Review: “40 Questions About Elders and Deacons” by Benjamin Merkle

0004464_40_questions_about_elders_and_deaconsThis book is a helpful resource and a welcome volume on the pastoral leadership of the church. Tom Schreiner wrote the foreword, and he doesn’t mince words when it comes to explaining the importance of this subject:

“The church is not a human institution or idea. The ordering of the church is not a matter of our wisdom or preference. The church is not a business where the brightest executives brainstorm on how it should be organized. Too many conceive of the church as a human organism where we innovatively map out its structure. God has not left us to our own devices. He has given us instructions on the nature and design of the church in His inspired and authoritative Word. To jettison what God says about the church and supplant it with our own ideas is nothing less than astonishing arrogance.”

Merkle doesn’t shy from emphasizing this significance either. He cautions that unbiblical models of church leadership can lead to unbiblical church leaders, and describes how this affects the nature of pastoral ministry and also the life and health of the church body. He effectively shows from Scripture that God intends for the local church to be pastored by a council of elders and why the common practice of distinguishing a senior or lead pastor from the elders is not biblical.

As you might have guessed from the title, this book is divided into 40 questions, each of them addressing a specific question regarding elders and deacons. (Technically, there are 39 questions since the author devotes two chapters to one of the questions.) This book is well-written, and I don’t see any reason why most people won’t read it from cover to cover. But the way it’s organized makes it especially helpful for those who need to quickly locate an answer to a particular question.

It’s difficult to think of a pertinent question the author doesn’t cover. The first few chapters explore church polity in general. He explains how the New Testament terms “elder” and “overseer” (or “bishop”) refer to the same church office. Merkle notes that while most evangelical pastors and scholars would agree with this conclusion, it’s all too rarely applied today in the local church. He does a great job of describing the different forms of church leadership in their historical contexts, and showing scripturally why Acts 15 doesn’t support the episcopal or presbyterian models. I deeply appreciate the strong stand he takes against making a distinction between the elders and a pastor or senior pastor.

The next chapters focus on the role of the elder. This is excellent material, and the author makes it accessible and understandable. He devotes one chapter to Timothy and Titus, nicely clarifying the apostolic nature of their ministries. In the following section of the book, Merkle examines the qualifications for elders. I thought his treatment demonstrated extensive knowledge of the material, spiritual wisdom and balanced application. He capably handles questions regarding the “husband of one wife,” whether an elder must be married and whether his children must be believers. To require that an elder—even one who serves as a primary teacher/preacher—have a seminary degree is to go beyond God’s standards for elders and to artificially add our own. The author explains this. He spends three chapters discussing whether women can be elders, and his handling of the key biblical passages is superb, particularly his distinguishing between cultural applications and transcultural principles. I also appreciated his explanation of the difference between prophecy and preaching. Some have mistakenly assumed that prophecy is preaching, and this has led to ministry practices that are confusing and unhealthy.

With questions 21-28 Merkle moves to the plurality of the church elders. He points out that the ‘one elder per house church’ idea is purely conjectural, not found in Scripture, and that we shouldn’t base our polity on such speculative ideas. He shows the clear, consistent biblical model of a plurality of pastoral elders in each church, and also the complete lack of scriptural examples or precedent for a sole or senior pastor. He discusses practical issues such as whether there should be a fixed number of elders and if the elders should require unanimous consensus when making decisions, giving pros and cons for each practice. The author describes real advantages to plural pastoral ministry, reasons why more churches aren’t structured this way, and gives some helpful thoughts on transitioning to this kind of leadership model. He warns against using terms such as “lay elder” or “lay pastor,” and also cautions about having too little overlap between the church elders and the staff, essentially creating a third church office. (I think many large churches with an eldership structure need to seriously consider this last point.) In this section, Merkle makes a statement I find to be true and a cause for concern:

“The organizational structure of many churches today bears almost no resemblance to the pattern found among the New Testament churches.”

That should give us all pause.

Questions 29-33 cover more practical issues concerning elders such as: How should elders be selected? How long should they serve? Should they be ordained? etc. In chapters 34-40, Merkle examines the role of the deacon. And I suppose this is as good a place as any to note a few of the author’s minor points with which I would disagree. Scripture never defines the exact role of the deacon, and I see great wisdom in this. Ministry needs arise that are important and that must be addressed, but which would draw the elders from their specific, God-given role. In such cases, it’s wise to appoint other church leaders to oversee these areas of responsibility. Because this will vary greatly from church to church, it makes perfect sense to me that the New Testament doesn’t give us a normative description of the ministry role of the deacon.

But Merkle disappointingly assumes that all deacons were focused on the physical needs of the people. He bases this (as others have) on the account in Acts 6:1-6. I don’t think anyone would disagree that caring for the physical needs of the people fits within the scope of ministry for deacons. But should the entire range of appropriate ministry options for deacons be defined and limited by this one, solitary example in a narrative account? Is it only the elders who can provide teaching and leadership to youth, children, women’s ministries(!), men’s ministries, etc.? Can only elders lead in counseling ministries or working with people with addictions? If these are legitimate ministry needs—with a need for leadership that often goes beyond the scope of those who pastor the whole church—and if these ministries somehow can’t fit within the role of the deacon, aren’t we back to a nebulous third church office that we wanted to avoid? If these people who are serving in some leadership capacity aren’t elders and they aren’t deacons, what exactly are they? How many categories of church leaders are there? I just don’t see how we can extrapolate a comprehensive pattern for ministry from one narrative detail that may very well have been occasional in nature. This is why many of us feel that all church leadership responsibilities beyond the specific role of the elders fall into the intentionally undefined role of the deacons, under the oversight of the elders of course. (I also find the author’s arguments against female deacons unconvincing.)

In a few places, Merkle expresses concern about an overly democratic model of congregationalism, and shows the benefits of reaching genuine consensus as opposed to congregational voting. He also repeatedly brings out the necessity of not just an informed congregation, but one involved with the actual process of reaching consensus. This all resonates with me, and is reassuring to many who have been turned off by the democratic model of church votes. But then, in other places, he seems to drag out the old, highly conjectural arguments that are usually used to support the democratic model. Some of these arguments represent the exegetical over-reaching that caused many of us to reject congregationalism in the first place. (I should clarify that I’ve returned to a modified, consensus-based form of congregationalism.) Not only are these arguments not necessary for his main conclusions, I don’t think they’re borne out by the texts. I found all of this confusing, even placing a few of his descriptions of the role of the church body in conflict with his described role for the church elders.

My final quibble involves two interrelated issues. Merkle feels that, since only elders are specifically tasked with teaching, the role of deacons therefore cannot include regular teaching as a specific matter of responsibility. He quotes D.A. Carson to support this even though Carson is not making the same point Merkle is. Carson rightly points out that deacons enjoy no “church-recognized teaching authority akin to that of the elders.” This is an important point, especially in churches that have elevated the role of deacons to essentially that of the church elders. But just because the elders authoritatively teach the church, why does this mean there can be no other leaders who teach regularly as part of their specific ministry?

In a similar way, Merkle cautions against using the term “pastor” to refer to any leaders in the church other than the elders. So, for instance, we shouldn’t designate a non-elder as a youth pastor or women’s pastor. But why not? All the elders are pastors, this is very true. But are only elders pastors? Is there to be no one else in the church with a shepherding gift and role? Is the youth pastor not pastoring the youth? Or the women’s pastor the women? the children’s pastor the children? If these people are serving in an authentically shepherding role, why not acknowledge this in our terminology? How is this out of harmony with the New Testament model? Again, yes, God designates the elders as those who pastor and teach the whole church. But where stands it written that they are therefore the only shepherds and teachers within the church? Why can’t the non-elder members of the church leadership team or staff—whether paid or voluntary—correspond to the biblical role of the church deacons? (Whether we call them deacons, pastors, ministers or something else would be a secondary issue.)

Despite these disagreements, which are relatively minor, I find this book to be extremely beneficial and useful to anyone wanting to better understand the biblical teachings on the pastoral leadership of the church. Highly recommended.

Posted in church leadership | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Can something come from nothing?: The Cosmological Argument

Here’s an excellent presentation of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God from William Lane Craig and Reasonable Faith:

Posted in examining the faith | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

EFCA Gateway

gateway_cmyk-1Some of you know that I’m passionate about church-based theological education. While I’m extremely thankful for sound evangelical scholarship and appreciate seminary professors as vital resources for the church, I’ve long been a proponent of training pastors in a local church context. There’s much to commend such an approach both biblically and historically (and economically).

So you can understand my excitement at learning more about EFCA Gateway. This EFCA ministry is designed for leaders who need theological and pastoral training, but lack the time and resources to access traditional seminary education. I hope to become very involved with EFCA Gateway and will be writing much more about it in the future. But probably the best introduction is this video:

Posted in church leadership | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why the EFCA?

efca-logo-jpg-color-notag-webEarlier this year, our church affiliated with the EFCA. In a previous post, I wrote about why we (a nondenominational church) decided to join an association of churches. But—once we had decided to become part of a larger group of churches—why did we choose the Evangelical Free Church of America? Here are some of the factors that led us to this choice:

Theologically robust
I’ve been an interested observer of the EFCA for years. One of the things I’ve long appreciated was the theological depth I saw from their pastors and leaders. I’d expect this from people in the movement such as seminary professors (and the EFCA has its share of renowned scholars), but it was encouraging to see this level of knowledge and theological maturity in discussions at the pastoral level.

Pastorally motivated
It’s easy to get so caught up in the minutiae of sterile, ivory tower kinds of theological discussions we lose our moorings in an actual church context with real, everyday ministry concerns. I haven’t seen this kind of imbalance with the EFCA. As a movement, they’re passionate about helping their churches be truly healthy, transforming churches who can multiply transforming, multiplying churches. Their intellectual richness serves and supports the EFCA mission.

Doctrinally balanced
The pastors and leaders of the EFCA are uncompromising in their stand on the gospel of Jesus Christ and the essential truths of evangelical Christianity. But from the beginning they’ve intentionally resisted making official pronouncements concerning secondary issues. The movement includes both Calvinists and Arminians. They have no official view on spiritual gifts, infant baptism or the timing of the rapture. At the EFCA One conference in New Orleans, I saw this diversity manifested in other ways as well. There were many different races represented, different styles of clothing, a wide range of ages. I saw young leaders respected and listened to, and also much older leaders equally respected, serving actively and vibrantly (sometimes even assuming new and challenging roles). One could say their unity in the gospel is what makes possible their genuine freedom in nonessential issues.

Missionally driven
This is a movement that takes seriously their mission statement: We exist to glorify God by multiplying transformational churches among all people. Over and over again at the conference I witnessed the consistent, ongoing commitment to this mission. This statement isn’t just a formality for them, something to have somewhere on a website. These churches, pastors and leaders really are all about multiplying transformational churches among all people. They are focused on their own churches being transformational and multiplying, and in doing everything they can to help others grow in doing this as well.

I should also mention that the Free church people we’ve met have been some of the nicest, most gracious people you can imagine. They’ve made us feel right at home in the EFCA. In some ways we don’t have to change anything about who we are as a church. But I also feel encouraged and challenged to keep growing, seeking God’s continued transforming work, in my life as an elder and pastor, in the life of our church and beyond. We are excited to share in the life and mission of the EFCA. We too long to glorify God by multiplying transformational churches among all people.

(Another EFCA ministry I’m thrilled about is EFCA Gateway—but it deserves it’s own post! Stay tuned.)

Posted in church life | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why affiliate?

headerEarlier this year, our church joined the Evangelical Free Church of America. (The EFCA is an association of over 1,500 autonomous churches.) Earlier this month, I spent a few days in New Orleans for EFCA One, the national conference of the EFCA movement. This was an incredible time of being renewed spiritually and being inspired and motivated for continued ministry. Experiencing this conference also confirmed to me that the EFCA family is the right fit for us. I’m going to write another post about why we feel strongly the EFCA is the right home for our church, but first I want to look at the question: “Why affiliate at all?”

Until this year, I’d spent my entire pastoral ministry and much of my Christian life in a nondenominational context. The church I serve as an elder and teaching pastor was planted (and replanted) as a nondenominational, unaffiliated congregation. So what led us to contemplate affiliation with a larger group? Here, in bullet point form, are the factors we considered regarding affiliation:

What are the benefits of being nondenominational?

  • We’re not controlled by any outside organization. No denomination owns our church property or dictates to us who will serve as our pastoral leaders. We see this as a positive factor, and one that fits the life of the early church. (I’m going to write soon about the relevant early church history.)
  • We’re not tied to one narrow denominational tradition such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.
  • We’re free to follow the Bible and not have unscriptural policies imposed on us.
  • We don’t alienate people from differing traditions. We can be more inclusive of all evangelical Christians.

What are the problems of being independent?

  • We’re isolated geographically, culturally and theologically. This point is specifically pertinent to our English-speaking church here in Puerto Rico.
  • We don’t regularly cooperate with other churches for the sake of our common Christian mission.
  • We don’t confer with other churches regarding biblical teaching and church practices.
  • We have no real connection with anything larger than our own independent congregation.
  • We’re in danger of being a “lone ranger” church.

So here’s the question we asked ourselves:

Can we keep the benefits of being nondenominational
and address the problems of being independent?

The answer for us was “Yes.” By affiliating with the EFCA, we kept all the benefits of being nondenominational while addressing all the problems of being independent. I’ll be writing more soon about why we’re excited to be partnering with the EFCA.

Posted in church life | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Been a long time

I know it’s been a long time since I’ve posted anything here. Well I’m back, and I’ll be blogging more regularly again. I’ll finish up my series on the historical Jesus (two final posts planned for that), I have some new series ready to start, and I’m going to be adding some shorter posts here and there. Thanks for checking back to see if anything’s finally going on here!

Posted in other stuff | Tagged | 4 Comments

What good is a dead Messiah?

How the first century Jews understood the Messiah and resurrection

Lamentation over the Dead Christ, by Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506)When we consider the resurrection of Jesus, usually two competing viewpoints come immediately to mind: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he did not. That makes sense. But there’s another option sometimes proposed that isn’t as familiar. This is the idea that Jesus was spiritually resurrected. These people accept that Jesus’ spirit didn’t die but returned to God, and that it was Jesus’ spirit that appeared to his disciples.

At first, this seems like an appealing theory. It doesn’t present the same challenge that a physical resurrection does, it accepts God as a real part of the story, and it still seems to respect the earliest accounts of Jesus . . . or does it? Does a spiritual resurrection do justice to what we know historically about Jesus and his earliest disciples? To properly weigh this proposal, we need to have a clear picture of how the first century Jews understood “the Messiah” and “resurrection.” What did they mean when they used these words?

The Messiah
The old Hebrew prophecies speak of a Messiah, a promised Deliverer from God who would rescue the people of Israel and lead them into a new golden age. The first century Jews were people in need of such a Deliverer. They had been conquered by Rome, their land was occupied by Rome, they were heavily taxed by Rome. They couldn’t escape the signs of the Roman occupation; Roman soldiers were everywhere, as were the political leaders from Rome. Rome even interfered with their priestly system, manipulating who would serve as the Jewish High Priest.

Because of the oppression they suffered, the Jewish people of Jesus’ time were keenly interested in anything having to do with the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to be another Moses or David, someone who would bring about spiritual and national renewal, leading them to drive out their Roman oppressors and re-establish their nation under the leadership of God and his Messiah. The Messiah was understood to be a spiritual, political and military leader.

We have many references to the speculation surrounding Jesus of Nazareth. Was he the One? Could he be the Messiah who would lead them to victory over the Romans? Was he just waiting for the right moment to unite his followers and take action against their enemies? Jesus attracted a large number of disciples, people who were convinced he was the Messiah, their long-awaited Deliverer.

5634185825_612998e5f6But then something unexpected happened. Something unthinkable. Jesus was arrested, he was handed over to the Romans, he was tried, and he was executed. Their supposed Deliverer was publicly, shamefully crucified in the sight of everyone. And—at that point—there could be only one conclusion: . . . he wasn’t the Messiah after all. They had thought he was, but they were wrong. He hadn’t delivered them from their oppressors; their oppressors had defeated and killed him. To continue to believe that Jesus was the Messiah would be as nonsensical as continuing to believe after June of 1968 that Robert Kennedy would be the next president. He was dead. It was over. Jesus was not who they thought he was.

It surprises people to learn there were other men during this period of history who were thought to be the Messiah. They all met the same fate: They were defeated and killed, proving to everyone they were not, in fact, the Messiah. But the case of Jesus took a different turn. Something changed. Shortly after his death a movement exploded that hailed him as the Messiah, and more. How could they claim that a dead man—executed by the Romans like a common criminal—was the promised Messiah? What good was a dead Messiah?

The answer of course is the claim of resurrection, that Jesus had risen from the dead. But we need to understand what these Jews meant by resurrection. When the Jews of this time spoke of resurrection, they all understood exactly what they were talking about. They were referring to the end of time when God would bring his people back to life. This wasn’t the idea of someone dead being healed—who would then die again some day (as in the story of Lazarus). This was the receiving of unending life. And it wasn’t merely some spiritual presence with God. This was a new physical, bodily life.

Now, it’s true that not all first century Jews believed in a resurrection. The Sadducees famously did not, which caused frequent debate between them and the Pharisees. But it was this understanding of resurrection they didn’t believe in. They didn’t try to redefine resurrection to something they could accept. They just said they didn’t believe in it! But whether one believed in resurrection or they didn’t, when they spoke of resurrection they were all speaking of the same phenomenon. There was no confusion as to what they meant by this concept.

If the followers of Jesus began to claim they had seen visions of Jesus’ spirit talking with them and that he was now with God, this might have sparked some mild interest but the conclusion would be unchanged: So what? He’s still dead. That doesn’t change a thing. He’s still not the Messiah. The claim that his spirit remained alive and that he was somehow with God would not have been remarkable. It couldn’t have “resurrected” his reputation as the Messiah.

Empty TombBut his earliest followers—all first century Jews—claimed to their fellow Jews that Jesus had been resurrected. And they all knew exactly what was meant by this claim. They were saying he had somehow experienced resurrection life before the end of time. He wasn’t just alive in spirit; he was no longer dead! He had physically risen again, and would never again die. Their enemies had done their worst to Jesus, but he had defeated them by coming back to life. God had validated him as his Messiah by resurrecting him from death. Not all their contemporaries believed this testimony. But, again, there was no confusion as to what the claim was. It was the same claimed phenomenon of physical, bodily, unending resurrection life, whether they believed it or rejected it.

So why did Jesus’ followers suddenly begin announcing he had risen from the dead? Where did they get this idea that he had been uniquely resurrected before the end of time? What caused them to go from despair to this hope? Was it just wishful thinking? Self-delusion? We’ll next consider the question: Did Jesus rise from the dead?

The historical Jesus series:

The search for Jesus

Did Jesus really exist?

Was the story of Christ copied from other religions?

Why did the early Christians accept the New Testament Gospels?

Why did the early Christians reject the “alternative gospels”?

How reliable are the New Testament Gospels?

What can we know about the historical Jesus?

What good is a dead Messiah? [see above]

Posted in examining the faith | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments