Interim Ministry Partners

May 11, 2013

Interim Ministry Partners—a group of ministers helping churches build healthier and more effective futures—officially began serving congregations this Spring. Tim Woodroof, Managing Partner, announced the formation of IMP and spoke to us about the difference this ministry makes for churches.

“Interim Ministry is a highly valued and widely used service in other denominational settings,” Woodroof said. “When a minister leaves a congregation, when a church finds itself in need of new pulpit leadership, there is a unique opportunity available to the church … and a unique skill set that allows churches to not only transition smoothly but to experience transformation.”

In Churches of Christ, the transition process is often self-managed, notes Woodroof. “Standard procedure is for elders to set up a preaching rotation with members who have some pulpit skills, form a search committee, and hope everyone will be patient in the meantime. They turn to internal resources to hold things together and maintain the status quo.”

“And that’s a missed opportunity,” says Mark Frost, one of the four founders of IMP. “Status quo isn’t the point. Churches transitioning to new pulpit leadership have a wonderful chance to evaluate themselves, listen for God’s leading, and commit to greater impact for the kingdom.” Frost insists that churches focused on maintenance or preservation during the interim season are focused on the wrong things. “You don’t circle the wagons and hang on during a transition. You aggressively build a foundation for a new and more effective future.”

Greg Anderson, another IMP founder, emphasizes that is the reason why specialized and experienced help is so important during transitions. “Many people think of an ‘interim minister’ as someone who preaches on Sundays while the church looks for a new minister. But effective interim work involves so much more than Sunday sermons. A good interim minister consults with the leadership of the church, offers a network of resources for finding a new minister, and leads the search process itself.” According to Anderson, someone who is very familiar with churches in transition can help churches avoid many of the pitfalls and experience many of the blessings of an interim season.

Phil Ware agrees. The final founding member of IMP, Ware knows personally about ministerial transitions. “I’m transitioning right now,” Ware says. “I’m moving out of a pulpit role into a missions-oversight role. The church I’ve preached at for the last nine years is looking for someone else to fill that role. It’s not easy. People have lots of questions. They worry about the future. They wonder whether the minister-change signals a change of mindset and direction. Managing people’s fears, helping a church build a bridge to the future, is not an easy task. Yet when led effectively, the interim time can be a bridge from a scary transition into a future-defining transformation.”

The four partners who make up Interim Ministry Partners have over one hundred years of combined preaching experience. They have led dozens of churches through the process of transition. They are convinced that, in the life-cycle of a congregation, the transition to a new minister represents one of the most important and productive periods in a church’s existence.

“Churches tend to focus on finding the right minister,” Woodroof explains. “What they should really focus on, however, is becoming the right church. Churches that know who they are, where God is calling them, what gifts and resources they have, where they want to be in five years, who they want to reach—those churches are in a far better position to find the “right” minister. As interim minister, our job is to help each church listen to God and know itself … and then to find a “charactered,” competent, and compatible minister to partner with them for the future.”

If you would like more information on interim ministry and Interim Ministry Partners, visit their website: www.interimministrypartners.com.

Acknowledging the different leadership roles God has ordained for the church is good. Recognizing the people God has called to fill those particular roles is better. But distinguishing between the various roles and understanding how God has gifted different people to lead in different ways is best of all.

Gifting and Leadership

God never calls someone to leadership responsibilities without equipping the one called. To Moses, he gave signs and words and a spokesman. To the prophets, he gave clear and detailed messages. To Peter, he gave courage and eloquence and an extra measure of the Spirit.

We should anticipate and expect that those who are called to function as leaders in the church today will be equipped with the necessary spiritual gifts and competencies to lead effectively.[1] We should also expect that the leadership gifts given to the church will be diverse.

The alternative polity model I am proposing suggests four different leadership roles comprised of differently gifted individuals focused on different aspects of the church’s work:

1. “Shepherds” are the relational heart of the church. They nurture and mature and mentor God’s people.
2. “Managers” are the structural backbone of the church. They ensure that the ministries and resources of the church are coordinated, organized, and focused.
3. “Teachers” are the knowledgeable tendons of the church, connecting the church’s members and ministries to the church’s central message.
4. The “minister” is the prophetic voice of the church, ensuring that the church remembers its mission and expands its reach.

Three of the identified leadership roles involve “elders.” I recognize three distinct kinds of elders because the New Testament does so. When the Bible refers to specific responsibilities and skill sets for “elders,” it often references three clusters by using three different titles: shepherd (poimhn), teacher (didaskaloV), and manager/overseer (episkopoV).[2] One of the identified leadership roles includes “minister” because I believe God intends and gifts evangelists to have a significant place at the leadership table.[3]

Let’s dig a little deeper into each of these roles.

Shepherds

Shepherding leadership cultivates charactered lives and intimate relationships within the body of Christ. Shepherds invest themselves in members of the body. They “know the sheep and the sheep know them,” and they use this knowledge to move members towards godliness. Think John.

Shepherds are equipped to provide spiritual care. They are encouragers, empathizers, counselors, listeners, comforters. They visit the sick and the hurting. They walk around in the messiness of sinful lives.

While shepherds can and should respond to changing circumstances, challenges, and crises in the lives of members, their prime work focuses on spiritual formation. They nurture people into maturity. They intentionally form mentoring relationships with members that allow them to develop others. They are constantly looking for opportunities to help members grow.

And while shepherds enjoy focusing on individual sheep, they are also concerned with the church community. They value unity, harmony, peace, and love. They are peacemakers. They work to create a community where members love each other as Christ has loved them.

There is a “dark side” to shepherding leadership. Shepherds tend to dislike risk and be suspicious of change. They don’t want to rock the boat or make members uncomfortable. The feelings and opinions of the flock, rather than theological or missional imperatives, tend to drive their decision-making. They are inclined to a kind of navel-gazing that does not pay attention to the world outside. They would rather avoid, deny, and (if all else fails) suppress conflict.

Managers

Managing leadership understands the value of cultivating processes within the body of Christ. Managers invest themselves in the systems of the church. They know how to encourage the church to be effective, efficient, disciplined, and focused. Think Jethro, the Apostles during the early days of the church, and Paul in his writings.

Managers are equipped to organize and coordinate the work of God’s people. They are recruiters, analysts, motivators, facilitators, talent-spotters, administrators, evaluators, leaders. They understand how groups function (or fail). They appreciate the power of synergy. They know the importance of delegation.

The prime work of managers focuses on ministries. They are committed to help the church function effectively so it can do its kingdom business. They are able to distinguish between essential and peripheral projects, effective and unproductive ministries, efficient and wasteful processes, skilled and incompetent leaders.

Managers are most concerned with the church’s systems and processes: staff, ministry coordination and oversight, committees, policies, leadership structures, finances, church calendar, and long-range planning. They do not value systems and processes in and of themselves (they are not wonks!). Rather, they so value the purposes God is pursuing through his church that they want to see ministry done effectively, synergistically, and with maximal impact. They are committed not only to doing the right things but also to doing things right. They work to create a community where every member uses his or her gifts to benefit the body and the world in which we live.

There is a “dark side” to managing leadership. Managers tend to be controlling, to be overly detailed, and to micro-manage. They can value fine-tuned systems above spiritual development, shepherding, and teaching. If they are not careful, managers can be dismissive those who do not appreciate the power of organization and coordination. Concerns about efficiency or effectiveness can lead managers to neglect the feelings of others and show impatience with the need for ministries and ministers to mature. They can be driven by pragmatic concerns rather than theological principles.

Teachers

Teaching leadership fosters a kingdom perspective and world-view within the body of Christ. Teachers are concerned to help people think in Christ-like ways, to value heavenly things, to understand Scripture, and to be familiar with the theological principles that guide our lives. They know the Faith and have the skills to help others know it. Think Ezra, Hezekiah, Barnabas, and the writer of Hebrews.

Teachers are equipped to “keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience” (1Ti 3:9) and to “entrust” those truths to “reliable people” (2Ti 2:2). They are readers, thinkers, students, conversationalists, speakers, writers, practitioners, disciple-makers. Teachers are the “rabbis” of today’s church.

Teachers’ prime work focuses on helping fellow Christians integrating faith and life. They are not content to simply propagate knowledge; teachers strive to impart wisdom. Theirs is not solely an academic approach; teachers are very concerned with the practice of truth in real life. They see themselves, the church, and the world from God’s vantage point and communicate that perspective to others. They live out principled commitments in their personal lives and encourage others to do the same. They encourage Christians to know what God wants and to live obediently to him. They use a mix of modeling, public teaching, and personal mentoring to encourage a hunger for holiness in others.

But teachers also have a responsibility to the church as a whole. They function to help the church understand its mission and ensure that the church operates according to biblical principles. They help the church understand the “big rocks” of the kingdom and live out of those spiritual priorities. How should the church react to the problems of divorce or racism, the rampant materialism of our culture, the need to engage a secular society, or the opportunity to dialogue with Muslims? Teachers help the church navigate through such matters using a biblical compass.

Teachers are most concerned with the church’s beliefs. They value the central truths of “one body and one Spirit … one hope … one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God” (Eph 4:4-6). They work to create a community where members are unified over essentials, accepting about disputable matters, and loving in all things as an expression of the greatest truth.

There is a “dark side” to teaching leadership. Teachers can be disputatious and strident—doctrine matters so much to them it can sometimes matter too much. They can become rigid in their beliefs and insist on a similar rigidity in the church. Because teachers are often intelligent, well-read, and well-spoken, they can be overbearing and dismissive of less “thoughtful” people. If “knowledge” does not mature into “wisdom,” teachers can be didactic, theoretical, and generally insufferable.

Minister

Ministerial leadership cultivates mission and direction in the body of Christ. Ministers cast vision, motivate movement towards congregational goals, and equip members to contribute to the congregation’s momentum. They feel strongly the call of God to lead the church as a whole to the Promised Land. Think Moses, David, Paul.

Ministers are equipped to provide visible, public, and motivational leadership. They are encouragers, motivators, prophets, cheerleaders, entrepreneurs, visionaries. They help members understand the call of God on their individual lives and on the church as a whole. They keep the church focused on, valuing, and moving towards the “main thing.”

Ministers’ prime work focuses on getting and keeping the church on track with the purposes of God. They hold the church’s compass and keep the church true to its course. They protect against diversions and distractions and detours. They set the congregation’s pace and measure the congregation’s progress by godly mile-markers. Though ministers are concerned with stragglers and do not want to leave anyone behind, their proper place is at the vanguard, continually leading the way into new territory.

Ministers lead through public teaching and preaching; identifying, empowering, and mentoring other congregational leaders; modeling a personal commitment to the purposes of God; and working with shepherds/teachers/managers to establish, plan for, structure around, and focus on the goals God has for the church in general and the local congregation specifically.

There is a “dark side” to ministerial leadership. Ministers tend to value mission over people, to become so task-oriented that members suffer. They can be driven and fail to recognize the need for pacing and rest (for themselves and for others).  They can overestimate a congregation’s capacity for work, risk, and change. They can be impatient with members who slow the church down or question the church’s direction. They can grow discouraged (even depressed!) when the journey gets difficult and progress is slow.

Conclusion:

Lacking an effective theology of spiritual gifts, Churches of Christ have been vague about the role those gifts play in our congregations—particularly leadership gifts. Does the Spirit still gift people to lead God’s church or are leadership gifts now synonymous with natural competencies, developed skills, and accumulated experiences? Do different kinds of leaders have different kinds of gifts? Or should we expect every leader to have them all?

The idea that church leaders are “gifted” by God, that he continues to prepare people for his own good purposes, and that equipping for leadership can only result from the Spirit’s work is (again) pragmatically foreign to our movement—we don’t often use that kind of language or think in those terms. So too is the notion that certain gift-sets tend to cluster together … that God makes leaders with particular skills and sensibilities that uniquely equip them to lead in certain ways … that no one leader is equipped with every leadership gift … that one set of gifts make it difficult for leaders to appreciate (much less practice!) other sets.

However (as with a theology of calling), these notions are appealing to us precisely because—knowing and trusting Scripture as we do—they seem so biblically valid.

Any alternative polity model that hopes to address the fundamental issues of church leadership must affirm a biblical theology of calling. Throughout Scripture, particular people are called to leadership roles at particular times and for particular situations. The instances of this are too numerous to mention here. [See http://timwoodroof.com/tims-writings/archives/a-theology-of-calling/examples-of-calling-in-the-ot/ and following articles for specific examples.] If God is still active in kingdom business, if the Spirit still moves in our lives and in the church, and if Christ still bestows leadership gifts on his people, then a theology of calling is required to understand legitimate church governance.

Lacking an effective theology of calling, Churches of Christ have been vague about the sources of spiritual authority in the leadership of congregations. Does authority derive from the “consent of the governed”—a very American and democratized view of leadership (but not necessarily a biblical one)? Does it grow out of a certain competency and experience set—leadership legitimized by superior skills and knowledge and proven leadership track record? Or (as we often articulate) does authority spring from basing our leadership model on some sort of New Testament pattern—get the pattern right and God-given-authority necessarily follows?

The proposed alternative model affirms that church leaders are “called” by God, that he places his hand on certain people for his own good purposes, and that spiritual leadership can only result from the Spirit’s moving. Such notions are foreign to our movement—we don’t often use that kind of language or think in those terms. However (and in contrast), these notions are appealing to us precisely because—knowing and trusting Scripture as we do—they seem so biblically valid.

In the first century, God established certain leadership roles for his church. We can (and do) differ over which of those roles are still relevant for the church today. (Apostles? Prophets?)[1] Most of those who read my writings would at least recognize the continuing roles of “elder” and “evangelist” for some level of leadership in the modern church.

It is important for us to acknowledge that God established these roles. They are not arbitrary or accidental. They did not evolve with the growth and development of the church. They were present at the formation of the church, a part of the church’s structure from its earliest days.

It is not enough, however, for us to acknowledge God’s authorship of the role. Another step—recognizing God’s calling of individuals to fill those roles—is required. In the New Testament, specific people were called/appointed/chosen/authorized by Christ and his Spirit for leadership roles in the church. Personal spiritual authority arose not just because someone filled a leadership position but also (and more importantly) because that person—as an individual—was called by Christ and equipped for his leadership work.

A Leadership Role for Elders

The New Testament evidence of such a calling for elders is substantial. First, of course, is that pivotal passage on church leadership in Ephesians 4:7-15 where Paul addresses both the role of elders generally and the particular people whom Christ has called into that role.

The passage opens by addressing the individual:

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. (Eph 4:7—NIV)

“Each one of” the Ephesian Christians (according to Paul) had a “grace” given by Christ, apportioned according to his own wisdom and design. The “grace” differed from person to person (a variety of spiritual gifts, for instance, or diverse ministries—ideas that are echoed in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12). But at least some of those “graces” involved a call to leadership. The continuing march of Paul’s argument makes it clear that Paul was thinking about these “graces” in terms of leadership, for that is the subject he addresses next:

Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.  (NLT)

Before the gospel was ever preached at Ephesus, God had established the role of pastor within the governance of his church. As Paul wrote his Ephesian epistle, Christ was raising up pastors within the Ephesian church, gifting individuals with the “grace” to serve in such a way. When the letter was read before the congregation, Paul taught that Christ gave the Ephesian church the people he had so “graced” (vs 11). Among the most important of those gifts were people who had been called to the leadership role of “pastor.”

In another passages—Acts 20:17ff —Paul met the elders of the Ephesian church in Miletus. He charged them to “feed and shepherd God’s flock—his church, purchased with his own blood—over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders” (Ac 20:28—NLT). Notice that there were elders functioning in the Ephesus church. They had an important leadership role to play in the congregation: feeding, caring for, watching over.

But Paul made this very personal: the Holy Spirit has appointed you. Paul didn’t speak to a role created by the Holy Spirit but to the people the Spirit appointed to that role. Without doubt, Paul himself had selected these men for service, ordained them as leaders, and laid hands on them to invoke God’s blessing (as he did in churches throughout Asia Minor—Ac 14:23). Yet Paul still recognized that the Holy Spirit was the moving force behind these appointments and that these particular men had a divine calling on their lives and ministry.

When Peter addressed elders in his first epistle (1Pe 5:1ff), he used language about the work of elders that was richly personal. He spoke to elders about the “flock that is under your care,” urging them to “watch over [the church] … as God wants you to,” and referred to church members as “those entrusted to” these elders. Perhaps Peter was merely enumerating responsibilities that were expected of anyone who filled the role of an elder. But if Peter assumed a very personal calling by Christ to these individuals, the passage takes on special meaning. The flock was “under your care” not because these elders held a “position” but because Christ had called them (individually) to leadership and then given them (collectively) to the church as a blessing. God was vitally interested in how they “watch over” the church not simply because the church needed watching but because God had raised up these individuals and called them to watch in godly ways. Members had been “entrusted” to these men because of who they were and what God had been doing in their lives, not because they had been elected to a church office.

Churches of Christ appreciate the legitimacy of the “elder” role as something God-breathed. Our congregations are largely governed by men appointed to do the work of elders. But because we lack a clear theology of calling and recognize no mechanism by which God specifically calls particular people to leadership roles, we often assign the responsibilities of leadership without conveying the necessary authority. The work of elders requires a level of spiritual authority to accomplish effectively. Only the sense that “Christ has appointed me for this work” can give elders the confidence to serve boldly. And only the sense that “Christ has appointed him for this work” can persuade a congregation to permit elders to so serve.

Elders lead churches not because of congregational vote or a track record of business acumen or because they mirror some 1^st Century pattern but because of the call of Christ on their lives. The Spirit appoints elders (Ac 20:28), whatever mechanism we utilize to recognize that appointing. This personal appointment legitimizes pastoral work and conveys spiritual authority. The “position” simply acknowledges the calling and grants authority to do the work. In the absence of personal and profound calling, there is no legitimacy to the role of elder.

A Leadership Role for Evangelists

The same God who created the elder role also created the role of evangelist. The same Christ who gifted elders to the church also gifted evangelists. That churches in our fellowship would be so adamant about recognizing the leadership authority of one and so reticent to recognize the leadership authority of the other is perplexing.[2]

Ephesians 4 speaks to the calling of “evangelists.” Individuals were gifted with the “grace” of leading the church in different ways (Eph 4:7). And, in turn, the church was gifted with those whom God called to lead (Eph 4:11). Among those leaders were “evangelists.” If we take this passage seriously, it suggests that evangelistic authority derives not from seminary degrees or personal charisma or a church’s hiring practices but from Christ himself.

Although a man named Philip was known as an “evangelist” (Ac 21:8), preaching and baptizing and establishing churches throughout Samaria (Ac 8:4ff), it is the other New Testament figure specifically called an “evangelist”—Timothy—who gives us the most detailed insight into how evangelists functioned and how they were called to serve.

In his letters to the young protégé, Paul charged Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” (2Ti 4:5). Just as Paul was appointed by Christ to his apostolic and teaching ministry (1Ti 1:12; 2Ti 1:11), so he understood that Timothy was called and appointed. Timothy may not have had a calling experience quite as dramatic as Paul’s (few have!), but he could point to a specific series of events in his past when he was set apart for the work of an evangelist. Paul reminded Timothy of the “prophecies once made of you” (1Ti 1:18), of the “gift … given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you” (1Ti 4:14), and of “the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands” (2Ti 1:6). This “gift”—in a manner similar to the use of the word in Ephesians 4:7 and 11—is not a reference to spiritual abilities but to Timothy’s appointment to the ministry of an evangelist.

This calling context helps us to understand Paul’s charges to Timothy: “guard what has been entrusted to your care” (1Ti 6:20), “guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you” (2Ti 1:14), and “discharge all the duties of your ministry” (2Ti 4:5). What was “entrusted” to Timothy was the ministry God had given him. The “good deposit” was more than the doctrines he was to protect; it was the ministry that authorized Timothy to preach and teach and defend those doctrines. The “duties” Timothy was to discharge flowed from his wider calling to ministry and involved the range of work expected of an evangelist.

The spiritual authority that derived from this calling was clearly on a par with (indeed, often overlapped) the authority given to elders. Timothy was authorized to identify and appoint elders, protect doctrinal purity, order the worship of the Ephesian church, model godly behavior, preach and teach, read Scripture in the assemblies, ensure that widows were cared for by the church, honor elders who served well and censure elders who sinned, lay hands upon people (ordaining? commissioning?), and command church members about matters such as money. (Paul tells Timothy to “command” others four times in 1 Timothy!)

Since Timothy was told to appoint elders for the Ephesian church in 1 Timothy 3, it could perhaps be argued that the leadership authority implied for Timothy in that first letter was a special case, an extraordinary measure, until elders began to function in Ephesus.[3] However, by the time 2 Timothy was written, Paul had met with the Ephesian elders in Miletus (Ac 20) and the role of elders was well established in the church of Asia Minor.  Yet Paul’s second letter to his protégé still attests to a prominent leadership role for Timothy: the “gift of God” within Timothy that he is urged to enhance, Paul’s laying hands on Timothy, the fact that God’s Spirit “does not make us timid, but gives us power”; the need for Timothy to guard the faith of the church, to mentor others, to suffer when required; Timothy’s responsibility to remind God’s people, instruct and warn them, and mark false teachers; Timothy’s “duty” to preach, correct, rebuke, encourage, and “discharge all the duties” of an evangelist.

If there remains an “evangelist” role in the modern church, if Christ continues to call people to the work of an evangelist and to gift the church with their leadership abilities, acknowledging evangelistic authority is not an attempt to subvert elder-leadership but to balance it with other leadership roles Christ himself has ordained. Honoring the leadership authority of evangelists is, in that case, an act of faithfulness, not innovation or pragmatic accommodation.

I believe that ministers—like elders—are called by Christ to lead churches. The relationship that exists between a church and its minister is not primarily a matter of resumes, educational background, and ministry experience. Nor is it (contrary to the assumptions of our customary search process) a result of “best hiring practices.” It is rooted, rather, in Christ’s call to ministry in the lives of certain people, his equipping and preparation of those people to accomplish certain tasks on behalf of his church, and his “arrangement” of the body for effective service (see Ro 1:1; 1Cor 12:27-28; 1Ti 4:13; 2Ti 4:5).

Thus, both elders and ministers should have a seat at the leadership table of the local church. Both roles should be given “voting” authority in the decisions and activities of a congregation. And both should be seen as equally responsible and equally accountable for the effective functioning of the church.

Like skinning cats, working with church polity models tends to be a messy business (lots of hissing and claws). Church history suggests that different models have been employed over time, though never without attendant limitations and pain. It is good news (on the one hand) that there is more than one way to address church governance. It is distressing to realize (on the other) that there is no “perfect” way.

The polity model proposed below is one way to skin the cat. It is probably not the best way. It is certainly not a perfect way. What I like about this model, however, is that it draws from the dynamics of leadership implied in Ephesians 4:11ff and lived out in the leadership experience of the early church. Let me do a quick overview of the model before proceeding to a detailed analysis.

Envisioned here is a governance model for the local church that shares leadership authority across four different groups: shepherding elders, teaching elders, managing elders, and the senior (or pulpit) minister.

Frankly, this proposed model does not differ radically from the traditional model frequently employed among Churches of Christ. It still places heavy emphasis on elder leadership. (Three of the four recommended leader-groups are comprised of those who have been appointed “elders”. The leadership role of elders in our church culture is so firmly entrenched, it is difficult to image our fellowship ever accepting a polity model that did not have elders at the core.)

However, the proposed model does differ from the traditional in several respects:

1. It suggests that different kinds of leaders are called by Christ to lead his church—not just a general and homogenized entity known as “elders.”
2. It implies that different leadership groups are defined by and formed around distinct skills and giftings that naturally (or supernaturally?) delineate associated areas of responsibility and work within the church.
3. In this regard, the proposed model acknowledges that not all elders are created equal … there are different types of elders with diverse gifts and abilities.
4. It encourages different elder-groups to function both autonomously (according to their giftedness) and cooperatively (in conjunction with other leaders possessing different gifts).
5. It allows for a formal, equally-authoritative place at the leadership table for the person who serves as a congregation’s pulpit (or senior) minister.

In this model, a close cooperation among the various leadership groups is encouraged in order to accomplish larger areas of work. Where the model for “ministers” and “shepherding elders” overlap (for instance) an area of shared leadership responsibility is defined (in this case, the “pastoral” care of the congregation). Leadership groups work together, pool their gifts and efforts, to bite off larger segments of the church’s essential business. Identifying these cooperative areas places the “big rocks” into a church’s jar and ensures that important kingdom work receives appropriate attention.

This model also suggests accountability built into the system from the start. These leadership groups do not function as islands of responsibility, cut off from and unanswerable to other groups. Managing, shepherding, and teaching elders (as an example) work together to hold ministers accountable for the segment of the church’s work entrusted to them. Ministers, shepherding elders, and teaching elders (as a further example) evaluate the overseeing work of the managing elders and measure their effectiveness. This layer of accountability (defining, assigning, evaluating, and expecting effectiveness) is a critical component of this leadership model.

Finally, the model also suggests that all of the leadership groups have a “big picture” responsibility to the church: setting vision and direction for the church, determining theological and ministerial priorities, formulating policies by which the church operates, and evaluating whether the church is effectively addressing its God-given business. There is also a shared “disciplining” role at the heart of leadership that protects the church’s teaching and practice, and maintains the “purity” of the body as it lives out its distinctive walk in a dark world.

This adjustment of the traditional model is proposed in an attempt to respond faithfully to a theology of calling, sensitively to the notion of giftedness, creatively to the pattern of shared leadership found in the New Testament, comprehensively to the full range of God’s purposes and goals for leadership in the church, and dutifully to the idea that leaders should be held accountable for their effectiveness (or lack thereof). [See Dynamics of New Testament Polity Model article.]

Traditional

Ephesians 4:11

 Again, if we refrain from focusing on the particular leadership roles involved (and chasing the rabbit—as we so often do—of which ancient leadership roles have modern-day equivalents), we see a fundamental shift in the dynamics of leadership.

#1: The traditional model claims that spiritual authority is given to elders by Christ but does not acknowledge any other authoritative (or, at least, authoritatively equivalent) leadership roles in the church today. According to our common understanding, elders derive their spiritual authority from Christ, but all other leadership roles in the church have only “delegated authority”—an authority granted by elders and (if necessary) withdrawn by elders.

Traditional

Ephesians 4:11

 My problem with this stance does not involve doubts that Christ “gave pastors” to the church, but that it allows for no other, equally authoritative leadership roles given by Christ to the church. This viewpoint makes it difficult to appreciate any kind of “theology of calling” (where roles/people are called directly by Christ and his Spirit and commissioned to do specific work) that involves people other than elders. Pragmatically (in such a system), elders are called by Christ; deacons, ministers, and ministry leaders are called by elders (not Christ) and serve at their pleasure.

The very notion that a pulpit minister (for example) might be called to a certain congregation at a certain season for a certain mission … that he is anointed and equipped and blessed for his work … that he is (in a manner equivalent to the elders of the church) Christ’s “gift” for accomplishing the task of “building up the body” is a notion so foreign to our church culture as to sound heretical. Yet this is the very language commonly used in the New Testament to describe all leadership roles present in the early church—not just elders.

Since Christ remains actively involved with his church today (and his Spirit continues to animate our personal and communal lives), we must recognize the role Christ continues to play in gifting his church with leaders. Recognizing and honoring that gifting in the lives of leaders (even when they are not elders) is an act of faithfulness, not infidelity.

#2: The traditional model recognizes the maturing/equipping purpose of leadership in the church, but sometimes excuses elders from intimate involvement in that purpose. As the demands of crisis-management, organizational-efficiency, member-appeasement, budget-accountability, vision-casting, and ministry-supervision require more time from elders, the actual work of maturing members, enhancing unity, equipping people for service, deepening core commitments, and fostering Christ-like love drops off the agenda. Elders become so consumed with managing the church, they neglect to mature the church.

This sounds harsh, I fear, but talk to any conscientious elder and he will acknowledge this hard fact as the most frustrating part of his shepherding work. The demands on elders in our system (where elders are seen as the sole source of church authority) are so constant and diverse that addressing the basic purpose for which Christ gave leaders often takes a back seat.

Traditional

Ephesians 4:11

 As a result, elderships are tempted to “delegate” this maturing work to others. They pray fervently for Christ and his Spirit to accomplish a work in the lives of their members that they themselves do not have the time or skills for. Or they hire ministers, establish ministries, start programs, and set budgets that they hope will address the mission to equip God’s people.

I appreciate both the prayer and the programming. What is needed, though, is a priority of purpose that involves elders in maturing work, that shares other leadership responsibilities so elders have time to equip people, and that measures the effectiveness of leadership (all leadership) using the yardstick of spiritual growth and development.

#3: The traditional model appreciates “shared” leadership, but interprets it as “shared among individuals who hold the same role” rather than as “shared among different leadership roles.” Churches of Christ affirm that no one person has a monopoly on leadership in Christ’s church and strongly resist any polity model that concentrates spiritual authority in a single individual.

Yet we have no equal and equally passionate resistance to concentrating spiritual authority in a single role. In our model, spiritual authority resides within the eldership—the “buck” stops with them. Since we recognize no other leadership role in the church that has its own calling and gifting, its own duties and responsibilities,

Traditional

Ephesians 4:11

its own mandate that comes directly from Christ, we cannot appreciate the importance of “shared leadership” across a range not just of individuals but of roles. This makes it difficult for us to allow room at the leadership table for other roles, other gifts, other perspectives, other skills, and other voices that might counterbalance (or even contradict!) the voice of the elders in the affairs of the church.

#4: The traditional model does not encourage church leadership to draw from a variety of responsibilities and gifting. This lack of diversity of leadership roles means that church leadership stands or falls on the gift-set present among the elders. No division of labor according to various gifts and callings. No diversity of perspective rooted in different sensibilities and responsibilities. No competing (and balancing) priorities growing out of a sense of distinct God-given and unique duties.

Traditional

Ephesians 4:11

We have carried this “homogenization” of role to an extreme. Many elderships recognize no distinction of gifts and skills even among the elders themselves, requiring every elder (regardless of interest or competence) to be part of every leadership decision and to carry his share of the leadership water, overlooking the importance of spiritual gifts and the distribution of those gifts even within a group of elders.

We could (at least) have recognized the basic groupings of gifts/responsibilities that exist within an elder group as acknowledged in Scripture:

Instead, we’ve asked every elder to wear every hat with the result that many elders function outside (and beyond) their giftedness. Even this basic of division of labor and responsibility, even this most rudimentary recognition of giftedness and skill, stretches what our traditional polity model can easily handle.

This limiting of congregational leadership to a single role (and the expectation that each of those appointed to the elder role will cover every base) necessarily limits the effectiveness of leadership to “equip God’s people” and “build up the body.”

#5: The traditional model does not allow for effective checks and balances. If (when?) things go wrong in the leadership of our churches, there is no effective corrective built into the traditional polity model. Elders are expected to police themselves, but no one else is empowered to do so (short of general congregational mutiny). Of course, such self-correction is something that rarely happens among elders about any but the most obvious failings (e.g., adultery).

Traditional

Ephesians 4:11

And, in the absence of effective self-monitoring, no one else dares to assert that (sometimes) the emperor has no clothes. It is difficult for ministers, deacons, or members to frame concerns about specific elders or an elder group without appearing harsh and raising defenses. Certainly, discussing such “concerns” is hard enough as it is. But the lack of any expectation or forum for voicing those concerns makes the attempt even tougher.  Because the traditional polity model makes no adequate provision for when things go wrong among leaders, our churches pay a heavy price for this omission.

Conclusion:

Our traditional model of elder-led churches fails the “sniff test” for effective church leadership not because there is something wrong with elders. I love elders. I appreciate their work and dedication. I believe in their leadership. Their loving, careful, prayerful guidance of churches is necessary. May their tribe increase.

What’s flawed is the polity model itself. Any polity model that asserts only elders derive spiritual authority from Christ, draws elders away from the maturing goal that is the raison d’être of church leadership, prevents shared leadership responsibilities among a variety of roles, ignores the need for different gifts and capabilities for effective leadership, and lacks any mechanism for meaningful accountability of leaders is—at the least—a different polity model than is suggested by Ephesians 4:11ff and what is known of the early church.

Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers.

Instead of debating the particular leadership people/roles that existed in the first century church (or that should be represented in the church today), let’s talk, instead, about a few dynamics that are implied by this passage and about the polity model of the early church.

Whatever the particular leadership roles involved, there do seem to be some leadership realities that transcend the roles themselves. Consider:

#1: Legitimate leadership in the church is given by Christ and derives spiritual authority from him. This statement is so self-evident, why belabor the obvious? Because it is good for us to be reminded that legitimate spiritual leadership flows from Christ himself. It is not conferred by congregational vote or organizational structure. No matter how revered or honored our leadership forms, the form itself cannot bestow spiritual authority. It must be Christ who gives, Christ who anoints, Christ who calls.

Implicit in Ephesians 4:11ff is a “theology of calling.” Christ was actively involved in determining the leadership of the early church. And not just the leadership roles involved but the particular people who filled those roles. [He chose the Apostles. His Spirit appointed elders (Ac 20:28), gifted prophets (1Co 12:10), and dedicated missionaries and preachers (Ac 13:2).]

If we believe that Christ remains actively involved with his church today (and that his Spirit continues to animate not only our personal lives but our communal life), we must recognize the role Christ continues to play in gifting his church with leaders. Christ still “calls” leaders and gifts them to the church today.

At the very least, this means that we must listen carefully to the range of leadership roles God is anointing for his church today. [If Christ is gifting the church today with evangelists, for instance, how does a faithful church recognize and respond to that gifting?] But it also means a willingness, an eagerness, to recognize the people on whom God has placed his hand and to honor their leadership as a consequence. (See http://timwoodroof.com/tims-writings/archives/a-theology-of-calling.)

Among Churches of Christ, which have never developed a significant “theology of calling,” the idea of church leadership flowing from Christ and being a gift of Christ is challenging. Without this understanding of “calling,” however, church leadership devolves to personality and popularity.

#2: Legitimate leadership in the church is focused on the same goal, works towards the same purpose. Paul carefully defines the “point” of spiritual leadership in this passage (Eph 4:11-16)—not a smoothly run organization or well-managed budgets, but the equipping and maturing of Christ’s people.

Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ.

Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.

Not only are church leaders called by Christ, they are called for a purpose. That purpose is clearly focused on the members of the body: developing effective service, harmonious unity, spiritual stability, theological depth, and loving relationships. Such goals are intended to, quite literally, encourage “government for the people.” These member-focused-purposes become the standards by which effective church leadership is measured and evaluated.

Leadership in the church—whatever its form, whoever fills a particular leadership role—is a means to this common and primary goal. Every leader and leadership role must contribute to this shared end. Leadership that does not result in “building up the body” is, by definition, illegitimate. Leadership that leaves the body immature, vulnerable, ignorant, unloving and uninvolved cannot be the kind of leadership Christ intended to give his church, no matter the structure or roles.

#3: Legitimate leadership in the church is “shared” leadership. No one person (and, as we will see, no one group) has a monopoly on leadership in Christ’s church. Even in a church dominated by Apostolic leadership (e.g., Jerusalem and Peter), other leaders and leadership roles played an important part. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers met together to discuss and decide important church matters (Ac 15). Men “full of the Spirit and wisdom” exercised significant authority in the Jerusalem church (Ac 6—an authority not just to distribute food but to perform miracles and stand as the church’s voice before hostile authorities).

While Churches of Christ tend to be strong advocates of “shared leadership,” we commonly address this concern by ensuring that each congregation has a plurality of elders. Leadership is “shared” among those appointed to this particular role in the local church.

While the New Testament speaks to this plurality of elders in congregations, it suggests that “shared leadership” in the first century involved more—not just several different people, but several different roles. Jerusalem enjoyed an embarrassment of leadership positions: Apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders, and teachers. A similar mix of leadership roles was evident in Antioch, Corinth, and Ephesus.

As the next two points will make clear (I hope), this shared leadership among different roles was important because different roles had different responsibilities and giftings … and because only a variety of roles could ensure the kind of checks and balances that were fundamental to the functioning of leaders in the New Testament church.

#4: Leadership roles in the church have distinct responsibilities and gifting. Even a cursory review of how different kinds of leaders functioned in the early church demonstrates a range of gifts and competencies for each role. [See prior article on “New Testament Model of Church Leadership.] Apostles were not synonymous with elders or teachers … evangelists were not the same as prophets. When it came to church leadership in the first-century world, one size did not fit all. Each leader had a differing range of responsibilities and each exercised a differing set of spiritual gifts. 

We can debate what tasks and competencies fell under which roles in the early church, but the larger point still holds: different leadership roles were given different duties and were equipped with different capabilities. [Prophets (for instance) spoke direct revelation from God (about his will or the future), a capability not shared by elders or evangelists or teachers.]

If different leadership roles had different duties in the church, and if different roles were gifted differently by Christ to accomplish those duties, and if the range of roles and giftings were necessary for church leadership to have its intended effect on the Body, then limiting leadership to one role in the church today necessarily limits the effectiveness of that leadership to “equip God’s people” and “build up the body.”

#5: Leadership in the church must be accompanied by checks and balances. One of the most remarkable aspects of leadership in the first century is how these different leadership roles monitored and regulated one another. Apostles and evangelists selected and anointed elders—honoring, warning, or rebuking them as necessary. Elders watched over the message of evangelists and teachers, guarding the flock. Evangelists identified and denounced false teachers and prophets. Prophets advised and counseled Apostles. No one leadership role was immune from the influence of or accountability to the others.

In fact—in the New Testament witness—there seems to be an expectation that leaders will go bad, lose their commitment, forget their message, compromise their character, and tear down the church rather than build it up. And not rarely (as we assume today). Not infrequently. Predictably. Inevitably.

When that happened, distinct leadership roles were expected to police themselves. Think of Paul and Peter in Antioch. Think of the warning to the elders of Ephesus: “Guard yourselves … some men from your own group will rise up and distort the truth” (Ac 20:30).

But the expectation was also that different leadership roles would police each other. Evangelists would hold elders accountable (and vice versa). Prophets would test the soundness of teachers and evangelists (and vice versa). Leadership troubles were bound to arise. But this pervasive mutual accountability occurring in the church went a long way to limiting the damage when trouble came.

Of course, the only way effective checks and balances can occur is within a polity system where authority is shared, the legitimacy of different forms of leadership is recognized, and the right (the duty) of differing leadership roles to evaluate and critique each other is acknowledged.

Conclusion:

I’m convinced that a discussion of church polity is long overdue among Churches of Christ. I’m further convinced that the discussion needs to center not on particular leadership roles but on fundamental leadership dynamics. Ephesians 4:11ff suggests that legitimate leadership derives its authority from Christ, is focused on a maturing goal, is shared among several roles, is equipped in various ways, and submits to mutual accountability.

Then the questions come tumbling: Who made these people church leaders? What were their specific leadership roles? Was leadership in the local congregation singular or communal? What were the responsibilities and duties of different leaders? And how do New Testament roles inform church leadership today?

Such questions address the issue of church governance or polity: “the way a church is organized to do its work” (see ­­­­­prior blog post). Church polity has been one of the most difficult and divisive issues facing the church over the centuries. Wars have been fought over this matter. Churches have split. Shelves of books have been written.

I don’t intend to oversimplify this complex question by appeal to a single passage of Scripture touching on the polity issue. But I do believe that dialogue over church polity can be informed by what Paul says about church leadership in Ephesians 4:11-12:

Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ. (NLT)

This passage sits squarely in the middle of some “big picture” ideas. The chapter opens with an appeal to worthy living, the call of God, and unity; and an affirmation of the one Lord, one Spirit, one faith (Eph 4:1-6) at the core of the church’s life. Christ is envisioned as the great “gift giver” for his people, the one who “apportions grace” according to his own purposes (Eph 4:7-10). The purpose of Christ’s gifts to the church is clarified here: equipping Christians for ministry, building up the body, maturing people into the fullness of Christ (Eph 4:12-16).

It is in this context that Paul makes mention of specific gifts Christ has given his church. Here (unlike listings of gifts in Rom 12 and 1Cor 12), the gifts are not attributes or abilities but people—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers—who fill certain leadership roles in the church.

That Paul is addressing church leadership in this passage is evident. These are people (or roles) who have been set in place by Christ himself. They have been given critical leadership responsibilities to perform (e.g., equipping, building up, maturing) within the body of Christ. Elsewhere, the New Testament consistently frames these individuals (or roles) as leaders in the early church (see, e.g., 1Cor 12:28).

Let’s do a quick summary of the people/roles mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 … the four (or five) primary leadership positions in the first century church:

1. Apostles—witnesses of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection who were commissioned by Christ and given authority to teach, guide, and organize the emerging church. Certainly the Apostles had wider leadership responsibilities than any one local church—their work transcended geography. But they did exercise considerable authority and influence within local churches (e.g., Peter in Jerusalem; Paul in Corinth and Ephesus; etc.)
2. Prophets—Though this role is less understood and appreciated today than the others (at least, within the Churches of Christ), it is apparent that those who had the gift of prophecy exercised a distinct and important form of leadership in the early church. There are thirteen different individuals who are identified with prophetic gifts in Acts. The role of “prophet” is alluded to in several of the epistles (e.g., 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11). Prophets anointed individuals for special missions (as when Barnabas and Paul were sent out as missionaries—Ac 13:1-3); warned the church about impending events and urged action (as when Agabus foretold of famine—Ac 11:27-30); served as spokesmen for churches (as did Judas and Silas for Jerusalem—Ac 15:27, 32); and spoke regularly to the church in public assemblies (1Co 14:29).
3. Evangelists—people who were gifted and called to preach the good news of Christ. Whether inside or outside the church, evangelists spoke a message founded in the story and teachings of Jesus, not in direct revelation (as, presumably, did the prophets). In some ways, first century evangelists seemed to function in ways similar to modern missionaries: making converts, founding local congregations, and nurturing immature Christians (the kind of work that “Philip the Evangelist” seemed to have done among the Samaritans—Ac 8). In other ways, however, early evangelists functioned more like modern pulpit ministers, directing their attentions to the needs of a local congregation, and exercising within the church a direct leadership role. Paul’s letters to Timothy (written by the Apostle to give instructions about doing “the work of an evangelist”—2Ti 4:5) imply that teaching and preaching, mentoring and maturing, ordering public worship, selecting elders, and organizing church ministries were among the “duties” that accompanied the work of an evangelist
4. Pastors (Shepherds)—men who were acknowledged as mature and wise and asked to serve as the spiritual mentors of a congregation. In the New Testament church, the term “shepherd” appears to be synonymous with “overseer” and “elder.” (See Acts 20:28 where Paul addresses the elders of Ephesus and urges them to be “shepherds” and “overseers” of the church.) Wherever possible, pastors were appointed for each local church and served the church through teaching, spiritual counsel, supervision, management, and care of God’s people. This role seems to have involved shared responsibilities, in that—while pastors functioned individually to care for church members—they also worked with other pastors/shepherds in exercising a formal leadership role in the local congregation.
5. Teachers—[I am familiar with the argument (based on the grammar of this verse) that the last two “giftings” listed in Eph 4:11 refer to a combination role (the “teaching pastors”) rather than two distinct roles (“pastors” and “teachers”). For the sake of this discussion, I will consider these as distinct roles.] “Teacher” is one of Jesus’ favorite self-designations and a term used of him by friend and foe alike. The term acknowledged not only his knowledge and wisdom regarding the Scriptures, but his commitment to gathering a group of disciples (his “school”), interpreting and applying Scripture, and instructing in both private and public settings.  In the early church, this teaching function continued. The gift of teaching is identified in Ro 12:7. The role of “Teacher” is mentioned in Ac 13:1 (“Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers”) and 1Co 12:28 (“God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers”) in a way that implies a position of influence and authority. Several individuals are identified as “Teacher” within the early church (see, for example, Ac 13:1; 1Ti 2:7).  To the degree that Christ himself is the model of this “teaching” function (and if those who had the gift of teaching were to use that gift in Christ-like ways), then “Teacher” must have involved an instructional ministry rooted in Scripture, focused on mentoring disciples, including both public and private instruction, and accompanied—like the teaching ministry of Jesus—by an aura of “authority” (see Mk 1:22).

Even though Paul is probably speaking in this passage of church leadership for the church generally (as opposed to the structure of leadership in a local congregation), the model for governance he mentions here can be summarized as:

We tend to focus on the people/roles Paul mentions here, attempting to identify various leadership positions … “nodes of spiritual authority” within the church. But what I find truly interesting about the above model has little to do with specific people/roles and much more to do with some fundamental dynamics implied by this organizational model … dynamics that may well transcend the particular leadership “positions” listed.

I could give you a list of twenty-five names and you would recognize them as among our best and brightest.

These minsters haven’t gone to other pulpits. They haven’t stepped into different, supportive roles on church staffs. They haven’t transferred to other denominations to continue their work there.

They’ve walked away from local church work entirely.

Some have taken on new professions: the law, business management, sales. Many have moved into “para-church” organizations: missions support, counseling, consulting, non-profit ministries, educational institutions, etc.—still involved in ministry, but not in the context of the local church.

If you talk to these men about their transition, if you ask why they moved away from the salary and status and security of their pulpit positions, you’ll hear several reasons given:

1. Some will tell you they were bone-weary; tired in body, mind, and spirit; burned out, used up, nothing left. Ministry will do that to you as anyone who has filled a pulpit role can attest.
2. A few will confess to some moral failing—an affair, tampering with pornography, alcohol abuse, stealing—that undermined their credibility and ended their effective ministry. Ministers are not exempt from (in fact, might be uniquely susceptible to) temptation and the dangers of poor coping mechanisms.
3. Others might mention family pressures, or a loss of meaning and significance in their work, or a gradual accumulation of estranged relationships that prompted their decision to walk away. The stresses of ministry can erode confidence and purpose and trust.

But if you keep talking to these men, past the presenting problems or the symptoms that drove them out of church ministry, you’ll hear a common thread—a shared distress—that keeps coming up. When mentioned, it takes the listener by surprise because it is so unexpected. It’s not an item that would appear on most church members’ top-ten list of troublesome issues facing the church today.

But, for preachers and ex-preachers, it is a pressing and problematic concern … an issue that lies at the root of their disaffection with the preaching role and their discouragement over the future of Churches of Christ. No, it’s not the theological divide that seems to be widening among our congregations. No, it’s not frustration with debates over instrumental music while a world is tearing itself apart. And, no, it’s not even disgust with ministry too often reduced to an obsessive focus on budgets, buildings, busyness, and butts (in the pews).

Here it is: polity model.

Polity: a form of church governance; the way a church is organized to do its work; an organizational structure that defines human roles and authority for leadership and decision-making.

If you listen closely to people who are leaving our pulpits, you will hear a fundamental and overwhelming concern with the way our congregations are led, the implications of that for their own work and calling, and the limitations of our chosen polity model for kingdom effectiveness.

Among Churches of Christ, the predominant polity model focuses on the role of elders and looks something like this:

In this model, elders hold ultimate human authority and leadership responsibility in the church. They meet, make decisions, determine congregational theology, set ministry priorities, hire and fire staff, establish programs and budgets, plan for the future, evaluate effectiveness, approve or veto initiatives, and manage whatever problems or conflicts arise. All other leadership roles and offices of the church derive their authority and purview at the delegation of the elders. In our churches, the buck always stops with the elders.

And that’s a problem.

Don’t get me wrong: the vast majority of the elders I know are good, sincere, dedicated, self-sacrificing, Christ-loving men who are giving their best efforts to leading their churches. They take their responsibilities seriously. They love the church and the people who comprise it. In the main, those who are leaving our pulpits do not question the motives or intentions of the men who have served as their elders. The questioning of our church polity model has nothing to do with the character of elders or with the rightful role elders play in the governance of the church in Scripture.

Rather, this questioning is rooted in a very real concern that the “rightful role” for elders we have traditionally discerned in Scripture does not, in fact, tell the whole story of leadership in the early church. Nor does it take into account a theology of giftedness and calling that is central to the Bible’s teaching about spiritual leadership. (More on both of these subjects later.) Nor does it acknowledge some clear and widely-recognized limitations faced by elders in their attempts to lead.

Here are nine limitations of elder leadership, offered for your consideration. This list is offered not as criticism but as observation. (Once again, I love elders.) As you will see, many of these “limitations” spring from the realities of how elders are chosen, how they function together, and simple group psychology. Most of these “limitations” are, in fact, good and necessary … or, at least, unavoidable. What is concerning about our polity model is not that elders are limited in certain ways but that those limits are not counter-balanced and moderated by other acknowledged and authorized leadership roles.

1. Elders are selected primarily on the basis of character/pastoral/relational qualities rather than leadership qualities, for those are the characteristics emphasized in the passages most often referenced during an elder selection process (1Ti 3 and Tit 1).
2. Not all elders have the gift of leadership (Ro 12:8). Yet elders without this gifting are never-the-less expected to assume the leadership mantle. I have witnessed many good, sensitive, compassionate shepherds greatly frustrated by discussions of necessary leadership issues—setting vision, developing policies, and managing resources, for example—because they had neither interest nor inclination to spend time on such matters. And I’ve seen necessary leadership issues rushed or ignored or fumbled because some elders had no patience for anything that didn’t involve praying or pastoring.
3. Elders sometimes have little knowledge of or experience in some key aspects of leadership: keeping the main thing the main thing, exercising the discipline to focus, developing proposals and strategies, planning initiatives, communicating plans, recruiting and involving volunteers, implementing plans and monitoring progress, defining and evaluating effectiveness, etc..
4. Elders often have little education or training in areas critical to a church’s growth, health, and faithfulness … matters such as theology, worship, missions, counseling, organization and management, spiritual gifts, church history, discipling and mentoring, conflict negotiation, etc..
5. Elders have relatively little time to devote to the oversight of a church. These are busy men, in the middle season of careers and family, with many demands on their time. After the time and energy they devote to work, family, and their personal shepherding duties, there is little left over for “managing the affairs of the church.” This paucity of elder bandwidth (time, attention, energy) comprises a major challenge in moving churches forward.
6. Many elders have little understanding or appreciation of how to function effectively as a group. While some work done by elders is accomplished individually (e.g., counseling, praying, comforting), there is an aspect of their work (specifically related to leadership) that must be done communally—with fellow elders. Yet basic meeting skills are too often lacking. (See http://timwoodroof.com/information/effective-elders-meetings/ten-keys-to-effective-elders-meetings/healthy-meeting-habits/.)  Getting to a decision can be excruciating. And more difficult group dynamics (e.g., conflict, group-think, breach of confidentiality) can paralyze elderships.
7. Elders have constituencies. They enjoy long-term, intensely personal relationships in the church. There are peers they are sensitive to and feel protective of. While this is a good and necessary thing, it tends to encourage elders to hear every discussion and view every decision through the filter of their primary constituency: “How does this affect them?” “What will they think if we do this?” But what about other groups? The youth? Divorced people? Minorities? What about the host of broken and lost people outside the walls of our churches? Who will speak for them? Who will make decisions that favor them—even if it means angering the people who sit next to us on Sundays?
8. The reality of constituencies (among other factors) encourages elder leadership that is inherently conservative. Not “conservative” in a theological sense … “conservative” in the sense that elders tend not to “rock the boat,” step on comfort zones, kill sacred cows, shoot ineffectual ministries, etc. Elder leadership is naturally biased towards the status quo, the past and present (rather than the future), the church’s current membership instead of its possible membership. This is not (again) a bad thing. But it is something that cries out for balance if churches are to be effective in their God-given mission.
9. The entire focus and function of a group of elders can change dramatically by adding new elders to the mix. Because many churches have no formal process for “vetting” elder candidates, no written “rules of engagement” or statement of principles and priorities that guide elder leadership, and no regular and rigorous procedure for self-policing, the leadership of our churches is constantly vulnerable to the next elder selection process. Most of us have witnessed churches that turned on a dime—changed theological focus, fired a minister, alienated segments of the congregation—after adding new elders.

I point out these limitations not to criticize elder leadership or to in any way suggest that such leadership is illegitimate. [All leadership roles have inherent limitations: Apostles could be wrong (e.g., Peter and James on the Gentile issue); there were very few of them to stretch around a growing church; most of the Twelve were focused on Jerusalem; etc.] These elder limitations are listed, rather, to address a fundamental flaw in our usual polity model: a single leadership role (elder) that holds all spiritual authority in our churches with few checks and balances in place to meaningfully address inherent limitations.

These are the matters that keep coming up in conversations with people who are leaving our pulpits—not a dislike or distrust of elders, but a lament that our polity model does not supplement and balance the leadership of elders with other legitimate and Christ-ordained roles of leadership … a regret that other leadership  roles (with their own strengths and limitations) are not given a seat at the leadership table of our churches.

Most of us recognize the Scriptural basis for leadership, the importance of leadership to church functioning, and the dangers posed by incompetent or thoughtless leadership. And, yet, the whole subject of “spiritual leadership” is riddled with paradoxes, tensions, and contradictions.

In part, our difficulty derives from notions of “leadership” drawn from the world around us. Leaders are “on top.” They get their way. They bend others to their will. They make decisions. They accomplish results. They are efficient and effective. They drive and push and drag. They reap rewards. The qualities that make someone a good leader in the secular world have little to do with the qualities that make someone a good or nice person. Most of us can point to people who led well and lived poorly. When all these notions get poured into “spiritual leadership,” we quickly recognize they just don’t fit.

In part, the difficulty of defining “spiritual leadership” is a paradox built into the idea itself. What does leadership mean—what could it possibly look like—if the only legitimate spiritual leadership is based on humility, deference, and submission? What kind of leader can be “the servant of all” and the “least among you”? How can a leader set any agenda, move forward towards any goal, when compassion, gentleness, and forbearance are essential characteristics of the spiritual walk?

Christians (rightly) reject notions of leadership built solely around secular models. Secular and spiritual leadership are two different animals, right? Different goals. Different rules. Different skills.

True enough. Yet there is also common ground between the secular and the sacred. “Leadership”—after all—must involve certain commonalities in each realm if the word is to have any meaning.

All leadership, worldly or heavenly, has a certain shape. It involves casting a vision of what could be, developing strategies to acheive the vision, planning specific steps to be taken, communicating with various parties, recruiting the right people, empowering them for the task ahead, implementing the plan, monitoring its progress, evaluating results, and holding people accountable. This is the classic “leadership cycle” and it defines leadership of all shapes and sizes—whether in business, politics, or (yes) church. This reality of leadership is not a function of the goals towards which leaders strive but, rather, the simple truth that leaders work through people to reach their goals. Exciting people, motivating them, directing them, and coordinating their efforts is the essence of leadership—whatever its aim.

Jesus demonstrates this “leadership cycle” well. He had a strong sense of mission and vision—what he was about and what he was going to do (“I have come to seek the lost”). He developed a strategy to serve his vision (involving the cross, making disciples, testifying). He made plans (when his ministry would start, where he would travel). He communicated all this to his disciples and the crowds. He recruited the right people (Peter, James, John). He empowered them to do the work he called them to do (the Holy Spirit). He sent them off to implement the plans that would accomplish his mission (“Go into all the world …”). He monitored their progress and evaluated their work (“You must bear much fruit.”) And he held them accountable for their ministries (“He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit”).

Just because Jesus had a spiritual mission doesn’t mean he could ignore leadership fundamentals. His leadership might have served different ends, used different means, than the leadership of Lincoln or Vanderbilt. But it was still leadership and had much in common with leadership exercised in other domains. Think of the “leadership cycle” as the container that holds and gives a common shape to leadership. The content may differ—motives, goals, methods, relationships, attitude, etc.—but the container remains a constant. For leadership to be leadership, it will involve something closely akin to the leadership cycle.

Which brings us to the question of spiritual leadership today. As we think about how churches are led, who leads them, what that leadership looks like, it will be helpful to keep the leadership cycle in mind. There are those (I know) who think spiritual leadership is principally a matter of prayer and personal disciplines, cleansing one’s self of all ambition and opinion, or “waiting” on God and thinking pure thoughts. Such an understanding involves an essential confusion between what it means to be spiritual and what it means to lead. Spirituality and leadership are not synonymous terms! One can pursue a spiritual life and, yet, be utterly lacking in the qualities and skills that mark a leader. (To believe that being “good” is the sole requirement of effective spiritual leadership is naïve.) One can also exercise leadership qualities and skills without exhibiting the fruit of basic spirituality. (To believe that spiritual leadership can be effective without the “spiritual” part is dangerous.)

While pursuing a deep and authentic spirituality is necessary to spiritual leadership, it is not sufficient. There is a “leadership layer” that must be added to the core of decency and spiritual sensitivity if effective spiritual leadership is to emerge. Jesus demonstrated this reality in his own leadership. So did Paul and Moses and David and Nehemiah and Peter. And so must we in our attempt to lead churches today in vigorous ways towards authentic Kingdom goals.