Let’s step away from the Heiser passenger train just a bit. We need to get away from the tightly controlled route to cover something he could not and would not have touched.
Over and over again, the foundation for our faith community is to embrace the Hebrew outlook of the Bible. It’s radically different from that of the West in general and American churches in particular. It’s not enough to simply get the intellectual background of Jesus. We must walk in His footsteps; we must live life as He would in our place. Somewhere between the divine ideal and the context of where we are today must be a landing place for us to find His peace.
Most of us come out of an American evangelical background, or are at least familiar with it. I’m sure most of us have at least read about the organizational discipline process for handling church leaders who somehow manage to break from their role qualifications. On the one hand, evangelicals confuse the roles of elder and pastor. On the other hand, the standard qualifications listed in the New Testament aren’t significantly different between those two roles: 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5.
- Sexually/maritally faithful
- Good manager of household
- Humble
- Gentle
- Sober
- Peaceful
- Financially responsible
- Hospitable
- Self-controlled
- Upright in character
- Committed to holiness
- Able to teach
- Spiritually mature (not a new convert)
- Respectable (and respected by outsiders)
- A good example to the flock
If you are familiar with Big Eva teachings, you’ll recognize the lists offered at Gospel Coalition and Acts 29. The discussion of qualification and disqualification is long established. It would be very easy to get bogged down in the particular emphasis and meaning different sources might suggest in analyzing the Scriptures, but our point here is that they all consistently approach it from a western frame of reference. The discussion is burdened with a big wad of western professional standards and the matching legalism. Rarely do you see anyone trying to dig up a historical context for what the Apostles wrote.
Naturally, it’s because Big Eva has a culturally twisted perception of what a “church” is and does. Paul didn’t plant public access corporations; he started familial covenant communities. The first century churches were extended family households bound by a common spiritual DNA with a Hebrew feudal structure.
The primary biblical image of church leadership is the shepherd raising a flock. That’s what the word “pastor” means – someone who spends almost all his time with his sheep. He loses sleep when one is sick, injured or lost. When he does sleep, it’s next to them; he smells like them.
Start from that image and read the list again. The primary objective of church shepherds is not shearing and slaughter, but herding them to the Law of Christ: to love the Lord and to love each other as the Lord loves. You invest a lot of effort in teaching them about the Lord who owns them. They need to know how Jesus loves them so they can emulate that. The whole point is improving how well this extended family gets along with each other, looking after each other’s welfare.
Every element of the shepherd’s qualification must contribute to that priority. Every time you want to point out any disqualification, it has to be something that threatens that priority. It’s not about measurable success. You don’t hire and fire a shepherd like a corporate CEO. Shepherds are not rated by the numbers of bodies, buildings or dollars in the budget. They are rated on how well they build a familiar atmosphere of cooperation and common welfare.
To be blunt, the flock should be able to recognize the shepherd by the smell of his individual perspiration. They should know his habits, what he hums under his breath, and what makes him angry. They should know his fleshly temptations, as he should know theirs. They should be eager to watch out for each other in humility and love. His problems are theirs and vice versa.
Only after you get all of that right will you be in a position to talk about what happens when he does something inconsistent with his role, something that threatens the unity of the household. Accountability should be built into the process. Recognize the problems early. Know him well enough to estimate what it takes to get back on track.
That’s what rehab of church leadership means.
The American institutional church norm of social engagement is entirely too impersonal and “professional” to make any sense of what the New Testament says about church leadership. Until you’ve seen everyone at their worst and made peace with that, no one has any business discussing dismissing anyone from office. Indeed, they have no business discussing forming a church in the first place.
Yes, we have a huge burden of social habits to overcome. The biblical image of “church” is a monumental demand on Americans. The problem so far is that no one has ever really tried, so we have no idea how close we can come. The fundamental image itself has never been considered. Instead, we have had any number of creepy cult groups and senseless experiments that have served only to enslave and harm.
In other words, the mainstream image of “church” is only slightly better than cults, at best. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen good men of God tossed aside because of silly legalistic rules about professionalism. At the same time, I’ve seen countless times a man with no moral qualifications at all ran a huge institution because he was professionally qualified or simply able to manifest as a celebrity.
God help us.
