencies we too often lack. We don’t know what they are. We don’t appreciate how critical they are to effective elder functioning. And, as a consequence, we don’t practice these competencies intentionally, deliberately, and vigilantly.

The result is elders’ meetings that limp and meander and dissolve in a fog of spiritual uncertainty. In these trying times, those are the kinds of elders’ meetings we (and our churches) can no longer afford.

An Observation

Have you noticed that, just as the singular and plural skill sets we’ve been talking about are distinct yet related, so also the singular and plural effectiveness of elders is related—and intimately dependent on the other.

When shepherds do not function well singly (getting on with their personal pastoral work), that impacts the manner in which they function together. When these ineffective elders gather as a group, they start focusing on peripheral matters … lose a sense of urgency about their flock … are inordinately influenced by a minority of vocal members … fail to manage conflict … start thinking the meetings are the work, etc. We can’t do the work of shepherds when frustrated about the way we (personally) are failing to shepherd.

The converse is also true. When shepherds do not function well in concert, the functioning of individual shepherds is almost always impacted. We lose our pastoral touch. We find it difficult to feel confidence God is working through our individual shepherding when we lack confidence he is working through our group. Many of us find it difficult to function as a shepherd when we get frustrated about the way we function (or fail to do so) as shepherds.

Which means that elders don’t have the luxury of giving up on the way they meet, abandoning hope in finding collective effectiveness, and retreating into their individual role of caring for God’s people. Not if the church is to be healthy and equipped … not if we want the Body as a whole to thrive.

Fortunately, each set of skills (the singular and the plural) can be developed and honed. Shepherds can learn to function more effectively in both the personal and the collective spheres. This series of articles addresses the work of elders as a group—how they meet. Can elders become more effective in doing their collaborative work? Absolutely. Can they make their meetings more intentional, goal-oriented, kingdom-honoring, life-changing, and soul-satisfying? Without question.

I believe in the importance of effective elder leadership. I believe such leadership requires meeting together confidently and competently. And I believe that powerful, visionary, Spirit-led elders’ meetings are possible and—in fact—long overdue.

Do you?

[1] Certainly there were “missionary teams” in the New Testament (like Paul and Barnabas, or Paul and Timothy and Silas). But even in these cases there was usually a clear leader who shouldered most of the teaching and directional responsibility. Consider Luke’s name order when mentioning Barnabas and Saul (Ac 11:26, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7)  so long as Barnabas seems to be the primary leader … and then his reversing of that order (Paul and Barnabas—Ac 13:42, 43, 46, 50; 14:1, 3, 20, 23, 35, 36) once Paul took up the mantle of leadership. And Paul was clearly leading the churches he founded with Timothy, Silas, and Luke.

[2] 1Ti 4:14

[3] See Ac 13:1 (although elders are not specifically mentioned in this passage); Ac 15:6; 21:18ff

[4] Ac 15:2, 4, 6; 16:4; 20:17ff

[5] Ac 11:30

[6] Ac 15:4, 22-23

[7] Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:1, 2; Tit 1:7

[8] Ac 20:28

[9] Tit 1:7; 1Ti 5:17

[10] Ac 20:28, 31; 1Pe 5:2;

[11] Ac 20:30; Tit 1:9

[12] 1Pe 5:2

[13] Indeed, Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders collectively to guard against those of their own number who, in their individual capacity as shepherds, would “draw away disciples” for personal purposes. (See Ac 20:30)

[14] 1Ti 4:14

[15] Possessing a quality or attribute does not necessarily ensure that individual elders have the skills to shepherd. Many shepherds lack the kind of interpersonal, relational skills that contribute to effective shepherding: knowing how to mentor others, for example; practicing the habits that grow people into Christ’s image; being competent to recognize and encourage spiritual gifts. We need to keep encouraging the development of such skills in people who are charactered for shepherding but not always competent to shepherd.

I love their charactered ways and pastoral hearts and concern for the Kingdom. I love their commitment to Christ and His church. I love the way they give themselves to the people God has placed under their care.

I love elders.

It’s elders’ meetings I find difficult.

As someone who has attended his fair share of elders’ meetings (and seen his fair share of ‘meeting dysfunction’), I have good reason to harbor serious reservations about the ways elders conduct themselves when they gather around the conference table.

I’ve endured meetings that would never end … meetings squandered on matters that didn’t matter … meetings that meandered from one topic to another without any apparent method to the madness … meetings that were short on prayer and long on hand-wringing … meetings that suffered from the worst excesses of “group think” and poor assumptions and bad information … meetings that ended in the whimper of inconclusiveness … meetings that left everyone in the room frustrated, agitated, and irritated.

Take elders (who individually are compassionate, wise, spiritual, visionary, and Christ-like) and let them herd … and something perplexing happens. The sum of the whole doesn’t add up to the spiritual worth of each part. There is (too often) a diminishment of effectiveness rather than an augmentation of it.

“Why?” is the question that haunts me. You might expect that elders meetings would function like nuclear fission—pack enough high-spirit, high-energy disciples into the same room and something explosive should happen. Instead, sad experience teaches us that, when elders come together, they are more likely to sputter than reach critical mass.

This below-expectations-reality has led some churches, many ministers, and not-a-few shepherds to abandon all hope that a group of elders could ever function as an effective decision-making, vision-casting, direction-setting, momentum-producing core of the church. You’ve heard the pronouncements:

1. “Let shepherds care for sheep, but keep them out of conference rooms!”
2. “We need a staff-driven leadership model, not a committee of part-time amateurs!”
3. Question: “How many elders does it take to change a light bulb?” Answer: “Change‽”

As you will discover (if you continue to read this series of blogs), I’m in heated agreement with many of these sentiments. Yes, the first priority of shepherds should be the care and feeding of sheep, not meetings. Yes, ministry staff must be given a significant place at the leadership table. And, yes, many elderships struggle with managing change and the discomfort/conflict it often engenders.

That said, I suspect the primary problem has less to do with the legitimacy of elder leadership, or some kind of “inherent inefficacy” with elderships per se, and more to do with a widespread lack of appreciation for how elders should function as a group. If there really is such a thing as “elder leadership” for churches, it can only be leadership by a plurality of shepherds called by God to “manage God’s household” (Titus 1:7). The bottom line is that, if shepherds are going to lead, they have to meet. They need time together to pray, dream, discuss, seek, wrestle, develop consensus, hear opposing viewpoints, weigh consequences, make decisions, and plan.

But “time together” is not synonymous with “time well spent.” Just because elders gather regularly around a conference table with the desire to provide leadership for the church doesn’t mean that leadership actually results … at least, not effective leadership.

And therein lies the problem. Let me state it boldly: many elders don’t know how to meet. They don’t understand the necessary context for effective meetings … they don’t cultivate the group dynamics that result in rewarding meetings … they don’t value their meetings sufficiently or envision what God could be doing through their time together … and they lack the skills required to meet well.

Perhaps you think I’m being overly critical. Maybe your experience of elders’ meetings is distinctly different from mine. It could be that you are quite pleased with the efficiency and productivity of the elders’ meetings you attend. If so, wonderful! This series of articles is—obviously—not for you.

But if my experience has been yours … if you are convinced that elders could (and should) lead in more vigorous and visionary ways … if you agree that, for the most part, elders do not practice good meeting habits, I encourage you to read the following series.

I’ll begin with an introductory handful of articles that will set a context for effective elder leadership: articles on vision, relationship, attitude, and (a little) theology. Then I’ll outline “Ten Keys to Effective Elders’ Meetings”—including the importance of someone leading the leaders, the importance of ‘meeting disciplines,’ and the power of strategic prayer.

I’ll say it again: I love elders.

But sometimes “love” means saying: “Sorry. We can do better. And here are few suggestions, offered in love and respect, to help us become more effective leaders.”