Plurality of elders in the egalitarian community

[3 Resurrections]

I am a relatively new member of the egalitarian community, so any and all reactions are welcomed and respected from you who are ahead of me on this road.

As a little background, I was once a member of a cult-like church for 16 years starting in the 80's that exercised heavy authority over the women and girls of the membership. The church was run by a single power-hungry narcissist who avoided any competition for his role by refusing to ordain any deacons, let alone another male elder. He would make scornful remarks about freakish two-headed chickens being an unnatural thing, as a comparison to a church with plural elders over the assembly. The derogatory two-headed chicken example was also applied to husband and wife "roles".

This was a permanent lesson to me after leaving that cult-like church that the ministry definitely needs to be balanced with at least one other fellow-elder, to check the eccentricities, error, or spiritual abuse that can crop up if a single elder remained unchallenged. "Two are better than one".

Fast forward to my current position that women are to share in the ministry. If scripture presents the ideal ministry of a church as having plural elders that serve the flock, then ideally it should have at least two elders. The question would then arise: Should that plural eldership in a church be composed of a combination of female and male, plural female elders, or plural male elders?

I believe scripture depicts each individual local church assembly as an autonomous unit: similar to an established, expanding family. But to be reflective of healthy family dynamics, an assembly needs the balance of both "father" and "mother", with "children" who are steadily growing in maturity; some of whom will hopefully at some point establish another "family" assembly of their own.

On some comments I put up on another website about women preachers and apostles, I compared the common practice of two men running a church to the equivalent of a same-sex marriage. I also compared a single man leading a congregation to a stressed-out, single-parent dad, trying to be both "father" and "mother" to those in his flock, but being hampered by too many responsibilities for one person. Moses' father-in-law knew this was a problem even for Moses, back in the Exodus days.

To be absolutely fair, this same comparison I made on that website could also be made for two women serving as elders in an assembly, or to a single woman attempting to be both "father" and "mother" to the flock. Through great effort, a single parent of either gender can raise a family if the need so requires, but burn-out can easily result, and the children don't quite get the balanced input of both genders' parenting. The same thing would be true with a church ministry led by a single male or female. Need may require this for a time, but it is not the ideal.

I think it was no accident that Christ sent out the 70 in pairs in Luke 10:1. And I see no reason why these could not have included husband / wife pairs, since we are told that many women also followed in company with Christ's disciples (Luke 8:1-3).

My questions for the egalitarian community would be:

Ideally, should a church have an already-married couple who will both contribute on an equal footing to the ministry? (And I'm not talking about her relegated only to serve refreshments and supervise the nursery and Sunday school, and him only to the pulpit.)

Are there problems or improprieties that could arise if a man and woman serving together in ministry to the church are not married? Or would it actually be advantageous if they are not married to each other, but each has their own spouse?

And to achieve the best results for an assembly, is a single minister of a church (male or female) obligated to be actively searching for another elder to serve alongside them?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Paidiske]

I absolutely agree about the value of team ministry; however your congregation shapes that, that the work of leading, teaching, presiding, preaching, and so on be shared. The model where one person tries to be and do all the things is not healthy.

I also agree that a mix of genders in the team is a really good thing; that the experiences, wisdom and so on of both genders have a place at the table. And that there be both men and women available for the situations where someone really prefer one or the other for pastoral care (a minority, but often sensitive and significant, of situations).

Of course, the issue is often pay, and how the church could pay more than one person. There are real practicalities to consider. Perhaps two smaller churches could work together, share ministry, and create a team that way, or some other creative approach could be taken.

I am much less convinced by the idea that the ideal is a married couple. I mean, sometimes it happens that both spouses are called, gifted and authorised for ministry by their church, but most of us don't marry people who also have that sense of vocation. I don't think it's a good idea to say to someone with a vocation that they must seek a spouse with a vocation, or to pressure the spouse into ministry if they don't feel genuinely called to it. Marriage and ministry should each be decisions made on their own terms. (Personally, I definitely feel it is a healthy thing for me to have a spouse and a marriage which is not bound up in my ministry).

I've worked as part of a ministry team with a man, in different situations. In neither case did we find a risk of improprieties, but I can see how that could happen. Ministry is sometimes very emotionally intense, and if the person you share that intensity with, and the intimacy if working six days a week, and all of that is also someone you find attractive and boundaries are poor... I don't think it's a reason not to do it, but I think it's a reason to think carefully about how you manage yourself in team ministry.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I am a relatively new member of the egalitarian community, so any and all reactions are welcomed and respected from you who are ahead of me on this road.

As a little background, I was once a member of a cult-like church for 16 years starting in the 80's that exercised heavy authority over the women and girls of the membership. The church was run by a single power-hungry narcissist who avoided any competition for his role by refusing to ordain any deacons, let alone another male elder. He would make scornful remarks about freakish two-headed chickens being an unnatural thing, as a comparison to a church with plural elders over the assembly. The derogatory two-headed chicken example was also applied to husband and wife "roles".

This was a permanent lesson to me after leaving that cult-like church that the ministry definitely needs to be balanced with at least one other fellow-elder, to check the eccentricities, error, or spiritual abuse that can crop up if a single elder remained unchallenged. "Two are better than one".

Fast forward to my current position that women are to share in the ministry. If scripture presents the ideal ministry of a church as having plural elders that serve the flock, then ideally it should have at least two elders. The question would then arise: Should that plural eldership in a church be composed of a combination of female and male, plural female elders, or plural male elders?

I believe scripture depicts each individual local church assembly as an autonomous unit: similar to an established, expanding family. But to be reflective of healthy family dynamics, an assembly needs the balance of both "father" and "mother", with "children" who are steadily growing in maturity; some of whom will hopefully at some point establish another "family" assembly of their own.

On some comments I put up on another website about women preachers and apostles, I compared the common practice of two men running a church to the equivalent of a same-sex marriage. I also compared a single man leading a congregation to a stressed-out, single-parent dad, trying to be both "father" and "mother" to those in his flock, but being hampered by too many responsibilities for one person. Moses' father-in-law knew this was a problem even for Moses, back in the Exodus days.

To be absolutely fair, this same comparison I made on that website could also be made for two women serving as elders in an assembly, or to a single woman attempting to be both "father" and "mother" to the flock. Through great effort, a single parent of either gender can raise a family if the need so requires, but burn-out can easily result, and the children don't quite get the balanced input of both genders' parenting. The same thing would be true with a church ministry led by a single male or female. Need may require this for a time, but it is not the ideal.

I think it was no accident that Christ sent out the 70 in pairs in Luke 10:1. And I see no reason why these could not have included husband / wife pairs, since we are told that many women also followed in company with Christ's disciples (Luke 8:1-3).

My questions for the egalitarian community would be:

Ideally, should a church have an already-married couple who will both contribute on an equal footing to the ministry? (And I'm not talking about her relegated only to serve refreshments and supervise the nursery and Sunday school, and him only to the pulpit.)

Are there problems or improprieties that could arise if a man and woman serving together in ministry to the church are not married? Or would it actually be advantageous if they are not married to each other, but each has their own spouse?

And to achieve the best results for an assembly, is a single minister of a church (male or female) obligated to be actively searching for another elder to serve alongside them?

Thoughts, anyone?

It's an interesting question. I personally think that Joyce Meyer epitomises a woman in ministry. She raised children, submits to her husband, teaches mostly women and has no role in church government. She is enormously influential and has helped countless people by her Biblical yet pragmatic teaching.

I had a low key Bible school for two years. We also offered counseling. My fellow worker is a woman about my age. We are not married. We are as close as it is possible to be without being hitched. She has spiritual gifts that help greatly in counseling. I am wary of counseling women, and for sure not on my own. She did much of the administration work.

I have no problem with the situation, although I'd marry her in a heartbeat if she were interested. However, not everyone approved. It would be easier if we were married - one less reason to criticise us.

The Bible is clear that hierarchy is essential to God. Lord Jesus submitted to His parents. He submitted to God completely, even when every fibre of His being (as a man) revolted at the thought. I sweat drops of blood when I was in hospital a year or so ago. I know how much stress that was.

There is no mention of female elders. Qualifications refer to men, not women. That is not to say that women cannot minister. Joyce Meyer proves that. But she is in the right relationship with her husband. He is also 100% committed to the work that she does, so it is not a domineering thing at all.

The Reformation brought about many great changes to the church. One glaring exception is the pyramid leadership structure. The word "pastor" appears twice in the NT. Yet the role is central to virtually every church. Government should be by elders, teaching is the responsibility of elders and the ministry gifts are for the building up of the saints, not an ego building exercise for the pastor.

The load placed on pastors is ridiculous. Pastors like a dependent and compliant church. Christians seem content to contract out their Christian lives to a paid professional who is on call 24/7.

"Submission" is a dirty word in this rebellious generation. God knows how rebellious we are. That's why we are called to obey the civil authorities, unless they are in direct contradiction to God's word. Christians should learn submission within the family, in the workplace and certainly in the church. Each Christian has a place in the body. God appoints us, not ourselves or other people. All I wanted to be was an evangelist. God had other ideas. Now I am content with God's will for my life, but it was a struggle for some years.

Having said all that, it is vital to be led by the Spirit. Having the right structures is good, but useless without the right Life. Mutual love and respect is the essential ingredient for Christian relationships. Get that right and everything else will fall into place as well.

 

[Paidiske]

Pastors like a dependent and compliant church.

This is both untrue and highly derogatory.

Did you realise this is the Egalitarian forum?

 

[Aussie Pete]

This is both untrue and highly derogatory.

Did you realise this is the Egalitarian forum?

No. And I stand by my generalisation, based on observations over the last 50 years. There are always exceptions, of course.

 

[Paidiske]

The exceptions would be just about every person in ministry I ever met. Apart perhaps from the odd bully.

You might want to check out the SOP of this forum.

 

[bekkilyn]

"Egalitarian" was even in the title of the post!!

 

[3 Resurrections]

I am much less convinced by the idea that the ideal is a married couple. I mean, sometimes it happens that both spouses are called, gifted and authorised for ministry by their church, but most of us don't marry people who also have that sense of vocation. I don't think it's a good idea to say to someone with a vocation that they must seek a spouse with a vocation, or to pressure the spouse into ministry if they don't feel genuinely called to it. Marriage and ministry should each be decisions made on their own terms. (Personally, I definitely feel it is a healthy thing for me to have a spouse and a marriage which is not bound up in my ministry)

I am guessing that in your situation, a sort of "breathing space" between marriage and your ministry gives you a better opportunity to "recharge", so to speak? Would you then say that the married couple Priscilla and Aquilla sharing the ministry was an unusual case that has not often been duplicated? Perhaps in the early first-century churches that were meeting in people's homes, the setup was much more organic - without the exaggerated emphasis on a church's "governmental structure" that has plagued the ministry since then. Perhaps in those first-century times, the low-key setting of house churches was more naturally conducive to married couples serving together in this role.

For my own situation, I have left the church body where my spouse is still serving as an elder. We grew so diametrically opposed on so many doctrinal levels that there was no way to continue presenting a unified front to the members of the church. There is actually only one spiritual leader in a family, and that one is Christ alone. Submission of all parties to Christ as the single leader of that family is paramount. Because "God hath called us to peace", sometimes a separation of church fellowship is the only solution to maintain that peace. Married, shared ministry does not work in my case, unfortunately.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The exceptions would be just about every person in ministry I ever met. Apart perhaps from the odd bully.

I am glad to hear that. You are indeed fortunate if that has been your experience. However, in this "buckle of the Bible belt" where I live, there are more than a few examples of "pastors who like a dependent and compliant church". This is a derogatory statement, as you said, but I can't argue with it. I got out from two such churches in my younger days.

This mentality tends to go in line with husbands who have been taught that scripture gives them the right to have a "dependent and compliant" wife as well. (Which is also a feature of the "buckle of the Bible belt". The women's shelters around here keep stats on those who are escaping the toxic effects on their relationships from a twisting of this so-called "Bible" teaching. We are very high on the charts compared to the nation's overall record of domestic abuse.)

 

[WolfGate]

I am glad to hear that. You are indeed fortunate if that has been your experience. However, in this "buckle of the Bible belt" where I live, there are more than a few examples of "pastors who like a dependent and compliant church". This is a derogatory statement, as you said, but I can't argue with it. I got out from two such churches in my younger days.

This mentality tends to go in line with husbands who have been taught that scripture gives them the right to have a "dependent and compliant" wife as well. (Which is also a feature of the "buckle of the Bible belt". The women's shelters around here keep stats on those who are escaping the toxic effects on their relationships from a twisting of this so-called "Bible" teaching. We are very high on the charts compared to the nation's overall record of domestic abuse.)

I'll have to say I have similar perspective. We recently moved to the coast of South Carolina, and one of our stated criteria in a new church home is it has to be one that is not built around the personality of the senior pastor. (It's sad we even had to list that.) I've seen too many where not only did the pastor expect a dependent and compliant church, but the congregation seemed to want a narcissist leading them. It's not most churches, it's actually a small percentage, yet too often they are among the largest in their area.

 

[bekkilyn]

I've been listening to a podcast put out by Christianity Today called "The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill" and it goes into a lot of detail concerning the issues of churches that are based around a "celebrity" senior pastor and the cycles of loyalty and abuse that goes on and not even so much behind the scenes. Some of the things brought up are some of the reasons why I believe that egalitarianism has the most scriptural basis.

 

[PloverWing]

Fast forward to my current position that women are to share in the ministry. If scripture presents the ideal ministry of a church as having plural elders that serve the flock, then ideally it should have at least two elders. The question would then arise: Should that plural eldership in a church be composed of a combination of female and male, plural female elders, or plural male elders?

Ideally, should a church have an already-married couple who will both contribute on an equal footing to the ministry? (And I'm not talking about her relegated only to serve refreshments and supervise the nursery and Sunday school, and him only to the pulpit.)

Government should be by elders, teaching is the responsibility of elders and the ministry gifts are for the building up of the saints

I'm mulling this over, and it seems that much depends on the particular form of government that a congregation follows, and the forms of officially-recognized leadership that the congregation has. In my Episcopal parish, we have a paid priest who preaches and a vestry (a group of about 8 lay people) who make decisions for the congregation. We're small enough that we can't afford to pay more than one pastor, but we have gender diversity on the vestry. A different Episcopal church near me is large enough to have several pastors. Their senior rector is a married woman, and their assistants are a married man and a single man. I like the variety there, for the reasons that 3 Resurrections has said.

What I'm hearing from Aussie Pete, though, is a different idea: No ordained pastor at all, with responsibilities for preaching, teaching, and decision-making shared amongst a group of elders in the congregation. In that setup, you could have wonderful diversity amongst the elders of the church: multiple genders, multiple ethnic groups, multiple kinds of ministry callings, and so on. One week the speaker might be a married woman with a heart for social justice; the next week, a single man devoted to contemplative prayer. It's different from what I'm used to, but it's an interesting idea. Not so different from the Quakers, perhaps.

 

[WolfGate]

I'm mulling this over, and it seems that much depends on the particular form of government that a congregation follows, and the forms of officially-recognized leadership that the congregation has. In my Episcopal parish, we have a paid priest who preaches and a vestry (a group of about 8 lay people) who make decisions for the congregation. We're small enough that we can't afford to pay more than one pastor, but we have gender diversity on the vestry. A different Episcopal church near me is large enough to have several pastors. Their senior rector is a married woman, and their assistants are a married man and a single man. I like the variety there, for the reasons that 3 Resurrections has said.

What I'm hearing from Aussie Pete, though, is a different idea: No ordained pastor at all, with responsibilities for preaching, teaching, and decision-making shared amongst a group of elders in the congregation. In that setup, you could have wonderful diversity amongst the elders of the church: multiple genders, multiple ethnic groups, multiple kinds of ministry callings, and so on. One week the speaker might be a married woman with a heart for social justice; the next week, a single man devoted to contemplative prayer. It's different from what I'm used to, but it's an interesting idea. Not so different from the Quakers, perhaps.

Some denominations call their ordained staff elders, while others call them Pastors. I'm not sure which definition Aussie Pete was using.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't think it needs to be an either/or but can also be a both/and. (Methodists really like to say both/and and say it as often as we can. )

 

[Paidiske]

I am guessing that in your situation, a sort of "breathing space" between marriage and your ministry gives you a better opportunity to "recharge", so to speak? Would you then say that the married couple Priscilla and Aquilla sharing the ministry was an unusual case that has not often been duplicated? Perhaps in the early first-century churches that were meeting in people's homes, the setup was much more organic - without the exaggerated emphasis on a church's "governmental structure" that has plagued the ministry since then. Perhaps in those first-century times, the low-key setting of house churches was more naturally conducive to married couples serving together in this role.

Absolutely about the breathing space. And about having a significant part of my life that is not about my ministry!

I've known several couples where both spouses were ordained, but what I observe is that usually they serve in different settings. One is in a parish and one a school chaplain, or one in a parish and one a university lecturer, or one in a parish and one a spiritual director, that sort of thing. I know of some couples who work together in the same ministry setting, but it's unusual and I don't think it would be for everyone.

I don't really think first century ministry was very comparable to today's situation, in terms of what it's like to live in the role.

I've been listening to a podcast put out by Christianity Today called "The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill" and it goes into a lot of detail concerning the issues of churches that are based around a "celebrity" senior pastor and the cycles of loyalty and abuse that goes on and not even so much behind the scenes. Some of the things brought up are some of the reasons why I believe that egalitarianism has the most scriptural basis.

I've been listening to that as well. They've done an excellent job!

What I'm hearing from Aussie Pete, though, is a different idea: No ordained pastor at all, with responsibilities for preaching, teaching, and decision-making shared amongst a group of elders in the congregation. In that setup, you could have wonderful diversity amongst the elders of the church: multiple genders, multiple ethnic groups, multiple kinds of ministry callings, and so on. One week the speaker might be a married woman with a heart for social justice; the next week, a single man devoted to contemplative prayer. It's different from what I'm used to, but it's an interesting idea. Not so different from the Quakers, perhaps.

I think there are some things about that kind of model which are wonderful (and incidentally, part of why I love having lay preachers in the congregation who can contribute to that part of ministry). I guess part of my hesitation is that I'd want to make sure there's - for want of a better word - a degree of quality control; some good teaching and training and oversight of those elders. Not just kind of throwing them in the deep end!

 

[3 Resurrections]

I'm mulling this over, and it seems that much depends on the particular form of government that a congregation follows, and the forms of officially-recognized leadership that the congregation has

Very true that not every assembly is going to be a cookie-cutter duplicate of the rest. Lots of unique life and even national circumstances will alter operations.

I just think that far too many churches fail to consider the simple directive that Christ gave His disciples. He firmly commanded them not to be like the Gentiles who were so obsessed with positions of authority, and who was going to tell who what to do. "It shall not be so among you" He declared (Matthew 20:25-26). This "authority" emphasis has so dominated all my past church memberships that I have been thoroughly sickened by the imbalanced thinking. Perhaps a side effect of the pandemic has been to dampen some of this inordinate emphasis on "lording it" over Christ's heritage. One can only hope.

 

[PloverWing]

I think there are some things about that kind of model which are wonderful (and incidentally, part of why I love having lay preachers in the congregation who can contribute to that part of ministry). I guess part of my hesitation is that I'd want to make sure there's - for want of a better word - a degree of quality control; some good teaching and training and oversight of those elders. Not just kind of throwing them in the deep end!

After I posted, I started thinking about that as well. There's a lot of both expertise and responsibility that we tend to put in the lap of our pastor, in the paid-ordained-pastor model. If we're going to distribute the pastoral office across a group of elders, we'd need to have serious training to go with it, and we'd have to make sure pastoral responsibilities don't fall through the cracks.

On the responsibilities: Currently, if someone is sick, I assume that our pastor is going to go and visit them. If it's a group of elders, we have to make sure that one of us actually visits the sick person. If each of us assumes someone else will do it, maybe nobody actually does it.

On the training: If the preaching office is now distributed across a group of elders, we probably need university-level religious training for this whole group of elders. Greek classes, theology books, training in pastoral care -- all that expertise that we rely on in our pastor. With great shared responsibility comes...great hard work.

No idea how the oversight works. Can Quakers have bishops? a strange idea. I haven't seen this model in practice, so I don't quite know how everything fits together.

 

[bekkilyn]

One thing I do try to emphasize is that it is not just the responsibility of the pastor(s) to be ministers, teachers, make disciples, etc. God's call to ministry is for all within the church regardless of whether they are clergy, lay leader, member, etc. We may all have different responsibilities within that context, but one is not more or less important than the other.

 

[Paidiske]

No idea how the oversight works. Can Quakers have bishops? a strange idea. I haven't seen this model in practice, so I don't quite know how everything fits together.

You could do something like have a peer group supervision arrangement, even.

 

[All4Christ]

One thing I do try to emphasize is that it is not just the responsibility of the pastor(s) to be ministers, teachers, make disciples, etc. God's call to ministry is for all within the church regardless of whether they are clergy, lay leader, member, etc. We may all have different responsibilities within that context, but one is not more or less important than the other.

Amen to this. If we assume clergy are the only ones responsible or called to ministry, then we are in a sad state indeed as a church community (and in the Christian world beyond our parishes). We are all called to serve.