Paul Chappell - Are You A Servant Leader Or Simply A Ministry Manager?

[prophet1]

I have to respectfully cry "foul", when anecdotal evidence is presented. We have two distinct examples , in the NT, of churches with multiple elders. We have no distinct examples of one with a singular bishop. OBviously, there is a point in most works, at the beginning, where one church planter is plowing. So, noone can say that no church ever has only one elder. And that isn't the prOBlem, in our 21st Century IFB churches. The prOBlem is the false doctrine of "God called me to be your leader, so to appoint another elder would be to rebel against God". Or to teach that an individual church should only have a aingular earthly head, or to take the term: "pastor", clearly defined as a gift, and make it into an imaginary office. We avoid the term "Bishop", because Philippi clearly had multiple Bishops. We drag a term out, that is only mentioned once in the NT (a part of a set, and in the plural, FTR), "pastor", and we make it the incredible putty term, that conforms to our every wind of doctrinal error. If The Scripture is truly our final authority, in all matters of faith and PRACTICE, then we should strive to follow the Scriptural examples of Ephesus, and Philippi, and not anecdotes of failed experiments.

[DaveW]

So now after all your argument you agree that singular leadership is fine?

And I certainly don't avoid "bishop" for whatever trash you suggest - I avoid it because of the corruption of the term by high churches.

I have never used your false accusation of "God called me so...... whatever other rubbish you put in there. ..

Can anyone say "straw man"?????

[Ukulelemike]

I have to respectfully cry "foul", when anecdotal evidence is presented. We have two distinct examples , in the NT, of churches with multiple elders. We have no distinct examples of one with a singular bishop. OBviously, there is a point in most works, at the beginning, where one church planter is plowing. So, noone can say that no church ever has only one elder. And that isn't the prOBlem, in our 21st Century IFB churches. The prOBlem is the false doctrine of "God called me to be your leader, so to appoint another elder would be to rebel against God". Or to teach that an individual church should only have a aingular earthly head, or to take the term: "pastor", clearly defined as a gift, and make it into an imaginary office. We avoid the term "Bishop", because Philippi clearly had multiple Bishops. We drag a term out, that is only mentioned once in the NT (a part of a set, and in the plural, FTR), "pastor", and we make it the incredible putty term, that conforms to our every wind of doctrinal error. If The Scripture is truly our final authority, in all matters of faith and PRACTICE, then we should strive to follow the Scriptural examples of Ephesus, and Philippi, and not anecdotes of failed experiments.

Mind you I wasn't meaning to make mine anectodal evidence, rather telling a story associated with the comment before mine, not to prove any point other than, perhaps, that there needs to be SOME SORT of leadership, and in those 'churches' who try to have NO leadership tend to fail, because, again whether one or multiple, whether co-leadership and equal authority or layers of authority, there needs to be something,  I

[heartstrings]

pas·tor   [pas-ter, pah-ster]  Show IPA

Origin: 

1325–75;  < Latin pāstor  shepherd, literally, feeder, equivalent to pās-,  base of pāscere  to put to pasture,feed + -tor -tor; replacing Middle English pastour  < Anglo-French

 

 

eld·er

1  [el-der]  Show IPA

Origin: 
before 900; Middle English; Old English eldra,  comparative of eald old

 

 

The bible mentions the plurality of elders in individual churches. It also mentions ''elders'' having ''rule''. A ''pastor'' might indeed be an ''elder'' if he is ''older', as Peter said he was, but not every elder was a church pastor. A ''bishop'' was evidently an ''office'' as was a ''deacon'' because the Bible says so. Men try to say that all of these three words; elder, bishop, and pastor, refer to the same ''office''. I have seen no Bible evidence that this is true. If you can convince your church that all three mean the same thing, then you have the ''means'' to eliminate any other ''rulers'' but yourself and thereby squelch the voice of anyone who disagrees with you. This type power gives occasion to the Jack Hyles's, Jack Schaaps and Jim Jones's of this world because it IS worldly.  Too many of us want preeminence, want to dominate; not too many are willing to humble ourselves as servants.

 

Matthew 20: 25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.26But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister

[Steve Schwenke]

28The term "pastor" means "shepherd."

The term "bishop" means "overseer."  The sense of this is given in Acts 20:28:

 

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the FLOCK, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

 

Notice how the two ideas are represented together - bishop is overseeing, but somebody (the pastor!) is FEEDING the church.  The definition provided in a previous post shows that this is part of the meaning of "pastor" and part of the "pastor's" responsibility.  Paul merges those two ideas together in this one verse.

 

Now, I think we are all in agreement that the Hyles' philosophy of a one-man dictator is not Scriptural. 

BUT

Does this demand that all IFB churches have more than one "bishop?"

 

No.

The Scriptural evidence is inconclusive.

 

Bishop and Pastor refer to the same office, as noted above from Acts 20:28 - they serve the same purpose.

The term "Elder" is not any specific office, although it can include the office of the bishop.  The Bishop is "not to be a novice" so this means his is older - not necessary "old."  The Bible has a different term for those who are really "old" (70+  ???), which is "aged." 

This idea of the leadership being "older" (not "aged") is certainly not anything peculiar to the Bible.  For instance, our US Constitution has age limitations on the US Representatives, US Senators, and the President.  Why?  For the very same reason the Bible has a requirement for the office of the bishop (i.e. "not a novice.")  We don't need some greenhorn fresh out of college with no REAL EXPERIENCE trying to tell everyone else how things should be done.  Experience breeds compassion for others - or at least it should - along with some sympathy. 

 

However, the biblical use of the term "elder" is a carryover from the OT idea.  Yes, one man should not be given the reigns of the church.  He is accountable to the congregation, and should seek help from the elders of the church.  The prOBlem is that the Bible never gives us a list of qualifications for the "elders" nor does it give us any clear indication as to the function of the "elders" are.  All we can gather from implications given to us in the Scriptures is that these "elders" must have some spiritual sense to them, and should be able to assist the pastor(s) and deacon(s) in their duties.  The ONLY TWO SCRIPTURAL OFFICES given to us in the NT for the local church are the office of the Bishop (commonly known as the pastor) and the office of the deacon.

 

Therefore, my conclusion is that the term "elders" has a very broad meaning that can include the bishop(s) AND the deacon(s) together; or it could simply be a number of men in the church that the pastor can call on for guidance and advice, and who can also serve in some type of leadership capacity.

Thus, it could be that when Paul called for the "elders" of the church at Ephesus, that he was calling for the bishop(s) and the deacon(s).  All we know is that the Lord chose to use the ambiguous term "elders."

However, since PHil. 1:2 was brought into this, I think it fits the use of "elders" as I have suggested. 

 

As to multiple "bishops" in one church, this is merely a matter of practicality.  There is absolutely no need for more than one "pastor" at a small church of less than 50, prOBably less than 100.  After an agreed upon threshold by the local church, an Assistant or Associate pastor may need to be added to help the Pastor with his duties.  Would this not then fulfill the "multiple bishops" need?  Sure it would - why would it not?

 

Conclusion:

The Dictator Pastor One Man Show idea is wrong.  Yep - we got that.

BUT

Is "multiple bishops" an absolute must in every independent Baptist church a necessity?

Absolutely not - that is simply swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme.

I think I have answered all of the OBjections - but it will require some meditation on every single passage related to the "elders", "bishops" and "pastor" in the Bible to get there.

 

In Christ,

[Steve Schwenke]

Two more thoughts

I do not use the term "bishop" for the same reason someone else listed above - it has been corrupted by the RCC and Anglican church.  The term "pastor" is a scriptural term, and it fits the idea behind the office of bishop, as I noted from Acts 20:28.

 

While the term "pastor" is only used once in the NT, it was used in the OT, and those OT passages are instructive to us by way of example.  Further, the term "Calvary" is only used once in the NT - but that one time has resonated very clearly with all believers, and even lost people. 

So yes, once IS enough!

 

In Christ,

[heartstrings]

Another thought; The word "Christian" itself has been cheapened by many and even terms like "Holy Ghost" have  been corrupted by the charismatics/Pentecostals but, nonetheless, they are still scriptural terms. Likewise the word "Bishop" is just as scriptural as "pastor". A black pastor friend of mine has a "bishop" who oversees his church from time to time. Perhaps that is somewhat like Paul did when he came to visit churches? But If my pastor friend's church is overseen by a bishop, and isn't RC, then his use of the word 'bishop' doesn't shake me at all being it is a word out of my King James Bible. Anyway, I don't believe that things different are the same concerning the words "pastor" and "bishop".

 

Churches had numbers of elders, and the word clearly means "older". These "elders" "ruled well", were "worthy of double honour", and some, but not all, "labored in the word and doctrine" etc. Those guys were not all "pastors". But it was taught, in my former church, that "elders" = "pastors". 

[prophet1]

So now after all your argument you agree that singular leadership is fine?

And I certainly don't avoid "bishop" for whatever trash you suggest - I avoid it because of the corruption of the term by high churches.

I have never used your false accusation of "God called me so...... whatever other rubbish you put in there. ..

Can anyone say "straw man"?????

Funny, you felt like I was talking about you....

[prophet1]

28The term "pastor" means "shepherd."
The term "bishop" means "overseer." The sense of this is given in Acts 20:28:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the FLOCK, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Notice how the two ideas are represented together - bishop is overseeing, but somebody (the pastor!) is FEEDING the church. The definition provided in a previous post shows that this is part of the meaning of "pastor" and part of the "pastor's" responsibility. Paul merges those two ideas together in this one verse.

Now, I think we are all in agreement that the Hyles' philosophy of a one-man dictator is not Scriptural.
BUT
Does this demand that all IFB churches have more than one "bishop?"

No.
The Scriptural evidence is inconclusive.

Bishop and Pastor refer to the same office, as noted above from Acts 20:28 - they serve the same purpose.
The term "Elder" is not any specific office, although it can include the office of the bishop. The Bishop is "not to be a novice" so this means his is older - not necessary "old." The Bible has a different term for those who are really "old" (70+ ???), which is "aged."
This idea of the leadership being "older" (not "aged") is certainly not anything peculiar to the Bible. For instance, our US Constitution has age limitations on the US Representatives, US Senators, and the President. Why? For the very same reason the Bible has a requirement for the office of the bishop (i.e. "not a novice.") We don't need some greenhorn fresh out of college with no REAL EXPERIENCE trying to tell everyone else how things should be done. Experience breeds compassion for others - or at least it should - along with some sympathy.

However, the biblical use of the term "elder" is a carryover from the OT idea. Yes, one man should not be given the reigns of the church. He is accountable to the congregation, and should seek help from the elders of the church. The prOBlem is that the Bible never gives us a list of qualifications for the "elders" nor does it give us any clear indication as to the function of the "elders" are. All we can gather from implications given to us in the Scriptures is that these "elders" must have some spiritual sense to them, and should be able to assist the pastor(s) and deacon(s) in their duties. The ONLY TWO SCRIPTURAL OFFICES given to us in the NT for the local church are the office of the Bishop (commonly known as the pastor) and the office of the deacon.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the term "elders" has a very broad meaning that can include the bishop(s) AND the deacon(s) together; or it could simply be a number of men in the church that the pastor can call on for guidance and advice, and who can also serve in some type of leadership capacity.
Thus, it could be that when Paul called for the "elders" of the church at Ephesus, that he was calling for the bishop(s) and the deacon(s). All we know is that the Lord chose to use the ambiguous term "elders."
However, since PHil. 1:2 was brought into this, I think it fits the use of "elders" as I have suggested.

As to multiple "bishops" in one church, this is merely a matter of practicality. There is absolutely no need for more than one "pastor" at a small church of less than 50, prOBably less than 100. After an agreed upon threshold by the local church, an Assistant or Associate pastor may need to be added to help the Pastor with his duties. Would this not then fulfill the "multiple bishops" need? Sure it would - why would it not?

Conclusion:
The Dictator Pastor One Man Show idea is wrong. Yep - we got that.
BUT
Is "multiple bishops" an absolute must in every independent Baptist church a necessity?
Absolutely not - that is simply swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme.
I think I have answered all of the OBjections - but it will require some meditation on every single passage related to the "elders", "bishops" and "pastor" in the Bible to get there.

In Christ,

You keep using the article "the", where God puts an "a".

English grammar is your first hurdle.

[DaveW]

Funny, you felt like I was talking about you....

No - you couldn't have been talking to me because I don't believe any of the accusations you made.
And neither does just about anyone I know.

You do understand what a straw man argument is, don't you?
Because you use them a lot.

[DaveW]

....OBviously, there is a point in most works, at the beginning, where one church planter is plowing. .......

It's funny how you totally avoid your own inconsistency.
OBviously with this issue the Bible is not relevant all the time.

It is only relevant when you want to argue.
Either a single leader is Biblically wrong or it is not.
But you decide that it is different when planting???????

[prophet1]

No - you couldn't have been talking to me because I don't believe any of the accusations you made.
And neither does just about anyone I know.

You do understand what a straw man argument is, don't you?
Because you use them a lot.

Addressing a doctrinal error, as a principal, rather than as personal, is the proper way to discuss this.

You answered a post addressing principle, with the personal "I dont do that".
I find it interesting that you felt compelled to defend yourself, when no one was attacking you.

[prophet1]

It's funny how you totally avoid your own inconsistency.
OBviously with this issue the Bible is not relevant all the time.

It is only relevant when you want to argue.
Either a single leader is Biblically wrong or it is not.
But you decide that it is different when planting???????

The planter, if he is the only elder when the church begins, has a duty to ordain elders. The day the church starts, he may, for a short time, have no one to ordain.
This is practical.

The church is not to remain in one man's charge, and that is the prOBlem.

If, for instance, the planter is still there, 10 years later, and hasn't ordained other men to join the leadership, then there is a real possibility that he wasn't sent by God.
The other, and more common possibility, is that he has fallen prey to Nicolaitan doctrine, and believes himself to be the shepherd of that flock.

[DaveW]

So it IS Ok in certain circumstances.....

You are inconsistent, not biblical.

You could not defend your false premise and have now changed your tune.

[Steve Schwenke]

prophet - you have not dealt with the substance of my argument.  You dismissed over one word, but you overlooked the entire substance of it.  I believe I have made a reasonable argument that takes care of all of the issues in all of the passages. 

So I would appreciate it if you respond in full, rather than being your normal pithy self, and dismissing it by saying I don't know English Grammar, which is OBviously a red-herring that lets you off the hook. 

 

Your absence of any rebuttal to my posts only shows the weakness of your own position, IMO.

 

Moving on to greener topics...