More Mirrors

Added March 1st, 2013
In the months since I posted this, I have gotten back in touch with members of my previous church in the Great Commission Movement and one of the national leaders of the movement as well.  Some elements and people in the Movement seem to respond very well to criticism and the national leadership is definitely among them.  Yet some at my previous church seem to still reflect the need for "more mirrors."  Parts of this post still address that need, particularly paragraphs toward the end that address issues of deflecting valid criticism and church elitism.

My initial post (linked to through the first paragraph of this one: the September post called "God's Best") still remains fully valid and, I think, relevant for believers everywhere as we are all under God's sovereignty and all living out His best--and all vulnerable to the accusation of Satan that we have somehow destroyed God's sovereign plan and purpose for our lives by sinning.

However, in regards to this post it should be noted Jim McCotter (the primary author of the book critiqued below) is no longer a member of the Great Commission Movement.  The Movement's current leaders are aware that much of the sadly-valid criticisms they incurred early in their history were related to his leadership and they have publicly stated that they will not work with him until or unless he embraces the changes they made in response to those criticisms and reconciles himself with various people hurt by his leadership.  The Movement further no longer promotes Jim McCotter's works, including Leadership:Elders and Apostles.  It is effectively replaced by a 2007 work by John Hopler and Brent Knox: New Testament Church Leadership in Action Today.  While this work builds on the theme of the previous book in that it places a strong emphasis on doing things "the New Testament way," including leadership, the book corrects the errors of it's predecessor.  It acknowledges deacons and apostles as church offices, though it does not discuss them in detail.  It acknowledges that models of leadership other than their own may be equally valid, while still presenting arguments in favor of their own view.  It drops entirely a number of points from the previous work, including dismissal of criticisms, the one-church-per-city rule, and objection to the Biblical requirements that an elder be married and with children.  While the previous work emphasizes zeal, courage, and blind obedience as the ideal qualities of a leader, the new work emphasizes servanthood.  The latter work argues its case logically, Biblically, and with respect for other views, and on the whole this seems to be the model followed today by the Movement, though due to the independence of the individual churches they should be taken on a case by case basis.  That being said, for most of them, this post no longer applies.  However, since parts of it are sadly still relevant and since more general questions on church leadership (such as "Why does the Bible require elders to be married?" etc) are addressed indirectly below, I have preserved the original post.  You can view it in its entirety by clicking below.


This post is a response to the first part of Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark's Leadership: Elders and Apostles, published by the Great Commission Church movement and, largely, followed by it.  I actually finished writing this quite a while back, not long after my initial post.  There, I reacted to the writer's allegation that modern churches (other than his own) had, like sinful Israel, diverged from "God's best."  Here, I respond to the rest of his content.  Leaving behind the issue of whether or not one can wreck God's A-Plan for their life, I address the writer's reasons for thinking that modern churches have done so by choosing to run their churches differently from his.

The reason for the delay of this post is really that I didn't think it was necessary at the time.  I didn't want to become that one guy who all he does is attack the church he left.  That's not remotely what my life is about and I don't want my blog to reflect that misconception.  I'm not vindictive toward my former church.  I don't want to attack them.  I have always believed them to be good people sincerely trying to follow after God, though I may disagree with them on how they choose to follow him and especially how they often try to force and direct the spiritual lives of others.  I have no need to "attack" such a church, no need to write anything further of them.  But rereading my notes, I believe I overlooked something.  I have no need to post something like this, but I think that the church needs to have it posted.  Historically and even today, the Great Commission reacts poorly to criticism.  Some of it they dismiss.  Some of it they confess as unfortunately true and then do nothing about.  This deeply concerns me.  It is the attitude of the man in James who sees his face in a mirror but immediately walks away and forgets what he looks like.  Such men do not need all mirrors removed so that they can no longer be momentarily troubled by their alarmingly disheveled appearance--that might make them more comfortable, but it would not make them better men.  What they really need is more mirrors, mirrors everywhere they go, everywhere they look, until they are finally forced to admit that, yes, they really do need a shave and a haircut and actually go to the barber shop to get one.  A church that steadfastly ignores and forgets its past and ongoing problems needs the same thing.  If the critics and the victims just shut up and went away, no doubt the church would feel more comfortable, but it wouldn't benefit at all.  If the critics multiplied and the victims shouted in the streets until the church was actually compelled to get its act together...well, then that would be something great, wouldn't it?

In the interests of being one such mirror, I post the following response to an important Great Commission doctrine, written by some of its founding figures.  The link to the article is here.  My reflection and response follows.

To start with, in case you were wondering, the way in which “God’s people” have departed from “God’s best” in the “Church Age” is that we recognize more than one level of leadership in our churches.  The author rightly points out that the words “elder,” “bishop,” and “pastor” are all used interchangeably.  In the Early Church these all seem to have been the same office, only becoming distinct later on, by the 4^th Century.  However, the author fails to recognize any other offices of the church.  There are at least two: deacons and apostles.  The author completely ignores deacons and outright denies that there was any leadership authority inherent in the office of an apostle which made it higher in church hierarchy than elders.  While he is forced to admit that apostles are shown to exercise greater authority, particularly in the church council at Jerusalem (recorded in Acts 15), he denies that this authority was a function of the office of an apostle, but attributes it to some vague form of personal influence and dismisses it.  Since the Bible nowhere clearly delineates exactly what is and isn’t a part of any of the church’s offices--what authority they do or do not have and the like--, it would be foolish to dismiss any facet of these rare glimpses into these roles in action as the playing out of mere personal influence.  For all we know, such authority was central to the office of an apostle--the Bible does not say otherwise and the apostles certainly did wield authority in the book of Acts and in their letters.

So it seems from the outset that the premise of the work is off: the early church did indeed have more than one office--at least three in fact, two of which are shown in action to have different levels of authority (which may or may not have been a function of that office).  Thus, a church that advocates the use of a single office alone (as this work does) seems actually more likely to be departing from “God’s best” than a church with multiple offices and a hierarchy.  If departing from “God’s best” were possible…

But I digress.  After making his mistaken case for the early church having a single office, the writer goes on to address some of the qualifications for that office.  Mostly, he seems intent on debunking some of the commonly held qualifications, including giftedness, schooling, age, calling, and marriage.  On the matter of giftedness, he seems to contradict himself: saying in one place that an elder must merely be “able” to teach and in another that he must not only be able but also “skilled” at it.  He mostly seems intent on debunking the myth that elders must have some mysterious inborn talent for teaching.  On the matter of formal education, I would have to agree with him.  No formal Bible schooling existed (to our knowledge) during New Testament times, so a degree from such an institution could not have been a qualification for an elder when the New Testament was written.  However, that does not necessarily mean that it would not be wise for the elders of churches today to seek out such training.  Such schooling may not be mentioned in the Bible, but then again, neither are cars or refrigerators, and we find their use vital to our lives today.

When it comes to the matter of age, I think I actually do agree with the writer.  There is no age requirement listed in the Bible, and Timothy, though he was a “youth” (1 Timothy 4:12) was also evidently an elder with full authority to appoint other elders.  However, when it comes to supporting his point, the writer stoops to the absurd.  He claims--without one shred of proof--that all of the Twelve were in their twenties when first called and that John was even a teenager.  He even says that Timothy was a teen when executing authority as an elder in 1 Timothy, ignoring the fact that the advice “let no one despise your youth” does not apply specifically to that age range.  It may well be given to our current President, Barack Obama, who is among the youngest men ever to be elected to the office, and he is 51.  While age is not listed as a qualification for an elder, nor should it be used as such, the ages put forward by the author are absurd and lack historical or textual credence.  We have no need to dip into the insane to prove the obvious.

Then, the writer comes to the point of marriage, on which he spends twelve points explaining why marriage is not a legitimate qualification of an elder.  Obviously, the writer is passionate about this particular issue.  I have to wonder if he actually prefers single men as elders as opposed to married men, so strong is his objection here.  He argues that the passage’s mention of marriage and children only means that if the candidate is married he should be the husband of one wife and if he has children they should be kept submissive.  Unfortunately, these qualifications are listed in the same breath as other critical qualifications, which must be considered essential:

“Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.  He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
--1 Timothy 2:2-5, emphasis added

According to this listing, if being “the husband of one wife” is optional, then so are its companions in the list: being above reproach, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, etc.  If “keeping his children submissive” is not a requirement, then neither is being able to manage one’s own household.  And yet the scripture clearly states that all of these together are musts.  A man is not to be considered qualified as an elder if he meets all of the qualifications except that he is greedy, or a drunk, or unable to teach.  So also, a man should not be considered qualified if he meets all of the qualifications but is unmarried.  The reason for this is critical and is spelled out clearly in the text.  It isn’t that married men with families are somehow more spiritual than others (the Bible never, to my knowledge, at any point equates leadership positions to heightened spirituality--though men often do), it is that married men with children and households to manage have demonstrated their ability to lead with Christ-like love and ministering authority in their own homes and marriages.  Single men, while they may well have the capacity for such Christian leadership, have never had an opportunity to demonstrate it and cannot be proven to have it.

With this in mind, we can address the practical concerns the writer raises in his list of objections.  First, he predicts that a requirement of marriage will cause a stampede of young men heading for the altar to get married so that they can become elders.  I ask, is it necessarily a bad thing that men should desire marriage?  In the interests of perpetuating the human race, I hope not!  Furthermore, if the writer’s direst predictions were to come true and men were to rush headlong into foolish marriages just so they could become elders, they would be disappointed.  Simply marrying does not guarantee a man qualification as an elder any more than simply avoiding drunkenness.  There are still many other qualifications to be met, some of which could actually be dashed by a hasty marriage entered for the wrong reasons (sober-minded, self-controlled, and above reproach come to mind).  Similarly, the writer’s objection that children being listed as a qualification will cause a run on artificial insemination may also be dismissed: just because one has children does not make one qualified.  Finally, the author envisions the death of a spouse or the moving out or death of one’s children to disqualify an appointed elder, but this is simply not the case.  This list does not state under what conditions an elder may be removed, only the qualifications they must have in order to be appointed.  Common sense dictates that the two lists be similar, but there is no reason to think they must be identical.

That all being said, the writer then expounds on what he personally desires in an elder, which boils down to obedience and youthful courage.  Small wonder, then that he goes to such lengths to convince us the youngest of men and singles can be elders: older men with families to care for will not follow their leader blindly to Hell and back.  They are capable of great courage, self-sacrifice, and mature leadership, but they generally not blindly obedient firebrands in their leader’s hands anymore.

After this section, the writer goes on to praise the work of an elder.  Truly, as the scripture says, the work of an overseer is “a noble task” (1 Timothy 3:1), but let us not give way to pride and say it is the absolute best and most influential job ever, as this writer does at length.  If not for the soldier, the policeman, the firefighter, and the doctor (to name a few) there would be no elders whatever, nor any church for them to pastor, for we would all be dead.  Christ has taken men and women of different backgrounds and professions and formed them into one body--the Church--where no one is either more or less important than anyone else (1 Corinthians 12:14-26).  In the end, the writer shows his complete ignorance (or desire to ignore) this verse by insisting that every Christian man should become an elder.  If all men are co-equal leaders, where are the followers?  If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?

 The writer then goes on to insist that elders must receive financial support and should have no secular job.  While the Bible does support the idea that teachers of the Gospel have the right to this kind of life, it does not command that they live it (as the writer erroneously presumes).  Paul goes on at length about the right he had as an apostle to receive financial support from the Corinthian church and to refrain from working for a living--but he surrenders that right and is mighty proud of it because he has surrendered it for the furtherance of the Gospel and the glory of God (1 Corinthians 9:15-18).  He does not, as the writer, view secular work as a distracting burden to be rid of as soon as possible.  In fact, he goes so far as to say he would rather die than receive financial support from the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 9:15)!  Paul understands that, as a Christian and a leader he has many rights and privileges, but that his duty is to Christ, and not to the exercise of these powers.  While the writer seems to understand that rights may be temporarily surrendered, he seems to take a much dimmer view of the practice than Paul did.  I can only hope this is not because the writer loves the money more than the service to God Paul accomplished by refusing pay.  This belief that elders must insist on their right to be supported by the congregation also conflicts strangely with the writer’s later-stated belief that it would be “normal” for “most men” to become elders “in time.”  If all or even most men became elders and were thus commanded by scripture to abandon their secular careers and draw support from their congregations, they could not survive.  There would be too many financial mouths for the few (spiritually immature) congregants who worked jobs to support, and if the writer’s compulsory leadership and assumption of rights were to take place the entire financial system of that church would collapse overnight.

The writer then goes on to hammer at peculiarities of his own system of church governance, which he stresses as necessities if we are to do things “God’s way.”  First he reiterates his earlier erroneous statement that only one type of officer exists in the New Testament church, again ignoring deacons completely and dismissing apostolic authority as something wielded by the individual irrespective of his office (curiously, he compares it to the character of an elder, which he sees as being a vital function of his office, but no matter--at this point I’ve given up expecting good logic).  Second, he stresses that every church must have more than one elder.  Anything else is said to be following in the footsteps of Diotrepheses from 3 John, who “loved to be first” and refused the authority of the apostles.  A church that does not have a plurality of elders, then is in great danger!  But what of the fact that a church can exist “wherever two or three are gathered together” in Jesus’ name?  If two Christians meet together in a North Korean prison, must both of them be appointed elders?  The writer rests his case on the fact that the Bible says things like, “the elders of the church of Ephesus,” but this ignores the fact that the church could refer not only to a small body of believers meeting in one place (equivalent to today’s churches) but also to the entire body of believers in the world or even in an area.  Thus it is possible that the church, say, that met in Prisca and Aquila’s house might have only one elder, but the church in their city (taken all together) would have many.  Indeed, the writer later uses this same line of reasoning as key to another of his arguments later on church unity, though he there perpetuates his misunderstandings.  Since the New Testament refers to churches by city (that is, “the church at Jerusalem”), the writer states that there may only be one church per city.  Truly, there is only one Church (universal, spiritual) in the world, just as there should be in any city, but to insist that all believers meet together under the same roof and the same leaders whether worldwide or at the level of a city is absurd.  The writer shows that even he understands the absurdity of his insistence when he says that smaller house churches need to be formed (though he prefers them as subdivisions in a single congregation that meets all together every Sunday) and when he makes exception for large cities like London and Los Angeles.

The next point the writer makes is the importance of respecting the elders, not only for those under their care but also for those from the outside.  The writer insists that, in order to maintain the one-level hierarchy he thinks the Bible requires and do things the “New Testament way,” church leadership must be autonomous and not subject to outside control or even criticism.  I must question, first of all, the inherent spiritual benefit of doing everything the “New Testament way.”  The writer admits that in the New Testament church autonomy was not taught but practiced largely as a simple necessity of the large geographic area over which churches were spread and the difficulty of travel and communication between them.  If so, is it necessarily more spiritual to continue in a practice modern technology has made unnecessary simply because it’s the way people did things in the New Testament?  In the New Testament, people also cooked their food over open flame: should we therefore mandate against “unbiblical” things like toasters, microwaves, and induction stovetops?  It should further be noted that in the New Testament the church in Jerusalem and the apostles in particular wielded significant influence over the other churches (James even closed the first church council with his personal opinion)--but it seems this is at least one place where the writer feels it would not be best to do things the “New Testament way.”  The writer, fortunately, does not rely on this argument alone, but brings an analogy to bear.  He compares criticizing a church’s leadership from without to criticizing the abilities of parents to raise their children based on outside observations and testimony of children.  Neither should ever be done as a matter of respect, since we are called to honor parents and elders (the Bible actually says we are to honor our own parents and elders).  But if we see signs of abuse in children or if such abuse is reported to us by the children, we have a moral and even legal obligation to bring their parents into question for it.  So also, I think, in churches where leaders abuse spiritual authority.  This question of abuse is one he neglects entirely, and sadly I do not think it by accident.  The church movement he writes for here has been and continues to be charged with having emotionally and spiritually abusive leaders and has even publically admitted guilt of such an error, but in many cases takes no steps to remedy these abuses or prevent them in the future.  In light of this, I fear he may have aimed this section in part at silencing such accusations and excusing himself and other leaders for not actively responding to them.  Indeed, much of the writer’s section on the authority of elders relates to explaining accusations against them as the work of Satan (doubtless some are, but unfortunately some are not).

In fact, reflecting on the first part as a whole, deflecting valid criticism seems to be one of the main objectives of the writer, the other being to call into question the spiritual integrity of any church that doesn't practice leadership in exactly the same way as his do.  Indeed, his insistence on one-church-per-city goes even further.  Any movement that has more than one church in a city is automatically violating God's will.  The fact that the Great Commission movement, of which the writer is a founder, would even consider placing a church in a city means (in light of the one-church-per-city belief) that either they are logically inconsistent with this belief or that they hold themselves above every other church already in that city, such that these don't really count toward the one-church rule.  If this is really true, it is deeply disturbing.  Truly, Christ is exclusive in that He is the only way to God, but when a relatively small church movement starts to insinuate that it is somehow better than all other churches (a belief some of my friends in the Great Commission church endorsed), the church attempts to lay exclusive claim upon Christ Himself and, in effect, replace Him in His role as sole mediator between God and man.  That is a very dangerous thing to do, a slippery slope toward idolatry.  I'm very sad to see it gaining credence with a church I hold dear and a people whom I love.