What is Necessary (δει) for Church leadership? (1 Tim 3:2)
I was reminded the other day how meaning is conveyed not only by individual words but also by the larger context of those words. It is easy to hang on to a particular word and forget to check the overall context, but it is equally easy to miss the meaning of a particular word by not looking at its context.
1 Tim 3:2 says that “an overseer must be (δει) above reproach.” δει is a strong word; it leaves no wiggle room. This is supported by its use throughout the Pastorals, throughout Paul, and throughout the NT (see my commentary, pp 169f). If a person is to be in a position of church leadership, then they must meet the overall standard of being “above reproach.”
I remember a discussion with a former elder when we were working on a elder position paper (available under the Publications tab near the bottom of the page). The goal was to define what we understood to be the biblical instructions for recognizing official church leadership. When we were done he commented that he thought the whole process was unnecessary, and all we needed to do was elect good men who could make decisions. Wow. Such a blatant willingness to ignore the clear and unequivocal teaching of Scripture, and to replace the Word of God with the word of a man. (And he claimed to be an inerrantist. Ah, the intersection of belief and practice.)
If we care what Paul teaches, then he has left no doubt as to the type of person who is to be in church leadership. δει means “it is necessary.” The approach I took in my commentary was that “above reproach” is the head term, and what follows are the specifics of what it means to be above reproach.
So this means that every elder must be married and have more than one child. Right? So Paul and Timothy could not be elders? That sounds odd.
When you look at the larger picture, you start to see other factors at work.
1. As is true throughout the Pastorals, much of Paul’s instructions are given against the backdrop of the false teachers. The qualities Paul enumerates, while universally true, were chosen in contrast to the characteristics of the false teachers.
2. When you compare the three lists in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, you are struck not only with their similarity but their differences. It is not that they contradict each other but that they are different. If the lists were to be followed rigidly, then why the differences? Which list do we follow?
3. Paul has a preference for celibacy (1 Cor 7:7, 26-38), so why require the leadership to be married?
4. If it is true that Paul’s basic concern is that elders be above reproach, a pattern also visible at Titus 1:6, then the stipulations of marriage and having a family are not so much independent requirements as they are examples of what it means to be above reproach: he must be faithful in his marriage; he must manage his family well.
My conclusion is that the lists show us the type of person who can be in leadership. Some of the requirements would by definition apply to all people: above reproach, hospitable, skilled teacher, etc. But others would depend on the person’s life situation: if married, he would have (δει) to be a “one-woman” man; if he has a family, he would have (δει) to manage his family well (see pp. 158f).
Meaning is conveyed by words and by phrases and by sentences and by paragraphs and by even larger units. Our goal as exegetes is not only to give the words their full weight (δει) but also to understand them properly. We dare not ignore either.
This whole issue of elder qualifications, how to identify those whom the Spirit has chosen, and how to train them for leadership is a question that has been haunting me for years. It was why I started my online school, BiblicalTraining.org. If you have found a way to raise up godly and effective leadership, or even know just part of the process, and especially if you have implemented a procedure for leadership development in your church, I would love to hear from you. This is our next primary goal at BiblicalTraining; you can contact me through the website.
Bill,
I say this with humility and genuine interest, and I don’t want to put-down what you’re doing at BiblicalTraining.org, but I wonder when it comes to leadership, isn’t it God who does the training? - Moses had his 40 years in the desert, Joseph had his years in an Egyptian prison, Samuel was raised in the temple, David cared for sheep, John the Baptist was in the wilderness...each man was uniquely trained in the school of God according to the future position he would fulfill and his individual personality. Is it possible to reproduce this in some other way?
In Acts 6, it seems the men chosen for leadership were already prepared by God:
“Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty... and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.”
Now I would admit that there is a role for mentoring, as the more experienced Paul would have done with Timothy, as an example. Perhaps, what bothers me about the term “leadership training,” it that it conjures up i mind the sort of man-made programs taught in typical business schools and practiced in corporate America.
If they are man-made, then they will fail. But considering the terrible shape of the church in America, and how so much of the problem is due to poor (or unprepared) leadership, something has to be done. But there is some part of this that is taught, but much of it is caught.
Bill, I follow your explaination of leadership requirement in the blog entry. I would like to ask an add on question. Our church recently had a guest speaker who's beliefs were that women were allowed by the scriptures to minister and hold positions of authority. This goes against my upbringing in the Baptist Church but I want to get it right (there have definatley been women in leadership positions in the bible). Can you shed some light on passages such as 1 Cor 14: 34-35 and 1 Tim 2: 11-14. Again, I know what I have been taught but I don't want to missunderstand the actual intent of the scriptures. Thanks, Gary
This is a huge issue that is beyond what I can cover in the blog. For the details of the exegetical discussion you can check out my commentary on the Pastorals. For the discussion as a whole, I would recommend the Grudem/Piper by Crossway on one side, and the IVP book that came out last year on the other (I forget the name).
Bill
Just wondering how you reconcile the use
of the word “leader” With what Jesus said in Mt 23:10.
The word “leader” seems like a “high place.” Yes?
Jesus always took and recommended the “low place.” Yes?
Jesus humbled Himself, made himself of no reputation
and took on the form of a servant.
Php 2:7
Jesus in Mat 23:10 told His disciples
“NOT” to call themselves master/“leaders”
for you have one master/"leader” the Christ.
King James Version -
Neither be ye called masters:
for one is your Master, even Christ.
The Interlinear Bible -
Nor be called leaders,
for one is your leader the Christ.
Phillips Modern English -
you must not let people call you leaders,
you have only one leader, Christ.
Today's English Version -
nor should you be called leader.
your one and only leader is the Messiah.
The Amplified-
you must not be called masters ( leaders )
for you have one master ( leader ) the Christ.
Jesus told “His disciples” not to be called "leaders" and none did.
Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ...
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus,the servants of Jesus Christ...
Col 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, servant of Christ...
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God...
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God...
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant...
His disciples "all" called themselves "servants."
None called themselves "leaders." None? None.
None called themselves "servant-leader." None.
Why are we trying to train “Leaders for the ekklesia of God?”
Why aren’t we training “Servants of Christ” like Jesus did?
Isn't "Servanthood" inclusive? Everyone can be a “Servant of Christ.”
Isn't "Leadership" exclusive? Only available to “A special few.”
If Jesus instructed “His disciples” NOT to call themselves “leaders,”
and someone calls themself a "leader,"
or thinks they are a "leader;"
Are they a "disciple of Christ?"
The argument would be that while the word is not used, some of the gifts are in essence leadership gifts. There is still the issue of how a biblical leader leads, but gifts of eldership and deacons and teaching and even administration all assume a level of authority that must be exercised. While I personally have experienced great issues with bad leadership, that doesn't mean leadership is inherently wrong; Paul had no trouble exerting extreme control over his churches.
Bill
You write...
"This whole issue of elder qualifications,
how to identify those whom the Spirit has chosen,
and how to train them for leadership
is a question that has been haunting me for years."
"Haunting" is an interesting word to use.
You would think if training people for "Church leadership"
was important to God he would have shown us by now. ;-)
For the most part it has been a total failure.
Seems Jesus spent His time with "His Disciples"
teaching and showing them how to serve and obey the Spirit within.
Those that are "led" by the Spirit, they are the sons of God. Rm 8:14
“Led” by the Spirit. NOT “led” by a man. Yes?
Hmmm? “Leadership?” Red Herring anyone?
A. Amos said... "For the most part it has been a total failure"
On what basis could you possibly make this statement? Christianity is still going strong even after 2000 years. We cannot see all the multifaceted ways the Spirit is moving His church. Just because things are not going the way you want them to does not mean that God is failing in His mission to save all those who will believe in him.
If we want to know how to raise up leaders we should examine the gospels to see how Jesus did it. If we want to know what criteria Jesus used to choose his disciples we should look in the epistles already mentioned.
Aaron P.
You write...
A. Amos said... "For the most part it has been a total failure"
“On what basis could you possibly make this statement?
Christianity is still going strong even after 2000 years.”
Sorry for not explaining myself properly.
When I wrote... "For the most part it has been a total failure"
I was refering to the “Training of Church Leadership.” NOT Christianity.
I believe Jesus is doing just fine adding to “His Church.”
You ask... “On what basis could you possibly make this statement?”
When I see stuff about “Church Leaders” I want to scream.
I left “The Religious System” after much spiritual abuse, pain, and tears.
Most caused by, that’s right, “Church Leaders.” AAARRRGGGHHH!!! :-(...
I have seen the dangers of "Titles," of "Pastors/Leaders."
Spiritual abuse for both the "leader" and those “being led.”
IMO - The word “leader” is very, very dangerous for both.
In my experience...
No matter how loving, eventually...
No matter how humble, eventually...
No matter how much of a servant, eventually...
Pastor/Leader = exercise authority = lord it over = abuse = always
I'm not not new to "ministering healing" to those who have been “abused”
by those who "thought they were pastor/leaders."
Folks who've been **burnt,** ** burnt out,** ** kicked out,**
or **crawled out** of "the religious system" most call “church.”
with it's leaders, submission to authority, tithes and offerings,
and other unbiblical "heavy weights" put on folks shoulders.
I also spend time with pastors,
"so called leaders," who can't do it anymore.
Trying to please the denominational leaders,
the congregation and it's leaders, his family,
and of course Jesus.
Who is often relegated to last place. Hmmm?
Searving so many masters, that's tough; Yes?
Preaching every week... and it better be good, being the CEO,
the team leader, councilor, marrying, burying, smiley face. etc. etc.
If "pastors/leaders" (as we see them today) are of God?
He's not taking very good care of His shepherds; Is He?
This is info from a website helping burned out Pastors.
PastorCare offers support and encouragement for pastors and their families.
At PastorCare we care about YOU and we want to help.
http://www.pastorcare.org/PastorCare/Health___Healing.html
According to the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute of Church Leadership (2007)
• 77% say they do “not” have a good marriage.
• 71% have felt burned out or depressed.
• 70% do not have someone they consider a close friend.
• 40% report a serious conflict with a parishioner at least once a month.
• 38% are divorced or seriously considering divorce.
According to the Ministering to Ministers Foundation...
• Over 1600 pastors in the U.S. are forced out of their positions each month.
• Nearly 1 in 4 pastors experience a forced termination at least once during their ministry.
•Only 54% of pastors go back into full-time church related positions.
Think we might have a problem here?
70% of pastors are depressed or burnt out.
70% Don't have a close friend. Hmmm?
That's who is running the show.
“Pastors/Leaders?” 77% who say they don’t have a good marriage. Hmmm?
That's who is "abusing" God's sheep.
Think there might be a problem with “Church Leaders?”
1600 pastors a month, that's 19,000 a year, leave or are pushed out. Wow!!!
That's a lot of broken hearts, disappointments, feelings of failure, pain, abuse.
That’s 1600 families a month suffering “abuse” from a “Corrupt Religious System.”
Why don’t the denominations and seminaries, who train these leaders,
tell these young wannabees, before they spend all that money for a degree,
that they are entering a very dangerous profession? Church Leader.
Dangerous for the "Church Leader" and family. Yes?
Some more statistics. This is serious business. Yes?
http://pastoralcareinc.com/WhyPastoralCare/Statistics.php
# 95% of pastors do not regularly pray with their spouses.
# 90% feel they are inadequately trained to cope with the ministry demands.
# 80% of pastors feel unqualified and discouraged as pastors.
# 80% believe pastoral ministry has negatively affected their families.
..............Many pastor's children do not attend church now
...............because of what the church has done to their parents.
# 70% of pastors constantly fight depression.
# 70% say they have a lower self-image now than when they first started.
# 50% feel unable to meet the demands of the job.
# 50% of the ministers starting out will not last 5 years.
# 33% state that being in the ministry is an outright hazard to their family.
Bill - Maybe you can consider putting these statistics on your website? For all to see? Oy Vey!!!
Yea... so the “Church/Leaders" and those being “Led” can know what's really going on.
Wouldn’t folks want to know what is going on before and after the service?
Hmmm? Today's “Pastor/leader,”
is this a “Title” or "position" in the scriptures?
In the Bible, How many people... have the title pastor?
In the Bible, How many people are... referred to as pastor?
In the Bible, How many people are... ordained as a pastor?
In the Bible, How many congregations are... led by a pastor?
Be blessed in your search for truth... Jesus
Don't forget the tremendous amount of spiritual abuse heaped on a church by the laity. Gossips. Ungodly expectations. Desire for power and control. These are all characteristics you can find in almost every church, and I am not talking about pastors.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Just because the gates of hell will not destroy the church (which are the people of God) does not mean we have learned how to raise up leadership. Why do 1,600 pastors a MONTH permanently quit their calling? Why is the number one question coming into seminaries from their constituencies today the question of leadership development. Jesus' model would never work today, unless you have a house church of 12, and even then you run the risk of one of your "members" helping to kill you. This is life in the church, and every church I have ever known or known of has its skeletons in the closet. Very few are honest about them.
So, Brother Mounce, do you believe that the House Church movement is a valid movement for today? Given the problems you have seen do you think the leadership model of the house church can be an effective implementation of the Ephesians 4:11 gifts? Or are house churches too small to realistically accommodate all of these ministry gifts as outlined in Ephesians 4:11?
Thanks!
I think house churches are a very valid expression of the church. As I understand the international church, house churches will suffer from some of the main problems and should probably try to get together periodically, if for no other reason than to celebrate Christ together and remind one another that they are not alone. And they still need to work at fellowship, leadership, and how to handle problem people. But very valid.
Thanks for the reply!
Given your knowledge of the New Testament, is it true that until the 4th century AD during the reign of Constantine there were no pastors as we understand them today?
Was there a plurality of leaders (elders) or was there always one person in charge of any given church (i.e. a pastor)? Also, can you point me the right direction to study this house church/church history out some more?
Frank Viola is a little too chummy with the Emergent Church for me to study his works.
"Pastor" is from the Latin word for shepherd, which is one of the terms used to describe the office of elder. There always have been gifts of leadership from the earliest days (see Titus 1), and so I am sure there always was a leader in each house church. I am not aware of any Scriptural evidence for plurality of elders as is discussed today. Since the house churches were so small, I can't imagine two or more leaders in a house church of 30. The verses usually quoted refer to all the house churches in a town, which doesn't prove the concept of plurality in a church by church basis.
Thanks for the fruitful discussion!
However, is it not true that we have no record of just how big these house assemblies were? And in not knowing, how can we assume that there was only 1 elder per house? Or that there was even 30 members of any church?
For instance, when James talks about calling for the elders of the church for prayer, are we to assume that 1 elder from each house church in the city was to come out to pray? We do not have any scriptural evidence this way either.
How can we know? Although scripture does not teach this, I have heard that James was--or was considered to be--the Pastor of the Jerusalem church. Can you shed any light on this?
Thanks...
Archaeology has answered this for us. We know how big the houses were. In Jerusalem, for example, the biggest house they have found is Caiaphas', and I am told it could hold only 150, so that is the absolute max.