Ecclesiology 18 - The New Church: Staff

    For the most part, my ideas regarding staffing the New Church were laid out rather thoroughly in the post on July 21 of this year.  We will herein reiterate the concepts of that post with a small amount of clarification and illumination.

    The Didache, a non-canonical treatise dating to the end of the first century, lays out the personnel of the early church rather succinctly.  We will, for a large part, be using it as an ecumenical guide.  Within the local congregation, we will select from among ourselves elders, deacons and preachers.  Each will be given specific roles and undergo training for these capacities.

    Elders (or presbyters) are, for wont of better terminology, the church leaders.  Collectively, they are responsible for the administration of the church, training of the disciples, shepherding the flock and defining the church creed (the subject of a later post).  Each of these occupations can take many different forms, as the needs of each group will differ slightly from all others.  The selection of elders is to be taken quite seriously and done with great care, always in deference to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  As stated, I do not myself know the exact procedure to employ, but I do think that it must include a method for the removal of an individual elder from office should the church find that a human mistake has been made in their selection. I'll discuss this more at length below.

    It must also be determined that, while elders may actually serve in different capacities - this one acting as accountant, that one as training leader, etc. - corporate decisions must be made by the elders as a whole and, when necessary, in consultation with the whole body.  For an example of this concept, we need look no further that the current operation of the Federal government.  For the most part, our Congress is imbued with the authority to pass laws on behalf of the American citizenship, but on extremely weighty matters such as a proposed amendment to the Constitution, Congress must collect the votes of the citizens and honor the majority decision when proceeding.  Despite depictions of the President's authority in the popular media, we do not yet have a fascist form of government; no one person or even a small minority of people can make sweeping decisions for the entire population.  Just so with the church.  Even with completely benevolent intent, that level of power should never be consigned to a single person or even a small group.  In a church celebrating the infinite diversity of its gifts, a mechanism must be employed by which all voices are heard, but without bogging down our work and mission to a point of infinite debate and ultimate stagnation.

    In my imagination, deacons - the "worker bees" of the church - will come out of the woodwork volunteering to do the work of the church.  In reality, the church will probably have to make use of whomever they can, often finding itself needing to cajole enough people into employment to even get the job done.  I hope to be proven wrong on this count.  I pray that we will have done enough in our initial prayer and meditation groups such that we have sufficient Spiritual Adults in our midst so that the work can proceed smoothly.

    Deacons can be employed in all sorts of capacities, some noticeable, some not.  They can be assigned tasks according to their evident gifts, leading the worship music, attending to deliveries of food to the poor, maintaining our worship spaces in a neat and tidy manner, mowing a widow's lawn or replacing her toilet flapper, the list goes on and on.  I will toss in one proviso: if there is a job to be done that local ordinance states must be done by a bonded, licensed professional and an appropriate volunteer does not exist among our deacons, then by all means hire the required professional and pay a respectable wage for the job.  Let us not become so miserly as to deprive someone of their due.  In all likelihood, the hired professional also has a family to feed, and ours is not to undercut or second-guess the value of their time and expertise.

    I'm not certain that I would have among the flock those with the designation of preacher, as preaching is the job of everyone in the church.  Even so, some training will still be in order.  There are any number of ways in which we define "preaching," most ineffective and some even repellent.  First, let us not limit our concept of preaching to merely inviting people to come to church.  Yes, this invitation is to be extended when appropriate, but we are ordered to take the Word to the world, not invite the world to come to us to hear it.  Second, preaching doesn't mean inserting validations of our faith into every conversation conceivable, for largely the same reason.  If we have reached a state of Spiritual Maturity, then (a) such invitations and interjections will flow naturally in our conversations, and (b) no such "forced" encounters will be necessary; like the song lyrics say, "they will know we are Christians by our love" (John 13:35), in which case our various interlocutors will likely ask about our faith without our guidance.  So some training is in order so that our parishioners can become competent preachers, neither ineffective nor, worse, offensive.

    Once the church has grown sufficiently such that more than one worship space is necessary, it is time to select bishops and evangelists (although, conceivably, the latter could be a subgroup of the former).  These people will perform largely the same tasks as the local elders, and we will likely select our candidates from among these groups.  Bishops and evangelists are effectively the "overseers" of the church, traveling in circuits from one congregation to the next.  The distinction between the two job titles, if there need be one, is that the bishop's work will be more on the ecclesiological side, while the evangelist will be more theological.  In simpler terms, the bishop will visit congregations seeking to generate unity among our groups regarding practical matters such as business and legal concerns, training, and adherence to our established creed.  The evangelist's visitations will deal more with such things as Scriptural interpretation and teaching.  Many of Paul's letters were intended to make "course corrections" when one church or another had strayed from his original teachings.  Chapters 2 & 3 of Revelation also discuss ways in which a church might stray from the Spirit.  These sorts of things would fall under the jurisdiction of our evangelists.  As I say, the two jobs cannot help but intertwine, and I'm not convinced that they will require distinct job titles.

    In the first century church bishops had a reasonably small circuit.  When mentioned individually, they were usually referred to by service area.  Thus we find references to James the Bishop of Jerusalem, and Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus.  Evangelists' territories were evidently much larger. Paul describes ways in which a local church should greet an evangelist when he arrives in town.  For our purposes, I see no reason why either need have a coverage area of more than the county limits in urban areas or let's say a 50-100 mile radius in more rural areas.  These are not hard-and-fast distances.  The point is to assign each bishop/evangelist a jurisdiction which can be easily covered in a day.  Our goal here is to have our church leaders home at night if at all possible.  If this becomes problematic, then it may be time to employ the Internet.  I really like face-to-face encounters, but I am not blind to the virtues of texts, emails and Zoom meetings.

    As for income, I'm perfectly okay with counting on everyone having a personal income stream outside their services to the church, be it a salary, a pension or whatever.  Paul himself, realizing how difficult it is to maintain a legal practice while traveling as a missionary, learned the trade of tent making as a means of support, a trade that could travel with him.  He does allow, however, that the pressures on bishops' and evangelists' time could be so great that a small stipend may be in order.  My own opinion on the matter is not strong, although I lean a bit toward the no-pay option.  In this day of uber-technology, I see no reason why extensive travel even among our bishops and evangelists should be required, and, if the calls come in with too much frequency to allow for work, rest and family time (which they most assuredly will), there is always the option of turning the phone off for a few hours.  Let us then say that, in general, we should not expect too much of our leaders.  On the very rare occasion when an overnight visit is required, it doesn't seem too much to ask the district or the local church to pick up the tab for some gasoline, a couple of meals and a night at the Dew Drop Inn unless, like our first century counterparts, a member of our congregations offers a bed, shower and dinner for the night.

    Let us look now at whom among us is qualified to hold the positions mentioned above.

(1) Education.  Obviously we will want some decently educated people leading our church (we'd no doubt want our Bible studies led by people who know the distinctions between literal, allegorical, tropological and anagogical interpretation and the value of each), but before we start sticking degree requirements on our job descriptions, we need to recall the original purpose of a college education.  It's hard to see now - when everyone including the deans seem to think that a college degree is intended to get the graduate a higher than average salary - that a college education was originally supposed to primarily teach a student discipline.  It was thought that a disciplined student could command a higher level of respect, and that respect would normally result in a higher salary.  Whether it does or not, the disciplined student is always going to be better at abstract reasoning skills, which will improve the student's life immeasurably regardless of income.  As we have seen, prayer and meditation can also lead to mental and spiritual discipline without the need to grace the hallways of academia.

    When we look for church leaders, I do not believe we must make a point of seeking out those with the greatest number of letters following their last names.  We must seek out the most disciplined, those most attuned to the Spirit, those least likely to use their positions for personal or political gain.  With very rare exceptions, I suspect the Holy Spirit will tell us whom these people are if we will bother asking.

(2) Sex. I see no New Testament evidence that our church leadership needs be a boys' club.  The gospels remark frequently on the positions of Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, Joanna, Susanna, and "the other women" as disciples of Christ right alongside Peter, James, and John.  While Paul seems to have gone into the missionary service with a bit of a sexist chip on his shoulder (possibly due to an acrimonious divorce), by the later epistles his position had mellowed a great deal.  Throughout these later letters, he singles out a number of women by name and praises them for their services to the church.  Not some few of them, like Priscilla, Julia, and Sophia are specifically named as serving in the leadership capacities of deacon, apostle, etc.  In Galations 3:28, he makes clear that "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male nor female, for you are all one in Christ."  There appears to have been no gender-gap in the first-century church.  I see no reason to have one in the twenty-first, either.

    I realize that I'm likely about to lose what minuscule readership I have at the moment with this, but as I have hinted a few times already, I see no reason why this concept of asexual leadership need be confined to male and female.  Yes, I am perfectly aware of the Levitical ban on homosexuality, but modern Christendom routinely ignores the Levitical bans on tattoos, haircuts, piercings, shellfish, cotton-polyester shirts, multi-cultural flower beds, high interest loans, iconography, and bacon.  I see no reason to single out Mosaic edicts regarding homosexuality as our sole point of adherence, especially since, to my knowledge, Christ himself only mentioned human sexuality once in the story of the three eunuchs (Matt. 19:12), and that verse concludes with Christ's admonishment for all who can hear to do so, referring back to Isaiah's statement that eunuchs are to be admitted into the Lord's house and they will receive a "monument and a name better than the sons and daughters." (Isa.56:5)  Further, there is no other mention of homosexuality throughout the remainder of the New Testament save a single reference by Paul in Romans chapter 1 that is, in reality, a gross and overly simplified mistranslation of the passage.  In this passage, Paul is condemning vices in general and singles out sexual vices - both among men and women - as one of several examples given on the topic.  This chapter did not specifically refer to homosexuality until the Latin translations in the 400's, and those mistranslations have carried over into English since (the original text is better translated as "effeminate," so all you long-haired metrosexuals with your pierced ears and fanny packs gotta go, too! ☺). It seems there are a handful of advantages to knowing one's Greek, after all!

    Actually, my only thoughts regarding our church's collective sexuality is that I really wish we'd all just shut up about it.  Even though I am a child of the 60's, when we thought of any social norm, including conversational ones, as an oppressive affront to our freedom, I have now reached an age at which I rather pine for those days when sex and politics were subjects considered unfit for polite discourse.  These seem to me to be areas in which Dear Abby's notorious response of "MYOB" (mind your own business) is completely apropos.  I am confident that a three-minute review of any modern newscast or a one-minute scroll through social media will bear me out in this regard.

(3) Race.  I will actually address both race and economic status here with a single example.  To do so, I use that of Onesimus.  Paul mentions Onesimus by name in his letter to Philemon.  If you've never read that letter, I recommend it.  It's short, easy to read, and almost comical in Paul's "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" conspiratorial tone.  I can almost see Eric Idle's face whenever I read it!

    Essentially, Onesimus has been traveling with Paul for some time before the latter realizes that he is a runaway slave belonging to Philemon, a wealthy member (perhaps bishop) of the church in Colossae.  Once Paul realizes the deep trouble he will be in for harboring a runaway slave, he sends Onesimus back to Philemon with what amounts to a letter of commendation on Onesimus' behalf, commending him for all his good and hard work and heavily implying - but never coming right out and saying - that Philemon should forgive Onesimus and give him his freedom.

    Tradition holds that this is exactly what Philemon did.  Onesimus, traditionally a native of Africa from the area now occupied by Ghana, goes on to succeed Timothy as the bishop of Ephesus.  So, in Onesimus, we have a first century example of a church leader being not only a member of a minority race, but also one of as low an economic class as it is possible to be.

    The only other thing I can still think to say regarding our staffs is to point out the need to have mechanisms in place for their removal.  I can foresee how, despite our prayerful care in selecting our leaders, we may at some point find that either we have made a poor choice or the initially right person has gone astray.  Either way, I am now thinking about dealing with the very touchy subject of how to go about correcting someone in a position of leadership.

    The ultimate solution to this problem will naturally be to remove this person from their office, and that will be the culmination of a process I intend to address in a future post.  For now, a few words on prevention, and those mostly reiterations of statements already made here.

(1) The reason this blog continues to exist, the reason I continue typing to a silent audience, the reason I did not simply make a one-sentence post back in July that read "Read Howard Snyder's The Problem with Wineskins" is because I truly believe that the missing key element in virtually all Western churches is the near total lack of sincere prayer and meditation, both individually and corporately.  I honestly believe that if we hit the reset button on our liturgy and start with prayer and meditation as the bedrock of our religious experiences, not something tacked into our worship services as a disposable routine, the types of issues we see coming out of the Western church - including incredibly bad leadership - would not have a chance to exist.  The soil would be wrong.  Just as orchids will not grow in the desert, succulents won't grow in a rain forest.  Good soil, good plants.  It's just that simple.  I think I heard that somewhere.  Hmmm... oh, yeah!  I heard it from Jesus!

(2) Continuing briefly with the gardening motif,  it can be found that, no matter how well we plan and fertilize our beds, we can still find the occasional dandelion growing among the roses.  One way to cut back on that is to turn the soil from time to time.  In more literal terms, let us consider the United Methodist process of electing members to the Staff-Parish Relations committee, a group that, if not properly constrained, has the potential for becoming the most powerful group in the local congregation.  Knowing this, the UMC Book of Discipline curtails the temptation starting at the very beginning.  Unless the congregation is too small to accommodate the numbers, the committee shall consist of nine members.  In the first year of the church's incorporation, three members shall be elected to one-year terms, three to two-year terms, and three to three-year terms.  Beginning with the second year of incorporation, three members shall be elected each year to three-year terms ad infinitum.  This allows for consistency, continuous training, and subsequent removal from office without any sort of hassle.  Unlike the U.S. Congress, the SPR has built-in term limits.  I'm not sure that this exact procedure is right for all of our church leaders.  I submit it as a possible preventative to entrenchment.

(3) There is always the matter of impiety; insidious pride sneaking in despite our efforts.  There were a number of causes for the Great Schism of 1054, but not least among them was the Bishop of Rome's assertion that, of the seven bishops in charge of the church at that time, he should be the "first among equals."  Obviously, the other six disagreed, and the fight was on!  The church should have no "firsts among equals," and that is the whole point behind having a plurality of leadership.

    Once again, I have gone on far too long.  I have two or three more topics to tackle, then our time together will be at an end.

Pax

P.S.  This is way off topic, but it appears to be a matter that needs addressing.  I am not currently planning to address it in any of my final posts, so I shall do so in this postscript.

    The above treatise contains several statements that can be (and almost certainly will be) considered political in nature.  They are not.  My statements above are neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Left nor Right, neither Conservative nor Liberal.  They are, in fact, biblical.  I do not find politics to be a fit subject of thought, much less conversation, beyond the biblical need to stand up and be counted when a government becomes oppressive toward its people.

    Toward the end of her book One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, Agatha Christie has Hercule Poirot make the following statement.  I believe it summarizes my position perfectly.  When asked, "Don't you realize, Poirot, that the safety and happiness of the whole nation rests with me?" Poirot replies, "I am not concerned with nations, Monsieur.  I am concerned with the lives of private individuals..."  That's pretty much everything I think about politics.