LEADING TOGETHER: CRAFTING A RULE OF CONDUCT FOR THE ELDERS
AND PREACHER AT THE HIGHLAND OAKS CHURCH OF CHRIST
A PROJECT
SUBMITTED TO
THE FACULTY OF HAZELIP SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AT LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF MINISTRY
BY
PATRICK HUNTER BILLS
DALLAS, TEXAS
APRIL 2016
This Doctor of Ministry project, directed and approved by the candidate’s committee, has
been accepted by the College of Bible and Ministry of Lipscomb University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for this degree.
LEADING TOGETHER: CRAFTING A RULE OF CONDUCT FOR THE ELDERS
AND PREACHER AT THE HIGHLAND OAKS CHURCH OF CHRIST
By
Patrick Hunter Bills
For the degree of
Doctor of Ministry
____________________________________________
Director of Graduate Program
____________________________________________
Date
Doctor of Ministry Project Committee
___________________________________________
Grady King, Chair
____________________________________________
John York
____________________________________________
Mark Black
© 2016 by Patrick Hunter Bills
All rights reserved
DEDICATION
To Elders and Preachers in Churches of Christ:
May the gospel be the pursuit of a person more than a theological position. And may we
become those men and women on the shores of Ephesus weeping over our deep
relationship with one another. There is a way to lead together.
To Deborah:
(a Friday haiku)
You’re my joy and crown
Why would I want another?
You love me for me
To Joshua, Caleb, Daniel, and Andrew:
You have taught me more about myself that you’ll ever know. May the richness of God’s
love pursue you over and again as you strive to become the leaders I know you will be.
And don’t ever forget that my favorite day is donut day.
To the Highland Oaks Church of Christ:
This work has increased my love for you in so many ways. You have been faithful
supporters of my “missionary” work. It is a joy to be your preacher and pastor. May I
always seek to share “not only the gospel but my life as well” while I am among you.
In Memory of Don and Ellen Bills:
This project is an outgrowth of your faithful dedication to the local church. As charter
members of the Bel-Aire Church of Christ in Tullahoma, TN, you believed in the power
and presence of relationship. And even though neither of you were “elders,” your
dedication and hard work were characteristics of the Chief Shepherd in every way. I miss
you greatly and am proud to bear your name.
iv
CONTENTS
DEDICATION
IV
CONTENTS
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VII
ABSTRACT
IX
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Problem or Opportunity
Purpose
Goals and Phases of the Research
Definition of Key Terms
Contents of Paper
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW
Stone and Campbell: The Beginning
Campbell and J.W. McGarvey: Opposing Views
David Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate
The Role of the Preacher in Lectureships
Recent Trends and Developments
Conclusions
1
1
3
4
5
5
8
8
13
18
21
25
30
CHAPTER 3: THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Elders, Preachers, and Ministers in the Local Church
Elders in the New Testament
Preachers According to Paul
Ministry in Paul’s Churches
Conclusions
Theological Frame 1: A Missional Reading of Scripture
Theological Frame 2: Ministry as Relational Partners in the
Triune God
Conclusions
32
33
34
37
40
42
44
CHAPTER 4: CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY
The Highland Oaks Church of Christ
Policy Governance® at the HOCC
Research Preparation
Research Methodology
58
58
61
69
70
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS
Phase One: Appreciative Inquiry Interviews
Phase One Summary and Themes
81
81
92
v
50
56
Phase Two: Shared Study of Philippians
Dwelling in the Word
Digging in the Word
Discerning the Word
Crafting a Rule of Conduct
Conclusions and Future Considerations for Study
94
96
97
98
99
101
APPENDIX A: HOCC GOVERNANCE POLICY
Section 1: Ends Policy
Section 2: Staff-Limitations Policy
Section 3: Elder Process Policy
Section 4: Elder-Staff Delegation Policy
Section 5: Monitoring Report
105
105
107
108
110
111
APPENDIX B: A.I. INTERVIEW SAMPLE
116
APPENDIX C: PHILIPPIANS PAPER
117
APPENDIX D: PHILIPPIANS CURRICULUM
Section 1: Pre-Study Material and Session 1
Section 2: Pre-Study Material and Session 2
Section 3: Pre-Study Material and Session 3
Section 4: Pre-Study Material and Session 4
Section 5: Pre-Study Material and Session 5
123
123
129
136
143
150
BIBLIOGRAPHY
156
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to offer thanksgiving to several in regards to my work on this project.
First, I want to thank the Highland Oaks Church of Christ and its elders. Not only did you
grant me the time to work on this project, but your monetary funding is an invaluable
reminder of your commitment to partner with me in this journey. You are more than
elders to me- you have become my dearest friends. And I can say with confidence that we
have shared “not only the gospel but our lives as well.” Specifically, I thank Dr. Clif and
Carolyn Perry, Tom and Kristie Howard, and Papa George and Bonnie Baker for their
special gifts of encouragement.
Second, I want to thank my home church, the Cedar Lane Church of Christ, in
Tullahoma, TN, for providing my earliest interpretations of the gospel. You provided
emotional and spiritual support for a young child to grow into a man. I am indebted to the
influence of such great Christian men and women who loved me into my pursuit of
ministry.
Third, I want to thank Jon Mullican and Grady King for their consistent
partnership in the gospel. Grady, you have been a wise friend and preaching mentor for
the last several years. I thank you chairing my committee and for your consistent belief in
who I am for the kingdom of God. Jon, you are my closest ally and confidant. I cannot
imagine a better friend who has become the older brother I never had.
Fourth, I want to thank the ministry team of the Highland Oaks Church of Christ.
You have stood alongside of me these last seven years and your constant accolades of me
as “boss” and the “BMOC” are reminders that I only hope to live up to your expectations
vii
Fifth, I want to thank my cohort and professors in the Hazelip School of
Theology. It has been a wonderful ride these past few years. Dr. John York and Dr. Mark
Black have been strong voices of encouragement to me.
Sixth, I want to thank my parents, Dr. Stephen H. Bills and Margaret Bills. You
have given me more than I could ever repay. You were my first shepherds who taught me
the value of hard work, family values, and the importance of eating a good Angus steak. I
also thank my brothers, sisters, and in-laws: You are my true spiritual heroes and can
now take satisfaction that I am the sole “church” Doctor in the family.
Last, and certainly not the least, I thank my wife of eighteen years, Deborah. You
have stood the test of my education and faithfully welcomed me home each time I was
away. Your faithful commitment to me as a wife and ministry partner is beyond compare.
And to my four boys- one day you will grow into men who will be leaders for your
family. My prayer is that you love others well and never give up on the hope of the local
church.
Any benefit that this research project offers is present because of these who
helped in so many ways. My ultimate desire is that God may receive glory by this
research and that Elders and preachers may be enriched as they begin to learn the value of
leading together.
viii
ABSTRACT
The Highland Oaks Church of Christ, (HOCC) in Dallas, TX has a unique
governance model that provides a specific framework for its elders and preacher to work
together. Though this model provides appropriate and clear boundaries for the oversight
and operations of the church, it is deficient because it does not provide specific means for
the elder and preacher to relate to one another. This project is aimed at crafting a specific
“rule of conduct” between the elders and preacher of the HOCC.
Over a five-month period the elders and preacher listened collaboratively to one
another through shared story and study. The stories were shared through one-on-one
Appreciative Inquiry interviews. The study was a specific examination of Paul’s
invitation to the Philippian Church to “conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the
gospel.” By studying this text using the method of “Dwelling in the Word,” the elders
and preacher named specific theological convictions and behavioral commitments out of
a period of listening and Spirit-led discernment. The shared study resulted in a “rule of
conduct” for the HOCC elders and preacher.
ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Problem and Opportunity
In Churches of Christ the relationship between the elders and a preacher matters.
The relationship matters because the elders and preacher form a leadership dynamic that
affects the work and mission of the local church. Unfortunately, the way in which the
elders and preacher of a local congregation lead “together” is often characterized by
mistrust, anxiety, and hurtful behavior. This characterization is based upon my own
journey and perspective as a member and minister in the Churches of Christ:

Growing up in a rural Church of Christ, my perception was the preacher
worked for the elders. For example, when important announcements about
the current status or future of the church were made it was the elders, not
the preacher, who stood before the church. Even more, on “budget
Sunday” the entire church reviewed was privy to the preacher’s
compensation. My assumption was the preacher was the elder’s chief
employee.

Upon marrying into a preacher’s family, I admired the twenty-year
preaching career of my father-in-law. I was angered when we gathered
around the dinner table one evening and were told, “The elders have
decided to move in another direction and I am not a part of that direction.”
This was the second time in eight years my father-in-law was given a
“new direction” by the elders. The family was not only puzzled but hurt
by the poor treatment of my father-in-law.
1
2

My father is an elder for my home congregation. A few years ago I
listened as he described their existing preacher as a “good guy” yet
lacking in vision or basic pastoral skills. Painful conversations ensued that
resulted in the dismissal of the preacher. And because my father was an
outspoken critic, a majority of the blame was given to him as “the elder
who led the charge to fire the preacher.”

At present, I gather preachers from Churches of Christ for an annual
conference. When I (and others) inquire about their frustration and
anxiety, a predominant theme is the strain and stress of working with
elders.
My life experience informs an undeniable reality: there is a consistent strained
relationship between the elders and a preacher in the Church of Christ. Even more, when
I arrived for my first preaching post in 2009, I was anxious about the dynamics of this
relationship. Should there not be a healthier way for a preacher and elders to work with
rather than against one another?
Before my hire as the preacher at the Highland Oaks Church of Christ (HOCC) in
2009, the church was exhausted and searching for a fresh direction. The previous Lead
Minister (preacher) departed amidst division and controversy a few years prior and the
church was in a season of emotional exhaustion. In short the HOCC was steeped in debt,
the ministry staff was floundering in mistrust, and the congregation was anxious for a
fresh start. Even more, the elders were exasperated from the poor relational dynamics of
their leadership. One way forward was a clear shift in how the elder group and new
preacher worked together. A chief desire of the HOCC elders was to hire a new preacher
3
or Lead Minister who would strive for relational partnership rather than managerial
hierarchy.
Upon my hire in 2009, the potential for a new relational dynamic was discussed at
length. In particular, we examined such questions as:

How does an elder group and preacher work towards relational trust in light of a
fractured past?

Are there specific practices the elder group and preacher could adopt that foster a
relationship that honors Christ-like conduct?

Would the current governance structure of the HOCC allow for relational
partnership between the elders and preacher?

What theological principles ought to serve as a framework for a new relationship
between the elders and preacher?
This project addresses the above-mentioned questions and seeks deeper clarity for
developing healthy relationships among the HOCC leadership team. Specifically, the goal
of this project was to explore how the elders and me, as preacher, could work alongside
one another while exploring specific expectations that would form a relational
leadership.
Purpose
The purpose of this project was to craft a specific “rule of conduct” for the elder
group and preacher at the HOCC. This rule would grow out of collaborative positive
conversations about our past while exploring imagined hopes for the future. More
specifically, the aim was for the elders and me, as Lead Minister, to explore a gospeled
way to lead our congregation in the midst of our particular governance structure.
4
Ultimately the “rule of conduct” established theological convictions and behavioral
commitments that would preserve the desire for healthy “partnership in the gospel.”
Goals and Phases of the Research
A primary goal of this project was to explore the existing story of the elderpreacher relationship at HOCC. In so doing, I wanted to use the best components of this
story to craft a new narrative for our work together. Ultimately the hope for this project
was to name specific behavioral commitments, framed by missional convictions, which
would provide appropriate “gospel” ways for the HOCC elders and preacher to lead
together. This goal would be achieved in two phases. First, I wanted to listen to the
existing elder group of the HOCC so that I could hear stories of their current experience.
I chose to conduct a one-on-one interview with each existing elder and listen for common
themes that captured their hopes and desires for a relational leadership at the HOCC.
Each interview addressed three specific questions and lasted approximately 45 minutes to
an hour. The aim was to listen to their stories and craft a new narrative for our shared
future as a leadership team.1
The second goal of this project was to explore how the leadership team could
work towards deeper relational connection through a specific Biblical study. By
“Dwelling in the Word,” we participated in a five-part study of Paul’s letter to the
Philippians.2 In this we discussed key missional principles and narrowed our focus to
Throughout this paper I will use “leadership team” as a specific reference to the Elders and me. I
ackowledge a “leadership team” comprises a group of ministers. Yet, for clarity and this specific project
“leadership team” will be used to describe the elders and the the Lead Minister at the HOCC.
2
I first encountered “Dwelling in the Word” through the work of Church Innovations. For the specifics of
this process see Patrick Keifert and Pat Taylor Ellison, Dwelling in the Word: A Pocket Handbook
(Robbinsdale, MN: Church Innovations, 2011). For the purposes of this project, I adapted Keifert and
1
5
Paul’s specific admonition to “conduct yourself in a manner worthy of the gospel” (Phil.
1:27). This specific text, when read through a missional lens, created space for us to listen
alongside of one another through the power of the Holy Spirit. Finally, based on the
interviews and our shared study, we crafted a “rule of conduct” that provided specific
theological convictions and behavioral commitments for leading together as a gospelinformed team.
Definition of Key Terms
Lead Minister: The person hired or designated by the Elder group to discern the spiritual
needs of the congregation while being the primary leader of a team of ministers who
equip the church to embody the mission of God for its time and place. The Lead Minister
at the HOCC is also considered the primary preaching voice for the congregation.
Elders: The group of people so selected and ordained by a congregation to be the primary
overseers of its operation and spiritual formation.
Gospel: The “good news” of God’s reign in the world and the HOCC Elder group and
preacher’s willingness to embody this reality.
Conduct: The behavior of the Elders and preacher while leading the church together.
Missional: A participation in the scope of God’s grand narrative of scripture that
culminates in the story of Jesus Christ. This participation is realized through the Holy
Spirit empowerment of the church in the inaugurated kingdom of God.
Ellison’s process. The primary variation from Keifert and Ellison was “pre-study” material that was sent
out before the group practiced “Dwelling in the Word.” In addition, we extended the suggested “20 minute”
time to allow in-depth study of the particular aspects of the passage for the purpose of this project.
6
Hermeneutic: A particular way of reading Scripture through a specific interpretive lens.
Elder-Preacher Relationship: The manner and understanding in which preachers and
Elders interact, collaborate, and work together as leaders of a specific congregation.
Governance: The particular model or structure of leadership in which the Elders and
preacher lead together.
Contents of Paper
The written description of this project is divided into five main chapters with the
addition of appendixes. This current chapter serves as an introduction, describing the
opportunity, problem, and specific context that led to the goals for this project. The
second chapter is a broad overview of how the Churches of Christ have historically
understood the role of elders and preacher. By noting the influence of a Restoration
hermeneutic, this chapter also creates a historical timeline of the elder-preacher
relationship through key leaders, lectureships, and a variety of past and present Church of
Christ literature. The third chapter serves as a theological overview by examining New
Testament models of church leadership. This chapter also makes two specific theological
appeals. First, this chapter illuminates the importance of reading and understanding
scripture through a missional lens. The appeal is to invite both elders and preachers to
understand leadership as a shared relational partnership in the missio Dei. Second, I offer
a brief overview of how the Trinity can serve as a theological model for relationship. The
appeal is for the behavior of the elders and preacher at the HOCC to be informed by a
Trinitarian view of relationship. Chapter four provides details of the research at the
HOCC. Beginning with a deeper examination of the current context, I offer a general
7
overview of the HOCC governance model. In this, I describe a two-part research method
for crafting a “rule of conduct” within our specific governance model. First, I describe
how the Appreciative Inquiry interview is the method I chose for listening and naming
the current story of the HOCC leadership. Second, I describe a three- month process of
“Dwelling in the Word” as our way of naming specific theological convictions and
behavioral commitments. Chapter four concludes with a description of each study which
created the platform for writing a “rule of conduct” for the HOCC. Finally, chapter five
offers a brief summary followed by conclusions that were drawn from both phases of the
research. Chapter five concludes with a presentation of the “rule of conduct” as well as a
few suggestions for future study. These five chapters are followed by appendixes, which
include examples from our governance policy, a paper detailing the missional plea of
Philippians 1:27, the lesson plans from our shared study of Philippians, and a
bibliography
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
The history of the Church of Christ is characterized by particular events, unique
personalities, and specific cultural contexts. This chapter explores the historical
beginnings of the Church of Christ focusing specifically on how the Bible was interpreted
for its time and place. Out of its unique interpretative plea the Church of Christ espoused
a particular view of elders and preachers. This chapter also investigates the role of key
figures and writings in the Stone-Campbell movement while noting specifically their
contribution to the roles of elder and preacher in the local congregation. Last, this chapter
highlights recent literature and recognizes current trends of this vital relationship.
Stone and Campbell: The Beginning
Though Churches of Christ can trace their theological roots to the influences of
the Reformation movement, there are two key persons who shaped the hermeneutics of
current mainline Churches of Christ: Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) and Barton W.
Stone (1772-1844). 3 In short, these men pioneered a movement which grew out of
independent desires for a return to a primitive “New Testament” Christianity. During the
late 1700’s, Campbell and Stone grew weary of the multiplicity of sects and
3
For the purposes of this specific study, I have chosen to specifically highlight Stone and Campbell. I fully
acknowledge the Churches of Christ hermeneutic cannot be limited to only two voices and requires a much
more thorough examination. Thomas Olbricht notes the indelible influence of Swiss reformer Ulrich
Zwingli. Zwingli, at the beginning of the 15th century, set the stage for an emphasis on New Testament
commands and examples. Zwingli encouraged such writers as Edward Dering (1540-1576), a Puritan, to
write what may be one of the earliest statements on commands, examples, and inferences, in arguing for the
theological importance of inferences. He (Dering) insisted that conclusions based on Scripture and drawn
from ‘proportion, or deduction, by consequence,. . . is as well the Word of God, as that which is an express
commandment or example.’ This early expression of the tripartite formula is worth noting because this
formula rose to the forefront in the middle of the twentieth century as the consensus Churches of Christ
hermeneutic.” See Thomas Olbricht,“Hermeneutics in the Churches of Christ,” Restoration Quarterly 37
no 1 (1995): 7.
8
9
denominations afforded by the American frontier. This “spirit of the frontier” inaugurated
a fresh enthusiasm for individual freedoms wrought by political outcomes of the
Revolutionary War. Broadly, the newfound freedom from British rule fueled a desire for
American churches to be free from “creeds, clerics, and ecclesiastical control” fueling the
“democratization of American Christianity.”4 For Stone and Campbell the desire turned
into a plea for Christians to make a simple return to the Bible while discovering a
newfound pattern for unity. In this, a “New Testament” church would be restored and
Christians could be “only Christians.” Stone and Campbell turned away from man-made
creeds and doctrines thus forming a “Restoration Movement.”
Barton W. Stone’s leadership dates from the famous Cane Ridge Revival of
1801. The Cane Ridge Revival was born out of a three to five day “Communion festival”
that invited people from all over the South to attend a meeting for preaching and spiritual
renewal. By witnessing Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and others worshipping
together at Cane Ridge, Stone was moved by the “forgotten spirit of partyism and party
distinction.” 5 In 1803, soon after the meeting, Stone and five other Presbyterian ministers
formally withdrew from the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky and formed a new body of
Christians called the “Springfield Presbytery.” At the core of the Springfield Presbytery,
Stone and his colleagues rejected all formal church structures and wrote a crucial
document: The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. This document
4
See Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 32-34. Hughes notes the “democratization of American Christianity,” is a phrase
from church historian Nathan Hatch.
5
Leonard Allen is careful to distinguish the Cane Ridge Festival from a traditional “camp meeting.” The
emphasis on a “communion festival” appeals to the logic of this study because it summons a relational
appeal of the table at the beginning of the Church of Christ alongside of the revivalist preaching and
charismatic instances. Leonard Allen, Distant Voices: Discovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing
Church (Abilene: ACU Press, 1993), 11.
10
detailed Stone’s plea for a community of Christians simply united by taking the Bible
alone as the authority of God:
We will, that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to
heaven; and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in
competition with it, may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to
enter into life having one book, than having many to be cast into hell… Finally
we will, that all our sister bodies read their Bibles carefully, that they may see
their fate there determined, and prepare for death before it is too late.6
Though Stone continued to fight for unity among Christians, he was deeply saddened by
the continued division and strife. Towards the end of his life Stone concluded “the Bible
alone” could not be the only factor for the unity of the church. Rather, the only hope for
unity lay in a “Fire Union” in which the Holy Spirit worked in the human heart. Thus,
“without the Spirit union can never be affected nor continued.”7
Alexander Campbell migrated to America from Northern Ireland in 1809. The
only college graduate among the early founders of the movement, Campbell shared the
desire for a rejection of sects and denominations while returning to Scripture alone as the
hope for Christian unity. Alexander, along with his father Thomas, formed "The Christian
Association of Washington.” The associated promoted Christian unity and published a
key document entitled The Declaration and Address.8 This document set the course for
Campbell’s dream “which called for Christian unity through a return to the clear and
unambiguous teachings of the New Testament.”9 Thomas Campbell writes:
Thomas Campbell,“Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery,”
http://riverwoodchurchofchrist.org/phil/restoration/LastWill.pdf (accessed Dec. 15, 2015).
7
Allen, Distant Voices, 20.
8
Jay Smith, “The Declaration and Address,” Restoration Quarterly vol 5 no 3 (1961),
http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1960s/vol_5_no_3_contents/smith.html#10
(accessed Dec 15, 2015). Smith also notes, “Unity is the purpose of this address and is shouted from every
page.”
9
Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 41.
6
11
That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably
connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine
will, for the edification and salvation of the Church, and therefore in that respect
cannot be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their
immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship,
discipline, and government of the New Testament Church.10
The goal was to establish a pattern for a Christianity that specifically upheld the New
Testament as the model for faith and church structure. Also important to Alexander’s
influence was his journal, The Christian Baptist. The message of the magazine was very
direct: the restoration of primitive Christianity was the only means to the unity of all
Christians and will eventually usher in the millennial age (of Christ) on earth.11 Even
more, Campbell arrogantly claimed that Christianity had been restored in its entirety and
later wrote in his preface to the Christian System: “The principles by which these things
can be done are now developed, as well as the principles themselves, which constitute the
original gospel and the order of things established by the apostles.”12 Stone and Campbell
formally joined together in 1832 at Lexington, KY, and by 1860 their newly formed
movement claimed about 200,000 adherents, the fifth largest Protestant body in the
United States.13
Though a simple return to the Bible created a large following, the heart of the
Stone-Campbell movement was a particular ideal. And the ideal of the Restoration
Movement was a simple and direct return to patterns found in the New Testament for the
sake of a “New Testament” church. Restoration historian Richard Hughes writes:
10
Thomas Campbell, The Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington (PA: Brown
and Sample, 1809) https://archive.org/stream/declarationaddre00campiala#page/6/mode/2up (accessed Dec
15, 2015).
11
Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 31.
12
Ibid., 32.
13
Nathan O. Hatch, American Origins of Churches of Christ: Three Essays on Restoration History
(Abilene: ACU Press, 2001), 19.
12
This powerful ideal is the vision of primitive Christianity and, in the context of
the religious culture of the Untie States, the corresponding myth of
nondenominational Christianity… this ideal became the Church of Christ and to
ignore the nineteenth century would be to ignore the very heart and soul of the
tradition.14
For this study, Stone and Campbell are instrumental because they inaugurated a
way of reading scripture that has lasted for more than two hundred years. Stone and
Campbell were not just creating a new denomination, they were creating a new
hermeneutic. Historian Nathan Hatch suggests this “new” hermeneutic was fueled by
reform in three specific areas. First, Stone and Campbell called for a revolution that
would place laity and clergy on equal footing. Second, they rejected learned theology for
a new view that welcomed innovation and inquiry. Third, they called for a “populist
hermeneutic premised on the inalienable right of every person to understand the New
Testament for themselves.”15 Thus, the Stone-Campbell hermeneutic invited a
Restoration Movement that focused on such ideals as “reading the Bible correctly,”
treating the New Testament as a “Constitutional Law,” and upholding the intellectual
spirit of the individual and his “rights.”
It is also noteworthy that the Stone-Campbell hermeneutic was founded within a
radical democratic sentiment. Richard Hughes notes, “Because Churches of Christ
believed so strongly in the notion of a democratic governance, they routinely claimed
they had no clergy, no power structure other than elders in local congregations, and no
organizational realities.”16 Therefore, the church “democracy” established a church
structure that was zealous for congregational autonomy. Denominational boards, synods,
14
Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 9.
Hatch, American Origins of Churches of Christ, 20-21.
16
Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 9-10.
15
13
and other hierarchal authorities were seen as disruptive threats to unity and an abrasive
attack on the simple New Testament pattern of governance for the church.
In conclusion, the Stone-Campbell hermeneutic places an undeniable emphasis on
using the New Testament – in particular Acts and the letters of Paul – to establish clear
rules for church polity and government. Additionally, the spirit of democracy fueled a
Constitutional hermeneutic, which urged individual Churches of Christ to establish
patterns of elders/overseers, deacons, and eventually evangelists prescribed by the rules
and regulations of Paul’s directives to the earliest Christians. Based upon the StoneCampbell hermeneutic and its plea for a democratic structure and system, how did the
specific roles of elder and preacher develop?
Campbell and J.W. McGarvey: Opposing Views of Ministry Roles
When defining specific roles within a local church, Alexander Campbell looked to
the pattern of the New Testament for church structure. Campbell introduced a chapter on
Christian Ministry in his book, The Christian System, by quoting Ephesians 4:11:
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and
teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may
be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of
God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of
Christ.17
In this passage Campbell notes three specific “classes” of people within the ministry
system: the elders, deacons, and evangelists (preachers). Campbell writes how the elders
(first class) are to “preside over, to instruct, and edify” the congregation. The deacons
17
Alexander Campbell, The Christian System: In Reference to the Union of Christians, and a Restoration
of Primitive Christianity, as Plead in the Current Reformation (Pittsburgh: Forrester and Campbell, 1839)
http://icotb.org/resources/Campbell,Alexander-TheChristianSystem.pdf (accessed Dec 16, 2016), 77.
14
(second class) are to be “servants who help with administrative tasks.” And the
evangelists (third class) are “not to serve the church directly” but are to be “sent out into
the world to make converts and establish new churches.”18 Though Campbell
acknowledged the value of each New Testament “role”, he clearly had in mind a “caste”
system in which Elders were at the top and evangelists at the bottom. Functionally,
Campbell advocated for a hierarchy of leadership based upon New Testament
“commands, examples, and necessary inferences.”19
Consequently, Campbell adamantly opposed the “clergy” system and “waged
war” through his magazine, The Christian Baptist. He argued the term “clergy” referred
to persons who practiced the ministry out of love of self, rather than love of God and
neighbor.20 Even more, Campbell opposed the entire clerical “system.” His argument was
rooted in the belief that a professional clergy would relieve the “burden of hearing and
reading the word of God” from the people in the church. Further, Campbell did not
include “preaching” in the duties of any of the “three classes.” Rather, preaching was the
simple sharing of the Christian gospel and was the duty of all Christians. So Campbell
writes:
A Christian is by profession a preacher of truth and righteousness, both by precept
and example. He may of right preach, baptize, and dispense the supper, as well as
pray for all men, when circumstances demand it. This concession does not,
however, either dispense with the necessity of having evangelists, bishops, and
deacons; not, having them, does it authorize any individual to assume to do what
18
Ibid., 78.
The tripartate formula of “command, example, and necessary inference,” is a simple way of
characterizing a tenant of the Stone-Campbell hermeneutic. Thomas Olbricht notes how the formula
appears, as if already widely accepted, in the earliest printed document of the Campbell movement,
the Declaration and Address of 1809. The expressed “terms and approved precedents" were granted
without question. See Thomas Olbricht, “Hermeneutics in the Churches of Christ,” Restoration Quarterly
37 no 1 (1995): 10-11.
20
D. Newell Williams, Paul M. Blowers, and Douglas Foster, “Ministry,” in The Encyclopedia of the
Stone-Campbell Movement, ed. Paul M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D.
Newell Williams (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 522-523.
19
15
has been given in charge to them. Liberty without licentiousness, and government
without tyranny, is the true genius of the Christian institution.21
In most congregations during the mid-1800’s, there was not a qualified person or
persons to execute the “teaching duties” for the congregation. But in the 1840’s churches
began to invite young evangelists, often college graduates, to come and devote
themselves full time to ministerial functions.22 This move to invite “outside teachers” was
in reaction to elders who were untrained and unschooled men. Churches were looking for
a person who could teach and provide meaningful “help in the pulpit.” Yet a located
preacher was only a temporary solution. Isaac Errett, the editor of the Christian
Standard, spoke for many when he wrote:
Let it be understood that, in the imperfect condition of many of the churches, the
employment of one man as a preacher and teacher and a cooperator with the
elders, in ruling, is justifiable and a necessity, but is not to be accepted as a
finality.23
Though Errett validated a role for the preachers, it was understood the elders ought to be
the primary voice of teaching and leading. Nonetheless, several congregations after
Campbell’s death in 1866 largely accepted the practice of a located evangelist and by the
end of the century most Churches of Christ employed located ministers with fixed
salaries.24 This critical departure from Campbell’s “priesthood of all believers” sparked a
growing debate among the Stone-Campbell movement. An influential voice in the debate
was J.W. McGarvey.
21
Campbell, The Christian System,115.
Williams, Blowers, and Foster, Encyclopedia, “Ministry,” 522.
23
Ibid., 523.
24
J. Curtis Pope, “Evangelist,” in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, ed. Paul M.
Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2005), 321.
22
16
J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911) was born in Kentucky and grew up in Illinois. As a
young man, McGarvey was a family friend of Thomas and Alexander Campbell and
eventually became the first professor of sacred history in the newly founded Lexington
Bible College. Though McGarvey did not become president of the University till later in
life, he became a dominant influence and personality on campus. In addition to his
prolific teaching career, McGarvey was widely known in the Disciples of Christ for his
influential writing.
In this seminal work, Treatise on the Eldership, McGarvey believed, like
Campbell, that the elders were the designated leaders of the local church and their
primary function was to rule the church. Though an elder needed to teach the flock, the
primary duty of the “Shepherd” was three fold:
“First to protect the congregation against false teachers from abroad; second, to
guard carefully against the influence of schismatics within the congregation; and
third, to keep watch both within and without so as to be ready to act on the first
appearance of danger from either direction.” 25
The Elder, as shepherd, took on the primary role of protecting the flock by a particular
way of leading. For McGarvey, leading meant ruling. He notes in I Pet. 5:2 how the duty
of “taking oversight” is essentially “ruling.” The Greek word rendered rule (proisteemi)
is etymologically rooted in the meaning of “to stand or place one object over another.”
McGarvey argued that when “rule” is used in connection with leading as an
Elder/Bishop/Shepherd it certainly means to “rule over” as a father would his family (I
Tim. 3:4-5) so the Elders rule over the church (I Tim. 5:17; I Thess. 5:12). Even more, in
Hebrews the same idea of “ruling” as leading is implied. In Heb. 13:7 the writer states,
“Remember them who have rule over you,” and again in 13:17, “salute them that have
25
J. W. McGarvey, A Treatise on the Eldership, reprint (Ohio: Deward Press, 2010), 26.
17
the rule over you.” The verb “to lead” (heegeomai) in most cases would mean to “lead to
a conclusion,” yet McGarvey suggested the verb, when used as a present participle,
means to lead as a chief man (as in Acts 15:22) or as one with authority.26 Thus, the
elders were to be leaders who ruled over the flock.
Interestingly McGarvey drew a sharp distinction between an evangelist who
“preached” and an elder “who ruled.” Pointing to the New Testament examples of Paul
and Timothy, McGarvey advocated for the elder to be “older and wiser” while the
evangelist is the younger more immature minister. McGarvey reinforced this position by
noting Paul’s words to young Timothy, “But you, keep your head in all situations, endure
hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry” (2 Tim.
4:5). Thus McGarvey used Paul’s example, not as a fellow elder but as an older mentor,
who encouraged the “evangelist” to teach in a located context. McGarvey writes:
In short, every duty is laid on Timothy that was laid on the Elders with the single
exception of ruling. With this exception his work is to coordinate with the Elders.
This then is the New Testament idea of the work of an evangelist laboring in
connection within an Eldership in in the confines of a congregation.27
In sum, McGarvey advocated for two distinct leadership roles in a local
congregation: the evangelist and the elder. McGarvey’s position was a critical departure
from Campbell and was the first to support a located evangelist as an integral component
of the local congregation. However, McGarvey was clear the evangelist or preacher was
to execute his duties of teaching under the rule of the elders. McGarvey’s view and
26
Ibid., 27.
J. W. McGarvey, “Church Government, “ The Missouri Christian Lectures, Selected from the Courses of
1889, 1890, and 1891 (1892): 200,
https://books.google.com/books?id=TBdBlwDMlLwC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=JW+McGarvey+Chu
rch+Government&source=bl&ots=7WRvtRrlkg&sig=bRS7D2MUckPxHvPNpUgrCu9wlY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj24ZKPluDJAhVD0mMKHe8YCNkQ6AEILTAD#v=onepag
e&q=JW%20McGarvey%20Church%20Government&f=false (accessed Dec 16, 2016).
27
18
support of the “located” preacher would be influential for the next several decades. And,
as evidenced by the force of the Stone-Campbell hermeneutic, the lines of authority
remained clear within local congregations based on a “New Testament” pattern. As a new
century began and more Churches of Christ elected to hire preachers, there was growing
debate on how the relationship between preachers and elders would unfold.
David Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate
Because the Church of Christ was “non-denominational” and had no structure for
clerics and bishops, W.T. Moore notes it was the editors or writers that defined its shape
and identity.28 In particular, the Gospel Advocate became a dominant voice in the early
1900’s and provided vigorous discussion regarding the roles of preacher and elders.29
David Lipscomb (1831-1917), co-founder of the Nashville Bible School (now David
Lipscomb University), was editor of the Gospel Advocate for forty-six years. Through
this publication Lipscomb exercised tremendous influence on the minds and hearts of
Southern members of the Stone-Campbell movement.30 In 1896, as editor of the Gospel
Advocate, Lipscomb wrote:
I think that no greater evil can befall the church than a corps of professional
preachers. I mean by that a class of men who preach for the money – where and
when they can get the most money.31
28
As quoted in Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 10.
Pat Casey, “The Role of the Preacher as Set Forth in the Gospel Advocate from 1895-1910 with Beliefs
and Consequences to 1980” (DMin Thesis, Harding Graduate School of Religion, 1980): 55. I am indebted
to Casey for his research in this area. In particular, Casey was instructive in providing sound bytes for
Lipscomb’s views on preachers as revealed in the Gospel Advocate.
30
Robert E. Hooper, “David Lipscomb” in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, ed. Paul
M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2005): 480-482.
31
Lipscomb supported his argument scripturally by comparing preachers to “priests in the temple who did
not carry the offerings of the temple to their homes but had fields for cattle.” David Lipscomb, “A
Scriptural Way to Get to Evangelizing,” Gospel Advocate 38 (September 10, 1896): 581.
29
19
In the years that followed Lipscomb opposed preaching as a paid profession and argued
vehemently for preachers to pursue “honest work.” 32 Moreover, he urged readers of the
Advocate to not call a preacher (or even an elder) “pastor.” This designation belonged
only to a special “gifted class of men” in the early church. To those who chose to call
their elders or preacher “pastor” Lipscomb wrote:
The Gospel Advocate opposes and has always opposed the modern pastor
because there is no such authority in the Bible for such a pastor. Any system of
worship that is not backed by the authority of Christ has many evils connected
with it. The members of all the churches need to learn to work more, and not to
depend so much on the preachers to do their work for them.33
Concerning the work of both elders and preachers, Lipscomb, following in the footsteps
of Campbell, believed the governance system could deprive the church members from
being “the priesthood of all believers.” He cautioned how elders and preachers who “do
all the work” hurt the church. Lipscomb writes:
The church that supports a preacher to preach for it all the time and to do all its
work will grow lifeless… Elders and preachers are essential to the work of
churches; but if they monopolize the teaching and work, they dwarf and destroy
the church, rather than build up and multiply it.34
Alongside of Lipscomb, H. Leo Boles (1874-1946) wrote a pamphlet published by the
Gospel Advocate Company titled, “The Eldership of the Churches.” This document was
instructive for many churches as they considered the role of elders and preachers.
Specifically, Boles espoused the “need for a restoration of the New Testament order.” His
concern was the preacher had more influence than the elders. Boles writes:
God placed the guidance, teaching, and discipline of the church under the
eldership of the church. When the preacher gains the confidence and esteem of the
church over the membership than do the elders, there is something wrong…
David Lipscomb, “Are There Too Many Ministers?” Gospel Advocate 42 (March 1, 1900): 137.
David Lipscomb, “No Title,” Gospel Advocate 42 (August 30, 1900): 554.
34
David Lipscomb, “Elders and Preachers,” Gospel Advocate 45 (March 5, 1903): 152-153.
32
33
20
preachers are usurping authority and lording it over the church until the eldership
has become a nonentity… the preacher reigns over the church like a pope.35
Boles, like Lipscomb, stood against the professionalism of preachers. Instead Boles
believed the work of the preacher was three fold: to preach the glad tidings, organize the
believers into a church, and see that each member was “busy in the qualifications
assigned to him.” Moreover, the preacher served under the eldership of the church and to
rebel against this “Scriptural order is to rebel against God and his order of
organization.”36 Boles was adamant in his defense of “God’s order for the church” and
declared, “A preacher who perverts the organization of the church corrupts even its
worship.”
Throughout the early 1900’s, Lipscomb and Boles promoted a view of elders and
preachers that reflected the Stone-Campbell precedence of Biblical commands, examples,
and necessary inferences. David Lipscomb and writers such as Boles had no interest in
upholding a “professional” role for a preacher in Churches of Christ. Even more, the role
of elders was unambiguously to “support and edify the local congregation of which every
Christian is a preacher, and evangelist, and missionary.”37 In spite of this view,
evangelists or preachers continued to become a necessary component of the local church
while elders remained the appointed “rulers.” However, as preachers become more
commonplace their authority in the local congregation grew. Thus, new questions and
concerns for how the both groups would interrelate emerged.
35
H. Leo Boles, The Eldership of the Churches of Christ (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1900), 30.
Ibid., 32-33.
37
David Lipscomb, “Evangelistic Numbers,” Gospel Advocate 47 (July 20, 1905): 448.
36
21
The Role of the Preacher in Lectureships
Although there is much to be learned about the role of the preacher and elder in
the Churches of Christ from its papers and printed material, an equal storehouse of
information is in the lectures of Church of Christ colleges. These annual forums provided
an additional pulpit for capable preachers and teachers to give sermons on specific
themes and biblical texts. These presentations not only gave an appropriate window into
the trends and beliefs of the Stone-Campbell movement but “lectureships have served as
important mechanisms for providing informal structure and control.”38 As William S.
Banowsky writes, “The lectureship has been the most vital pulpit of a pulpit-sparked
movement.”39 Thus, much can be learned from the Church of Christ lectures about the
role of the preacher and elders.
The first printed lectureship came from the Abilene Christian College lectures of
1919. Henry Eli Speck spoke on “The Preacher, His Task, and Opportunity.” In this
presentation Speck announced:
The act of preaching is complex and difficult under the easiest conditions. He
must go into the pulpit to instruct men, to rebuke, to inspire, to comfort, and to
regenerate them. The preacher must speak oftener than the lawyer, visit more than
the doctor, and teach with more patience than the professor. In doing these things
he will continually be adjusting himself to new conditions.40
A few years later Charles H. Roberson, using Eph. 4:11, stated that he believed the
evangelists and pastors were officers in the local church. He further stated:
Craig Churchill, “Lectureships” in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, ed. Paul M.
Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2005): 468.
39
William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement (self-published, 1965), Stone-Campbell e-prints, 2015:
64.
40
Henry Eli Speck, “The Preacher, His Task, and Opportunity,” Abilene Christian College Lectures
(Cincinatti: Rowe Publishing, 1919): 25.
38
22
Rightful authority is derived through lawful channels from the only source of all
authority… from the apostles the authority of the Christ descends to the
evangelists. They are the next link in the chain of derived authority in the
church… from the evangelists the authority of Christ passes to pastors and
teachers of local congregations.41
Both Speck and Roberson spoke for many and validated the importance of the preacher
(evangelist) in the local congregation. Was this the genesis of the Stone-Campbell
movement softening towards the work and authority of a local evangelist? Guy N.
Woods, an editor for the Gospel Advocate and well-known “debater” in the Churches of
Christ spoke vigorously against this type of authority. At the 1939 Abilene Christian
College Lectures Woods declared:
It will not be seriously denied that there is an arrangement in operation in the
Church of Christ which bears a suspicious similarity to the pastor system of the
denominations… elders have in many instances hired an evangelist to feed the
flock and take oversight…it is not surprising that, when this is done, the elders are
too often regarded as mere figureheads. It is time for the elders to expert their
authority and no longer shirk the responsibility that is theirs, thus releasing the
preachers to carry the gospel to the lost.42
And four years later, Otto Foster addressed concerns of the preacher taking the role of
“pastor.” This diminished the God-given responsibilities of the Elders. He said,
The churches are perishing. Large congregations are the burial grounds of talent.
The members of the churches trust the preacher in everything. They feel they pay
him to do it and they are relieved of any responsibility in leading or conducting
the service… The preacher is not appreciated for his strong and scriptural
preaching but for his little pastoral visits, good mixing, and organizing.43
It is clear that lectures espoused deep concerns that the preacher was gaining unhealthy
influence. As to the specific relationship between the elder and “evangelist,” Homer
Charles H. Roberson, “The Organization of the Church,” Abilene Christian College Lectures (Austin:
Firm Foundation, 1933): 30, 36, 38.
42
Guy N. Woods, “Christianity in a Changing World,” Abilene Christian College Lectures (Austin: Firm
Foundation, 1939): 54-55.
43
Otto Foster, “The Conduct of the Gospel Preacher,” Abilene Christian College Lectures (Austin: Firm
Foundation, 1943): 121.
41
23
Putman Reeves spoke at the 1952 Harding College Lectures and declared the only
“office” of the preacher was to preach.44 Furthermore, in 1954 Glenn L. Wallace dealt
with “evangelistic authority.” He cautioned churches not to give an evangelist the
“complete authority” over a congregation when it is first planted. Upon selection of
elders, “all the congregation must edify the saints” and take up the leadership with
“mutual ministry.”45
Thus, the Church of Christ lectures were a place for intense dialogue and
emotional pleas concerning the role of the preacher. Yet, by 1958 the work of the located
preacher was apparently so accepted that no one who spoke at lectures questioned the
right of a church to have a full-time preacher.46 At the same time, there were still
questions about the specific leadership role a preacher ought to assume. During the 1959
lectures at Harding College, Elza Huffard stated the following:
Somehow in our present age most of us are not sure how to describe the
minister’s leadership. One thing we are sure of; we don’t think he should run the
church. However, in the scriptures his role of leadership was considerable.
Actually, in practice, we recognize that he plays a key role – even more than we
like to admit. There is nothing wrong in recognizing the role of leadership that the
minister plays in our congregations, scripturally or otherwise.47
As the Church of Christ continued to find differing autonomous theological
agendas, the relationship of the preacher and elder continued to be a primary concern.
Based upon the above-mentioned (abridged) history of lectureships it can be concluded
the specific leadership roles within the local church remained a topic of controversy and
Homer Putnam Reeves, “Preacher-Elder Relations,” Harding College Lectures (Austin: Firm
Foundation, 1953): 209-219.
45
Glenn L. Wallace, “Evangelist,” Abilene Christian College Lectures (Austin: Firm Foundation, 1954):
163, 173.
46
Pat Casey, “The Role of the Preacher as Set Forth in the Gospel Advocate from 1895-1910 with Beliefs
and Consequences to 1980” (DMin Thesis, Harding Graduate School of Religion, 1980): 75.
47
Elza Huffard, “Having the Proper Leadership,” Harding College Lectures (Austin: Firm Foundation,
1959): 53.
44
24
debate. For the next several years, the expressed desire by lectureship speakers was to
continue the restoration of a New Testament church and they warned against departing
from this “pattern.” And yet, the conversation began to shift in the late 1960’s from clear
boundaries of preachers and elders to church leadership. During the 1967 Harding
Lectures, Bill Patterson discussed church leadership from the viewpoint of different
“ships”: overseership, shepherdship, eldership, partnership, and battleship.
It appears to me that it was the area of leadership corrupted by the love of power
that caused the first departure from the apostolic New Testament pattern. And the
more I learn of my brethren, our churches and movement, I am more convinced
that in the areas of leadership that will be the last to be restored. Love of power,
one-man rule, or group-rule, be it elders, deacons, preachers, or others, here is
where we must go.48
Also in 1978, John Belasco, at the Harding Lectures, spoke candidly about
congregational leadership when he said, “The leaders of the local church can destroy their
own dream when they let the preacher “run the church” or make him a pastor without
electing him as elder.”49 Over the next three decades the Churches of Christ would begin
to take more intentional looks at church leadership. In particular, the role of the elder
would begin to vacillate between “manager” and “shepherd” while the role of preacher
would be considered (by many congregations) to be the elder’s “employee.” Thus, a
relational tension between the two parties grew and some literature began to emerge that
sought to explore the dynamics of church leadership.50
Bill Patterson, “Principles of Leadership,” Harding College Lectures, (Austin: Firm Foundation, 1967):
180.
49
John Belasco, “Motivating the Local Church,” Harding College Lectures, (Austin: Firm Foundation,
1978): 120-121.
50
I use the term “some” because the specific literature on elder/preacher relationships in the Churches of
Christ is extremely limited. Interestingly, as noted in the introductory chapter of this thesis, the tension of
this relationship remains at the forefront of many churches. I believe the tension ought to be further
explored and is a primary motivation for this particular study.
48
25
Recent Trends and Developments for Elders and Preachers
In his recent Doctoral thesis, Steve Cloer notes three historical variations from
J.W. McGarvey’s position on the preacher as a “located evangelist”: evangelist as pastor,
evangelist as itinerant, and evangelist as employee.51 The third variation, the preacher as
“employee,” dominates the landscape of the last thirty years. According to Cloer, this
perspective emerged as elders began to understand themselves as “authoritarian leaders
whose job was to manage their employee, the evangelist.”52 But what writings brought
shape and meaning to the current role of elder? In particular, how would elders view their
Biblical role in light of their oversight of the church and its preacher?
In 1996, Ian Fair, Dean of the College of Bible and Family Studies at Abilene
Christian University, made a substantial contribution to Church of Christ leadership and
addressed a contemporary thirst for leadership “systems.” Noting recent trends and
growing literature on leadership, Fair suggests a “strategy” for Churches of Christ that
explores fresh models of “church leadership.” Many congregations, according to Fair, are
in a dilemma of “congregational conflict caused by generational concerns.”53 In the
opening chapters, Fair notes the ongoing despair of elder and preacher roles:
For whatever reason, elders have abdicated their role as shepherds to the minister
who visits the sick and the hospitals, does most of the counseling, and administers
the office staff of the church. Focusing most of his attention on the church itself,
the minister assumes the role of the Shepherd with no one to be the evangelist of
the church.54
51
See Steve Cloer,“ Missional Polity: The Minister-Elder Relationship in Churches of Christ,
Experiencing Missional Transformation,” (DMin Thesis, Luther Seminary, 2015): 33-38. I am indebted to
the generous contributions of Cloer for much of the framework for this chapter. Though the scope of
Steve’s project thesis was broader than my specific context, his historical work proved to be an invaluable
guide for my research and documentation.
52
Ibid., 38.
53
Ian Fair, Leadership in the Kingdom: Sensitive Strategies for the Church in a Changing World (Abilene:
ACU Press, 1996): preface, XIX.
54
Ibid., 38.
26
Fair continues and appeals for elders to be “Biblical” who “intend to be shepherds that
teach, not board members who make decisions.”55 Though Fair deconstructs three
contemporary models of leadership strategies (directive, democratic, and participative),
he ultimately points to a more Biblical model, proposed by Paul, using the “human body”
as a chief model for leadership. If the body is to be the church, Christ as the “head” of the
body will give direction to its parts or members. In this, Fair urges an “Eph. 4:1-16”
model that invites “mutual ministry and up-building” of the church body. It is noteworthy
that Fair is less concerned with whether or not elders and ministers have authority.
Rather, the “point in question is the nature or kind of authority.”56 Thus, Fair’s book
stresses “leadership through relationship” and urges elders and minister to be functional
and ministry related rather than authoritarian and hierarchal.57
Lynn Anderson wrote a seminal work for elders in the Churches of Christ in 1997
titled, They Smell Like Sheep: Spiritual Leadership for the 21st century. A primary
strength of this book is Anderson’s perspective. Though formerly a preacher in Churches
of Christ, Anderson became an Elder. Thus, Anderson wrote to elders from the
perspective of an elder. In They Smell Like Sheep, Anderson proposes three models of
leadership for the church: shepherd, mentor, and equipper. Interestingly these particular
models are suggested in response to years of preaching experience and subsequent
frustration. Though Anderson writes out of concern for the Church of Christ elder, the
frustration was not as much in the unique structures of local church polity but in the way
elders operated within their unique structure or polity. He writes:
55
Ibid., 39.
Ibid., 273. (emphasis mine)
57
Ibid., 286.
56
27
Above all, whether shepherding, mentoring, or equipping, elders do their best
work through relationships. Thus the authority of an elder grows, not out of a title
emblazoned on church letterhead, but out of the quality of the elders life: the
credibility of his walk with God, the genuineness of his service, and the
authenticity of the relationship with his sheep.58
The heart of Anderson’s book is a plea for elders to be shepherds; a Biblical
Christ-centered mandate to love and care for people. Even in matters of authority, elders
who are shepherds have “no” authority to domineer or control but have “yes” authority to
lead with qualities of a Jesus-filled life.59 Thus, the title of the book appropriately
describes a new proposed leadership model: the shepherds (elders) of the church smell
like the sheep (people). The importance of this book to the “work” of being a more
people-centered shepherd cannot be understated. Both Anderson and Fair’s books were
inaugural entrées for Churches of Christ to consider new ways of leading. In particular, I
suggest these two works signaled a key start for a discussion in Churches of Christ for its
leaders to consider how their relationship matters.
More recently there has been a clear focus on training opportunities for elders in
the Churches of Christ. For example, University professors David Fleer and Charles
Siburt edited two books specifically for elders. One purpose of these works is to provide
meaningful essays and contributions by various teachers and scholars for the practical
“art of pastoring.” They write in the introduction:
While a host of books speak directly to ministers’ work and life… little shelf
space is required for the books written for elders. No wonder elders don’t buy
books- they’ve not been written! What elders collect and read contain
conversations they can overhear… seldom are they the intended audience.60
58
Lynn Anderson, They Smell Like Sheep (West Monroe: Howard, 1997), 127.
Ibid., 207-213.
60
See David Fleer and Charles Siburt eds., Like a Shepherd Lead Us: Guidance for the Gentle Art of
Pastoring (Abilene: Leafwood, 2006): 10 and David Fleer and Charles Siburt eds., Good Shepherds: More
Guidance for the Gentle Art of Pastoring (Abilene: Leafwood, 2007). Both of these volumes cover a
59
28
Charles Siburt, professor at Abilene Christian University, also began a formative teaching
event in 2001 for elders called ElderLink. The mission of the ElderLink ministry “is to
equip, encourage, and link those who serve as leaders in Churches of Christ, through
collaborative relationships, informative resources, and shared learning opportunities.”61
Though a goal of the conference is to equip church leaders, the intended focus is to
provide meaningful training for elders and their spouses.
In sum, there is clear concern for training and equipping church leaders. In
particular, the literature reflects a strong desire for elders to be trained as “better elders.”
Yet, among both preachers and elders the emotional realities of their “shared leadership”
is strained. There is angst and emotional unrest for how the two “parties” work together.
Ron Clark, in his 2008 book, Emerging Elders, writes:
In all the books I have read concerning ministry, elders, or church growth, I have
read little about shepherding ministers. I am upset about the declining number of
ministers in our pulpits. I am upset at the ministers who do not take a day off. I
am alarmed by the graduates who choose the academy over the pulpit. I am
concerned about the ministers who choose sin over the task of modeling Jesus….
the struggle for power is not due to individual strengths but in individual
weaknesses. The elders and ministers can work as a team when the Shepherds
take time to guide those in ministry.62
Even more recently, Gene Newton, a long-time elder in the Church of Christ, wrote a
brief book titled, Elder/Preacher Relationships that Last. Interestingly, the book was
written alongside his sons, Glenn and Mark, who both preach in Churches of Christ. In
the introductory comments, Gene writes, “What prompted me to write this book were the
trials my preacher sons were facing that could have been avoided by better elder-preacher
variety of topics. Noteworthy for this study is no chapter is specifically dedicated to the relationship
between the elders and preacher.
61
“Elderlink,” http://ark.acu.edu/content/home/en/siburt-institute-for-church-ministry/elderlink.html,
(Accessed December 19, 2016.)
62
Ron Clark, Emerging Elders: Developing Shepherds in God’s Image (Abilene: Leafwood, 2008), 169.
29
relationships.”63 Though Newton’s book is a simplistic approach and a cursory treatment
of Elder/Preacher relationships, it remains one of the few resources for the present
anguish of elders and preachers in the Churches of Christ who wish to navigate the
difficult contours of their leadership roles.64
Recently, Judy Siburt, widow of church consultant Dr. Charles Siburt, presented a
document detailing critical observations from Dr. Siburt’s work. Specifically, Siburt
addressed the question, “What is happening between Elders and Ministers?” Though not
specific to “preachers,” I believe Siburt’s observations are telling signs of the current
angst in Churches of Christ as we consider the critical work of elder-preacher
relationships. Siburt offers the following ten observations:
1. The roles and functions are more similar than different.
2. The relationship has some predictable stages.
3. Whatever the issues or the language, the real interests “below the line” are
power, control, and ego.
4. The “Child” in both gets in the way of an “Adult-Adult” relationship.
5. Both elders and ministers can slip into the “box of self-deception.”
6. Personal leadership style differences can contribute to tension between elders
and ministers.
7. Differing conflict management styles also add to the tension.
8. Both elders and ministers struggle with their own anxiety and insecurity.
9. Both elders and ministers struggle with the “trust vs. distrust” tension.
63
Gene Newton, Glenn Newton, and Mark Newton, Elder/Preacher Relationships that Last (Nashville:
21st Century Christian, 2012), 11.
64
I admit that “current leadership anguish” might sound dramatic, but the intent of this study, and in
particular my quantitative research, is to demonstrate the desperate need for more research and tools for the
elder/preacher relationship.
30
10. Elders and ministers are constantly in jeopardy of being “triangled” against
each other.65
Conclusions
Though this chapter is limited in its exploration of the history of Churches of
Christ, I want to offer some clear conclusions integral to this specific study.
1. The way Churches of Christ read Scripture has an indelible influence on how
elders and preachers understand their respective leadership roles.
This chapter began by exploring how the Stone-Campbell movement started with the
simple desire for a group of Christians to come back to the Bible and explore ways of
“New Testament” unity. Through the early work of Thomas and Alexander Campbell and
Barton Stone, a hermeneutic emerged that defined the structures of church leadership
through such ideals as reading the Bible as a Constitutional document, establishing a
“correct” order of the apostles, and giving specific commands and examples. This
hermeneutical plea paved the way for elders and located evangelists to be a primary topic
of debate and concern for Churches of Christ in the decades to come.
2. Our current Church of Christ polity regarding preacher and Elder relationships
is an outgrowth of JW McGarvey’s influence. Though Campbell stood against a
“professional clergy” and David Lipscomb opposed “paid preachers,” it was J.W.
McGarvey who argued for the importance of the “located” evangelist. As the evangelist
or preacher became a leader of the local congregation, anxieties grew around the elders
“Biblical” right to rule or govern the local church. Thus, as the twentieth century
I am indebted to Judy Siburt for sharing this “list” with me. The observations are a part of a larger
“handout” that Dr. Siburt used in church consultation and teaching. Judy Siburt, “Re: Just Some Notes,”
Message to Pat Bills, January 18, 2016, Email.
65
31
progressed McGarvey’s model became the basis for most Churches of Christ as they
employed full-time preachers by the late 1950’s.
3. As the Church of Christ entered the 21st century, there was clear concern for how
preachers and elders functioned as leaders in the church.
This was debated primarily through Church of Christ lectureships. Though there were
various opinions, it became increasingly evident that preachers were actively leading
churches both in the pulpit and in church governance systems. The 21st century landscape
of church “leadership” literature invited churches to seek renewed strategies and models
for church governance. Through authors and professors such as Lynn Anderson, Ian Fair,
and Charles Siburt, both elders and preachers in the Churches of Christ sought training
and expertise for specific areas of leadership.
4. There is very little literature or tools available for the specifics of the elderpreacher relationship.
It is my conviction that leaders in the Churches of Christ desire a deeper exploration of
church governance and relationships. Even more, there is growing curiosity for an indepth exploration of current models and trends in the Church of Christ. More specifically
the intent of this project is to explore my specific model of ministry and unpack the
history of the relationship of the Highland Oaks elders and me as the preacher. The aim
of this broad historical analysis is to provide a generous starting point for a better way
forward in light of our rich heritage and hope for God’s imagined future.
CHAPTER 3: THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
This project frames its research through particular scriptural and theological
convictions. While scripture provides an authoritative guide for church leadership, a
theological framework helps one understand how to implement leadership consistent with
the nature of God. This chapter seeks to build scriptural and theological foundations for
relational leadership through two frames. First, I will explore how scripture defines the
particular roles of elders and preachers. Specifically, I will highlight how Paul understood
these leadership roles in light of a ministry within local congregations he established. In
this, I will argue for understanding the specific role of elders and preachers relationally.
Even more, I will offer an examination of how elders and preachers ought to exist for the
sake of ministry to and for the entire body. Second, I will propose two distinctive
theological frames. First, I will illuminate the importance of reading and understanding
scripture through a missional lens. In contrast to a Stone/Campbell constitutional reading,
a missional hermeneutic invites both elders and preachers to understand leadership as a
shared relational partnership in the missio Dei. Second, I will offer a brief overview of
how the Trinity can serve as a theological model for relationship. In exploring the notion
of perichoresis, I will suggest a way for elders and preachers to embody similar
Trinitarian characteristics as they lead together. This chapter will be the theological
support for the methodology and research of chapter four.
32
33
Elders, Preachers, and Ministry in the Local Church
In 1992 John Wilson wrote, “The Churches of Christ are suffering today from a
crisis of identity and a crisis of leadership.”66 Over two decades later Churches of Christ
still suffer in this crisis. A recent conference on church leadership highlighted a panel
conversation on the topic of church governance. Eight churches, with an elder and its
preacher, were represented and each local congregation espoused a different model for
church leadership and how it made decisions.67 Even more recently, I listened (again) to
the story of a preacher who struggles with the youth minister and his clear ineffectiveness
and poor work ethic. The preacher feels trapped because one “lead” elder made the hire.
Though an underlying assumption is that scripture is a steady guide for matters of church
leadership, the reality is many congregations are unsure of how the leadership of their
church “should” work. And the elders and ministers often suffer at the hands of scriptural
assumptions and struggles for power and control seep into leadership meetings. Thus,
Wilson was not just a herald for current trends but also a harbinger of an ongoing
leadership crisis in Churches of Christ.
If scripture serves as a guide through this crisis, how might the New Testament
steer the role of elders and preachers in more helpful relational ways?68 The concern over
leadership issues in Churches of Christ has been said by James Thompson to underline an
“uncertainty and controversy over ministerial role models and the desire for the
66
John F. Wilson, “Saints, Shepherds, Preachers, Scholars: Leadership Crisis in Churches of Christ,”
Restoration Quarterly 34 (1992): 129.
67
The conference is Elderlink and is hosted by Abilbne Christian University at various times in the year for
leaders in Churches of Christ. The specific panel was moderated by Carson Reed, “Models of Governance:
How Elders and Ministers Work Together for the Sake of God’s Mission,” Highland Oaks Church of Christ,
Dallas, TX. November 14, 2015, Keynote Address II.
68
I readily admit that to limit scripture to the “New Testament” omits a large portion of the entire story of
scripture. But, for the purposes and limitations of this project, I will choose to explore the New or “Second”
Testament exclusively.
34
contemporary church to find appropriate paradigms in the New Testament.”69 According
to Thompson, many of our ministry questions are not issues that the New Testament even
sought to address, as the New Testament does not offer a singular view of ministry. So
what does the New Testament offer as it describes specific ministry roles within local
churches?70
Elders in the New Testament
Paul regularly appointed elders in churches that he established to help with the
leadership of the young churches. (Acts 14:21-23). The elders were actively involved
with the apostles in Acts 15 in making decisions about how the inclusion of the Gentile
Christians should take place at the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:4-6, 22-23; 16:4). The
church in Ephesus had elders that Paul sent for when he gave his farewell address on his
third missionary journey (Acts 20:17-31). Elders also figure prominently within the
pastoral letters of 1 Timothy and Titus. Paul refers to elders directing the affairs of the
church (I Tim. 5:17), laying hands on future leaders (I Tim. 4:14), and needing rebuke in
a situation of continual sin (I Tim. 5:20). Paul directs Titus to appoint elders in every
town within Crete, similar to Paul’s previous practice on his missionary journeys (Titus
1:5).
Though it is clear there is scriptural evidence for the presence of elders as local
leaders of the church, it is unclear how elders go about the task of “eldering.” Acts 20, for
example, though a clear pattern for the existence of elders in a local church, is unclear as
James W. Thompson, “Ministry in the New Testament,” Restoration Quarterly 27 (1984): 143.
I am indebted, again, to the wonderful work of Steve Cloer,“Missional Polity: The Minister-Elder
Relationship in Churches of Christ, Experiencing Missional Transformation,” (DMin Thesis, Luther
Seminary: 2015). Steve delineates much of his theology section in terms of New Testament language while
exploring the nuances of such words like “elder,” “minister,” and “authority.”
69
70
35
to how the elders are to function. Paul is readying to leave Ephesus and sends for the
elders (presbyteros) and charges them with oversight (episkopos) yet identifies them as
shepherds (poimen). Additionally, Paul gives both Timothy and Titus specific lists or
“qualifications” for selecting elders (presbyteros). Interestingly, these “lists” are similar
to other “lists” describing Greek rulers of the 1st and 2nd century.71 In other words, if the
qualification “lists” of the elders in Timothy and Titus were to be unique spiritual
qualities of church elders, then why is there such similarity in their descriptive functions
to pagan rulers? In all there is little precedence for how elders are to perform the duties of
an elder. Even more, there is little evidence for how elders ought to operate as a group.72
The singular passage of James 5:14 is a rare exception and highlights a specific practice
of elders: to pray over the sick person and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Yet, if the task of eldering is scant in the New Testament, how is one to discern the
function of elders within a local congregation?
Everett Ferguson suggests the best way to understand the leadership role of elders
is within the various terms describing them: overseer (episkopos), shepherd (poimen), and
Citing the scholarship of B.S. Easton, “New Testament Ethical Lists,” Journal of Biblical Literature
51(1932): 1-12, Michael Mahan writes, “Already by 1932, the list of qualifications of elders (1 Tim 3; Tit
1) was noted to have a strong relationship to other, secular texts. Easton noticed the resemblance of elder
qualifications to the pagan virtue lists, most particularly to that in The General by Tacitus Onasander. This
list is striking for two reasons. First, it was written for a known, specific occasion (circa 50 CE, for the
consular Q. Veranius) and is dated at least 10 years prior to all estimates of the writing of 1 Timothy.
Second, the text is markedly similar to the that of 1 Timothy 3:2-3, reading, “the general should be chosen
as . . . soberminded, self-controlled, temperate, frugal, hardy, intelligent, no lover of money, not (too)
young or old, if it may be, the father of children, able to speak well, of good repute.” Although similarity
does not denote provenance or necessarily even mutual influence, the coexistence of these texts has an
impact on the interpretation… first-century Christian elders and pagan Greek generals fulfilled essentially
the same duties.” Michael Mahan, “Toward a Restorationist Theology of Leadership: Elder Implications,”
Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 4, no. 1 (2012), 70-86.
72
The exception to this is, of course, the way the elders responded to the Gentiles in Acts 15. Luke
Timothy Johnson has done important work with this text, as it relates to group discernment, and is beyond
the purview of this study. See Luke Timoty Johnson, “Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the
Local Church,” (Nashville, Abigdon: 1996). My point is there are little to no specific directives from Paul
(or any other writer) as to how an elder group is to function together.
71
36
steward (oikonomos). First, elders were to provide oversight to the congregation by
offering guidance, supervision, and protection for the congregation. In I Peter 5:2 there is
instruction for elders to “exercise oversight (episkopoutes) not under compulsion, but
voluntarily according to the will of God.” Second, elders were to shepherd the
congregation by protecting, caring, and feeding the flock. In Acts 20:28, “elders are to
shepherd (poimainein) the church of God which he purchased with His own blood.”
Similarly, I Peter 5:1-2 states, “Therefore, I exhort the elders (presbuterous) among you,
shepherd (poimanate) the flock of God among you…” And the term “shepherd” is rich in
Old Testament imagery and harkens to care and concern for a group of people (Exodus
3:16 and Ezekiel 34). Third, they were to offer their wisdom and counsel in dealing with
various affairs of the congregation as stewards of the church.73 Paul writes in Titus 1:5-7
about how to appoint elders, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in
order what remains and appoint elders (presbuterous) in every city … For the overseer
(episkopon) must be above reproach as God’s steward (oikonomon).”
In sum, the consistent theme is that elders were to be more than bearers of a title
or a position of inappropriate authority. Rather, the role of elders in Paul’s churches were
to be spiritual leaders who looked after the needs of the body by directing, guiding,
protecting, managing, and judging. Even more, their mantle of leadership is largely
pastoral, helping the local congregation grow in spiritual maturity. Therefore I am
grounding this project in the Pauline ideal that elders were not only a key part of the local
church but functioned as wise shepherding guides who lived with and looked out for the
sheep.
73
Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 319-323.
37
Preachers According to Paul
Paul refers to a uniquely qualified leader in the church as a “minister/servant”
(diakonos), “evangelist” (euaggelistes), or “preacher” (kerux). For example, Paul refers to
himself as a “minister” (diakonos) tasked with the calling of preaching the word of God
(Col. 1:25). Paul calls Epaphras, who planted the church in Colossae and continued to
work with them, a “faithful servant (diakonos) of Christ” (Col. 1:7). Later, Paul writes to
Timothy, referring to him as a “minister (diakonos) of Christ” (1 Tim. 4:6) and
encourages him to do the “work of the evangelist (euaggelistes)” (2 Tim. 4:5). And the
task of preaching matters to Paul’s ministry in the churches he establishes. Notice how
Paul illuminates the affect of preaching from I Corinthians:
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this
age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the
wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided,
through the foolishness of our proclamation (kerygmatos) to save those who
believe. For Jews demand signs, and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim
(kerysommen) Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power
of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:20-23)
Paul is pushing against the notion that preaching is simply a teacher dispensing “wise
words.” Rather, Paul is declaring the responsibility to preach Christ and through
preaching something is happening to his hearers.74 Preaching for Paul is the glorious
announcement that in Christ, God has spoken a word that ought to be proclaimed.75 As
Paul is certainly not “alone” in declaring the importance of preaching. Satterlee’s astute observation is
worth noting: “Martin Luther, for example, wrote that “faith is produced and preserved in us by preaching,”
and faith produced by preaching results in new life. St. Ambrose preached that through baptism and
preaching of the Lord’s passion, God opens the eyes of people’s hearts so that they see with eyes of faith.
Barbara Brown Taylor calls preaching ‘a process of transformation for both preacher and congregation
alike, as the ordinary details of their everyday lives are transformed into the extraordinary elements of
God’s ongoing creation.’ Craig A. Satterlee, “Preach Jesus, Not Oprah: Proclaim Christ as Savior,”
Covenant Quarterly 68 no 3 (2010): 30.
75
Though the point of this research is not to provide an overview of theology for preaching, it is
noteworthy that at the center of Paul’s preaching is Christ and not the “preacher.” Michael Knowles, using
74
38
Michael Gorman suggests, “It is enough to point out that for Paul the cruel death and
unexpected resurrection of Jesus provide not only the content of his preaching, nor
merely the means by which preaching is made possible; they determine also the manner
and the method by which he preaches."76 So Paul writes later in the Corinthian
correspondence, “The kingdom of God does not consist in talk but of power” (I Cor.
4:20). So the task of proclamation (kerygma) is a clear responsibility for Paul to the
young churches.77 “How are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And
how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?” (Rom. 10:14).
It is also appears that preaching for Paul was an outworking of his identity as an
“apostle.” Simply, an apostle was one who was a witness to the resurrection of Jesus
(Acts 1:22). Both Paul and Luke recognized “apostleship” as those other than the twelve.
In 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul speaks of the risen Christ as having appeared to the twelve,
then to more than 500, then to James, and then to "all the apostles, and… to me also,”
styling himself as "the least of all the apostles" because he had persecuted the church.
Luke calls Barnabas an apostle (Acts 14:14) and Paul refers to Epaphroditus as an apostle
of the Philippians (Phil. 2:25). Though Paul was clearly not one of the twelve, he
identified himself as an apostle. Ernest Best notes though Paul called himself an “apostle”
2 Corinthians 1-6 as a lens, casts a theological vision for Pauline preaching. Knowles presents nine
principles for current preachers, including a Christ-centered rather than preacher-centered approach.
Michael Knowles, We Preach Not Ourselves: Paul on Proclamation, (Grand Rapids, Brazos Press: 2008).
See also Charles L. Campbell, Preaching Jesus: The New Directions for Homiletics in Hans Frei’s
Postliberal Theology, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997): 190, who reminds contemporary preachers that
“Biblical” preaching is not found in method or even its content. Rather, preaching is in the character of
Christ.
76
This is a summary statement of Gorman’s wonderful assessment of Paul’s preaching. Though Gorman’s
aim is not to address “preaching” specifically, he highlights the importance of this task for Paul. Michael
Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 16-17.
77
It is not pertinent to this research to unpack the depth of the claim in I Corinthians. David Garland writes,
“Preaching Christ crucified was not some recent development… this was Paul’s standard procedure
everywhere he went.” David E. Garland, I Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 84.
39
it was not a title or position of influence he sought from the outset.78 It is not until the
Galatian and Corinthian letters that one finds Paul’s identification as an ‘apostle” as
carrying special weight. But did Paul use apostolic “authority” as a preacher in the
churches he established? Interestingly Paul does not limit the work of an apostle to
himself. The “rights” of an apostle can be “passed” on and “apostleship” carries special
responsibility. Crisp writes:
Though the apostles die out, “apostolicity” can be passed on. Apostolicity is
independent of whether a minister is itinerant or settled. It is the authentic witness
to the story of Jesus Christ; it is the living relationship of one who knows the
Lord. It is an unreserved commitment to hard work and service. It is the genuine
expression of the life of Jesus in the church. Apostolicity belongs to the whole
church; but the church’s ministers have a special responsibility to maintain its
authenticity.79
Thus, if Paul identifies himself (and others) as apostles and urges them to “proclaim the
message” (I Tim. 2:2), this characterizes Paul’s role of preacher as being and doing for
the local church. As Best writes, “It looks then as if the images which Paul acknowledges
as motivating him when he comes to advise, instruct and discipline his churches are those
that derive from his relation to them as the one through whom God brought them into
being.”80 Thus, for Paul preaching as an apostle was not from a domineering position of
authority. Rather, an apostle was one who cared for the local body as a parent or
“founding father”; any “rights” as an apostle were grounded in relationship with and for
Best writes, “It is sufficient that he (Paul) holds a position of leadership. It is however perfectly correct
that we should trace back both Paul's belief that he acts undo: God's grace and his claim to be an apostle to
his experience on the Damascus road. But as we have seen there is no reason to think he left Damascus
with the title apostle' ringing in his ears...” Ernest Best, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority?” Journal for the Study
of the New Testament 27 (1986): 10-11.
79
Joe Crisp, “Toward a Theology of Ministry for Churches of Christ,” Restoration Quarterly 35 (1993): 1516.
80
Best, Toward a Theology, 16-17. Best continues to argue against Paul’s identity as an apostle as a person
of authority. Specifically he notes the significance of Paul refusing financial aid in the second Corinthian
letter. Thus, “forced for the second time to defend his rejection (as an apostle) he answered that it was not
the duty of children to lay up money for their parents but of parents for their children (2 Cor. 12.14). In
other words even to defend his apostolic position he goes to the parent image.”
78
40
the church. Inasmuch authority exists in a loving and respectful parent/child relationship,
so Paul the “apostle” viewed his preaching as an “apostolic” ministry.
In sum, I am suggesting that for Paul, the role of “preacher” was integral to Paul’s
care and concern for churches. Though many terms are used interchangeably that would
encompass “preaching,” the task invites deep relational responsibility to the churches he
founded. Thus, “the framework of the apostolic ministry of the word gives unity and
integrity to the multiple tasks of ministers. When the apostolic framework disintegrates,
then ministry becomes just another helping profession. Lacking a defining center, it is
likely to be frustrating and ineffective.” 81 For the purpose of this paper, I am grounding
the role of “preacher” in Paul’s identity as an apostle who preaches. And in preaching,
Paul is in pastoral relationship with and for the church. Paul’s identity as a relational
“preacher” is perhaps best captured when he writes to the Thessalonians:
As you know and as God is our witness, we never came with words of flattery or
with a pretext for greed; nor did we seek praise from mortals, whether from you
or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But
we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children. So
deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the
gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us.
(I Thess. 2:5-8)
Ministry in Paul’s Churches
Though the specific roles of elder and preacher are clear, it is equally clear the
New Testament is very diverse, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify an
organizational structure for ministry. Derek Tidball has examined the entire scope of the
New Testament evaluating the different “models” for ministry. Tidball’s invitation is to
see models of ministry throughout the New Testament as “multi-colored and not mono81
Crisp, Toward a Theology, 19. Emphasis mine.
41
chrome.”82 At Thessalonica the congregation is instructed, “Respect those who work hard
(tous kopiontas) among you, who are over you (proistamenous) in the Lord and who
admonish (nouthetountas) you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their
work" (1 Thess. 5:12). Could this not indicate that the leaders in the church were
distinguished by their activity and not their titles? Further, at Corinth ministry is a gift of
the Spirit that is "given for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7). Even more, Paul commends
the household of Stephanas because "they have devoted themselves to the service of the
saints” and they are commended for the way they "submit to such as these and to
everyone who joins in the work" (1 Cor. 16:15). Though there are leaders of the churches
it seems that Paul characterizes ministry in terms of the whole rather than as individuals.
This is further illustrated by Paul’s uses the metaphor of a “body” to describe
shared ministry in the local church. In writing to Rome, Paul notes that God has
distributed various gifts throughout that body for the sake of building up the church.83 In
Romans 12:4-5, Paul states, “Just as each of us has one body with many members, and
these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one
body, and each member belongs to all the others.” Paul continues in verses 6-8 and offers
a list of gifts for the body:
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is
prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then
serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give
82
Tidball gives a summative treatment of New Testament models of ministry. His point is not simply to
highlight multiple models but to characterize the models of ministry for their particular communities. Thus,
a Markan model of ministry would differ from a Pauline or Petrine model. In all, the invitation is for
current pastors to root their ministry models, whatever they may be, “in Christ and not in culture.” Derek
Tidball, Ministry by the Book: New Testament Patterns for Pastoral Leadership (Downers Grove: IVP,
2008), 14.
83
Interestingly, Ferguson suggests these “gifts” are out workings of “supernatural gifts of the Spirit.” In
other words, God does not give every gift to “anyone” but rather certain members of the body have been
given special “gifts” that allow for a particular function within the body. Everett Ferguson, “Authority and
Tenure of Elders,” Restoration Quarterly 18 (1975): 142.
42
encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently;
if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.
I do not believe Paul is presenting an exhaustive list but rather illustrating the diversity of
gifts for the local church. And there is no intention for Paul to "rank" these gifts in order
or importance. Rather, it is a listing of various functions within the body for the sake of
the body. Perhaps a more complicated view of “body” is Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians
12. Though similar to Romans, the Corinthian plea could indicate an order of importance
as it relates to the “gifts of the body”:
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has
appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds
of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various
kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work
miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all
interpret? But strive for the greater gifts. (I Cor. 12:27-31)
Though Paul appears to “rank” the gifts as “first-second-third,” etc., I do not believe Paul
(again) is ranking these gifts for the body in terms of order of importance. Rather, Paul is
making an appeal for the Corinthians to consider all gifts in light of the whole. Thus, for
the Corinthians, a Spiritual body is only as strong as all its parts strive together in love for
the sake of the whole. Thus, the “greater gifts” are only those that seek the good of the
entire body.
Conclusions
This section began by illuminating the current crisis of leadership and identity in
the Churches of Christ. By giving a brief overview of the New Testament’s designation
and description of elders, I suggested that elders were primarily wise spiritual guides who
looked out for the spiritual care of their community. I also explored briefly Paul’s
43
delineation of “preaching” as an outworking of Paul’s identity as an apostle. Though
preaching was the principal task of apostolicity, preachers were relationally bound to
their community, not as a “professional” but as a caring pastor. Last, I argued that Paul is
making a case for God’s intention to distribute the functions of ministry throughout the
body so the whole body’s giftedness is involved. As Thompson suggests, the New
Testament documents scarcely have a concept of "the ministry" as a category of its own,
for there are a "variety of ministries" in the early church body.84
Based upon these conclusions, how does this aid in the exploration of the
relational tension between elders and preachers in the Churches of Christ? On the one
hand, it is helpful to recognize how the New Testament describes specific roles for
ministry. It is clear that elders and preachers had specific leadership roles within the
churches Paul established. Even more, the description of these roles invites contemporary
elders and preachers to see themselves primarily as leaders who ought to serve their local
congregation through care, nurture, and relationship. And because the emphasis of
ministry roles is upon the “whole” rather than the individual, elders and preachers ought
to incorporate the benefits of the various Spiritual gifts of the “body.”
On the other hand, there is no clear instruction for how elders and preachers of a
church are to work together. I believe there is an assumption that elders and “ministers”
ought to function together but there is scarce evidence of prescribed authority for either
position.85 Though it is evident that Paul believes elders are to be appointed in local
James W. Thompson, “Ministry in the New Testament,” Restoration Quarterly 27 (1984): 144.
This observation is in obvious contrast to Ferguson’s argument for elder “authority.” See Everett
Ferguson, “Authority and Tenure of Elders,” Restoration Quarterly 18 (1975): 142-144. Ferguson,
highlighting particular passages such as I Thess. 5:12 and I Tim 5:17 concludes, “referring to those who are
"out in front" in their care for the spiritual needs of the church.. leadership and service are intertwined, and
the leadership is that of service.” Ferguson, though acknowledging there is no clear rule for authority, leans
into the “principles” evident in the Pauline witness. Thus, “Christians voluntarily subject themselves to
84
85
44
churches there is little clarity as to how they ought to function as a group of leaders. This
is further complicated by such passages as: “Let the elders who rule well be considered
worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (I Tim.
5:17). Are the elders the primary teachers? What does “ruling” look like? In all, the
scriptural assumptions of how elders and preachers lead together fail to address practical
(albeit realistic) questions of authority and decision-making in contemporary churches.
In all, I believe the above-mentioned New Testament texts invite elders and
preachers to see themselves as more than hierarchal components of a leadership structure.
Rather, it is possible and right for elders and preachers to see their respective roles as
relational partners for the local body. Though elders and preachers have specific
leadership functions within the body of Christ, the image of a preacher weeping with his
elders on the shores of Ephesus in Acts 20 is picture of relational health worth pursuing. I
want to strongly suggest that something must change if elders and preachers are to exist
together in more helpful than hurtful ways. Thus, I want to propose two theological
frames that I believe invite Churches of Christ to reimagine how elders and preachers can
lead together through mission and for relationship.
Theological Frame 1: A Missional Reading of Scripture
An elder of a Church of Christ recently shared that any leadership problem at his
church could be resolved by answering the following question: “What does the Bible say
mature leaders. They readily follow the example of a concerned eldership which has proved its leadership
by unselfish devotion to the cause of Christ, by sound spiritual insight, and by good judgment. As children
follow a father who cares well for them, so church members follow their shepherds.” I respectfully disagree
with Ferguson because, as the next section of this paper will propose, there are deeper theological realities
that can be ascertained from Paul rather than needing “principles” that give present-day uninformed elders
(or preachers) inappropriate means of authoritarian leadership.
45
about this?” Though an appropriate question, it is clear there are underlying assumptions
that the Bible could always be clear for every matter in all times and places. Even more,
there is an assumption among those in Churches of Christ that a belief in the correct
reading of the Bible can (and should!) provide healthy leadership models. Sadly, elders
and preachers are often divided on the very thing they assumed would unite them! So for
the purpose of this paper, I want to suggest that a missional reading of scripture invites
elders and preachers to view their respective leadership roles as shared participants in the
mission of God.
Before defining missional reading, it is right to acknowledge that a new
“hermeneutic” for elders and preachers in the Churches of Christ is threatening. As noted
in chapter two of this paper, a driving principle of the restoration movement was a
Constitutional reading of scripture. The plea from Campbell was clear: “The New
Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the
New Testament Church.”86 Though this hermeneutic was originally a product of its time
and place, I suggest that current elders and preachers in Churches of Christ continue to
define their roles in terms of “New Testament constitutional law.”87 Thus, it is an
unreasonable expectation for many Churches of Christ to receive a “fresh” hearing with
eager anticipation. Yet, it is my strong conviction that a first step towards a renewed
leadership model is for elders and preachers to acknowledge the importance of how we
read scripture. Simply, elders and preachers in Churches of Christ need a better
hermeneutic if they are to find value in a model of relational leadership.
86
Thomas Campbell, The Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of Washington (PA: Brown
and Sample, 1809) https://archive.org/stream/declarationaddre00campiala#page/6/mode/2up (accessed Dec
15, 2015): 17.
87
I recognize this is a broad characterization. Yet, I plan to prove, through research in this paper, that elders
and preachers in the Church of Christ continue to experience unrest and angst as a group.
46
Author Christian Smith illuminates the importance of reading scripture in a recent
book titled, The Bible Made Impossible. 88 Smith makes a compelling argument for the
toxic affects of “Biblicism” in our churches. “Biblicism” is a common yet unhelpful way
of reading Scripture that defines reading and understanding by adhering to ten faulty
assumptions. The assumptions (worth noting) are: divine writing, total representation,
complete coverage, democratic perspicuity, commonsense hermeneutics, Solo Scriptura,
internal harmony, universal applicability, inductive method, and the handbook model.
Based upon these faulty assumptions, many church members (and leaders) assume they
can read Scripture without bias and unilaterally agree on its meaning. Conversely, Smith
argues that Biblicism has failed in its duty to provide meaningful and thoughtful
engagement with the story of Scripture. Thus, if God gave the Bible to be a consistent
truth for all times and all places, then why would church leaders not be able to agree on
its message and content?
Conversely Smith suggests that Christ is the key for any interpretative work.
When Christians read and interpret Scripture, their efforts ought to be grounded
“Christocentrically, Christologically, and Christotelically.”89 Through a Christ-centered
hermeneutic, the power and richness of scripture comes, not in the words or the reality
that Scripture is inspired by God, but only by its ability to point the reader towards the
centrality of Christ. So, as Christ becomes the center of all Biblical reading and
interpretation he is the lens through which we read and seek understanding.
88
Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of
Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012).
89
Ibid., 98.
47
Even more, Christopher Wright proposes the Bible ought to be read (and
understood) in light of an overarching mission or objective.90 Simply put, the objective is
to understand the parts of the Bible through a lens of mission. In other words, to read the
story of Scripture in small chunks or pieces is to truncate or misunderstand the overall
objective of the story. Additionally, N.T. Wright further suggests that Scripture ought to
be read as an “unfolding drama” or five-act play.91 The entire scope of Scripture is best
understood in light of an overarching story or plot. In reading the Bible this way, God is
the primary storyteller or author of the story and each “part” or “chapter” adds an
additional story line that leads further towards the fulfillment of the mission. Thus, both
N.T. Wright and C.H. Wright advocate a more fruitful way of understanding scripture
begins with the missional character of God and God’s engagement with the world. The
scriptural text is a product of this missional engagement, rather than simply a means to
provide applications for mission. Thus, a missional hermeneutic is to understand that
“mission is what the Bible is all about.”92 Michael Gorman offers the following helpful
definition:
The term (missional hermeneutic) summarizes the conviction that the Scriptures
of both Testaments bear witness to a God who, as creator and redeemer of the
world, is already on a mission. Indeed, God is by nature a missional God, who is
seeking not to just save souls to take to heaven some day, but to restore and save
90
Christopher J.H. Wright has been an enormous voice and influence for me in this conversation. Though
other authors could be considered, Wright was the first I have read that gives a practical rendering of
missional theology particularly as it relates to a missional hermeneutic. See C.J.H. Wright, The Mission of
God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, (Downers Grove: IVP Press, 2006).
91
See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, (London, SPCk Publishing, 1992). Though
many variations have been suggested of the “five act play,” Wright is the original author of understanding
the Bible as an unfolding plot. Wright’s unfolding drama is as follows: Creation, Fall, Israel, Christ, and
New Creation.
92
C.J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative, (Downers Grove: IVP Press,
2006), 29. It is noteworthy that Wright acknowledges the “bias” of claiming the Bible is “all about one
thing.” Yet, as Wright proves over and again throughout his volume, the Bible is to be read and understood
through a lens of mission. He takes his cue from Jesus in Luke 24 when Jesus (on the road to Emmaus)
“opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures.” Thus, C.J.H. Wright argues that Jesus is
inviting the disciples to read both messianically and missionaly in light of his word and work.
48
the created order…This God calls the people in the assembled name of Christ –
who was the incarnation of the divine mission – to participate in the missio Dei,
to discern what God is up to in the world and join in.93
Thus, the missio Dei is the profound acknowledgment that God is at work in the world
and the church is asked to be full participants in that work. I want to suggest that a church
leadership ought to read scripture missionally and in reading be invited into an active role
as partners with God. Simply put, if elders and preachers were to read scripture this way,
they could identify as relational partners who willingly choose to participate in the
unfolding mission of God.
Therefore, instead of elders and preachers exploring scripture in order to discover
church structure and respective leadership roles, what if they chose to begin with a
missional reading framed by the missio Dei told this way:
Our mission as leaders in this church begins with the God of mission. And God’s
mission begins with a loving and caring Creator whose utmost desire was to
be in relationship with creation. Ultimately, the desire was to be in relationship
with a prized possession, male and female, who were fashioned in a God-like
image. However, because of a dreadful choice, mankind willingly chose to forgo
their “imageness” and the relationship between Creator and created was forever
marred and separated. Because of the Creator’s affection and intimate love for
mankind, a path was chosen that ensured a renewed relationship with all of
creation. This renewed pursuit began with the person of Abram and the giving of
a mission for Abram to be the father of a people who would become a great
nation. This nation would embody the Creator’s intent and purpose for the entire
world as originally imagined. Therefore, out of this mission Abram’s descendants,
the nation of Israel, would become God’s light to the world. While living under
the allegiance or kingdom as God’s people, the Creator would restore wholeness
to the brokenness of the relationship. Though Israel agreed to live into this
mission, they continued to flounder and fail. The dream that all of creation would
be restored through Israel could not be realized by their individual efforts or
allegiance. Thus, God, rich in wisdom and desperately in love, chose to send the
Son, Jesus Christ, to make the broken relationship whole and bring fulfillment to
the story that began with Israel. Through the finding, saving, and giving of new
life through Jesus Christ, the world and all of creation is now a space where
God’s mission and purpose is realized. Through this new Jesus story, a new
93
Michael Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers, rev. and exp.
ed., (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2009), 155.
49
kingdom has arrived and all are given opportunity to live into this reality by
accepting his Lordship. Ultimately, the missio Dei will not be ultimately realized
until the King comes finally and triumphantly. So as God’s kingdom leaders we
eagerly await the final fulfillment of the story while realizing that until that time
arrives, we participate now in Christ’s rule and Lordship by willingly choosing a
new identity as leaders who follow Christ while being empowered by the Spirit.
Based upon the agenda of this hearing, leaders choose to see themselves as relational
partners with God and each other. There is a deliberate choice to embrace the reality that
God is now King (“no king but God”) and the invitation is to submit to the rule and reign
of Jesus Christ.94 Therefore, missional elders and preachers are those who choose to live
into the mission of God while sincerely and faithfully pursuing their identity as God’s
people for the world and time. And the missio Dei invites leaders to see themselves as
participants of a much larger story and hear scripture in a relational way.
In reading scripture this way, questions about church leadership shift. For
example, if a leadership were to assemble and address the process for selecting elders, a
constitutional reading would ask, “What is Paul saying about the role of elders in the
local church when instructing Timothy and Titus to select elders with specific
qualifications?” Conversely, a missional reading would ask, “How is Paul inviting
Timothy and Titus to call forth elders who participate in the mission of God by their
Christ-like character?”
Finally, Steve Cloer suggests that once a Church of Christ embraces a missional
reading of scripture there is opportunity to re-imagine the word restoration. If the Church
of Christ is grounded in the belief that restoration means “going to the Bible to discover
regulative principles for church life,” then a missional reading is not even possible. Cloer
suggests:
I took the phrase “no king but God” from N.T. Wright’s, Simply Christian, (New York: Harper Collins,
2006), 58.
94
50
A (constitutional) perspective leads to a desire to be right; the second
perspective (missional) leads to a desire to participate in God’s mission in the
world. I would assert to be a restorationist means more than offering a plea for
unity based on the Scriptures, but it also includes an encompassing plea to join in
God’s work of restoring the world. Therefore, the structures of early church polity
do inform contemporary leadership structures, but the guiding principle becomes
the missional and restorative vision of the early church…95
Thus there is opportunity to reimagine ourselves as Church of Christ restorationists who
seek to capture the original plea of New Testament writers and Paul; not as a team of
constitutional writers who penned Biblical law for all times and places, but as relational
partners who invited the church to share in the missio Dei. Church of Christ elders and
preachers must seek to be restoration leaders who willingly embrace the God of mission
and read scripture through a faithful missional lens. And, as Michael Gorman suggests,
“Once the church starts to read Paul that way more deliberately and more consistently, it
will be thrilling, I believe, to see what transpires.”96
Theological Frame 2: Ministry as Relational Partners in the Triune God
Stephen Seamands notes how the sixth century Christian philosopher Boethtius
defined a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” And this definition, as
Seamands suggests, has profoundly shaped a Western understanding whereas persons are
viewed as individuals who exists apart from the whole.97 In other words, though
relationships could be necessary for growth and maturity for many they are not an
essential component of being human. And I suggest the notions of individualism and self-
95
Words in italics, mine. Steve Cloer,“Missional Polity: The Minister-Elder Relationship in Churches of
Christ, Experiencing Missional Transformation,” (DMin Thesis, Luther Seminary: 2015): 96.
96
Michael Gorman, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans:
2015), 61.
97
Stephen Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service, (Downers
Grove, IVP: 2005), 33. I will use Seamands informative chapter “Relational Personhood” to frame my
argument for relational leadership as it relates to trinity.
51
preservation are at the heart of elder-preacher “relationships” in churches: there is a
relationship but the relationship exists for the sake of the individual.
When reading the story of scripture one gets a different view. God is portrayed as
a relational God who not only exists for relationship but in relationship. As Genesis so
aptly claims, “Let us make mankind in our own image.” But how can a relational God
inform how we ought to relate to one another? Even more, is there something in the
nature of God that invites us to participate in deeper ways with one another? I want to
suggest that embracing God as trinity can facilitate the need for relational partnerships.
Though a discussion of Trinitarianism is not a likely conversation piece for elders and
preachers, I propose that if elders and preachers understood God in this way, there is an
invitation to exist together in relational, God-like ways.98
A conception of the Trinity in the West has often followed the leadership of
Augustine. This Western focus is upon the oneness of God and answering the question of
how one God can simultaneously be three. But the focus in the East, starting with John of
Damascus, answered the question of how the three persons of God could be one. The
result was a new invitation for the West to understand God as fundamentally relational
and one who embodies communion.99 Moltmann draws upon John of Damascus’s term
“perichoresis” as a way to describe this Trinitarian relationship. Moltmann suggests that
this word captures the theological concept of the Godhead mutually indwelling one
John Mark Hicks notes, “Trinitarianism has a checkered history at the practical level. In the average
congregation, or ministerial gathering, or seminary classroom, the subject of the Trinity comes as bad news
rather than good. Just when we have struggled to believe in God, Christians also believe that God is, in
some inexplicable way, both one and three. This incomprehensible affirmation seems to have nothing to do
with daily life.” John Mark Hicks, “Our Triune God: The Wonder of the Story,” John Mark Hicks
Ministries (blog), May 18, 2009, http://johnmarkhicks.com/2009/05/18/our-triune-god-the-wonder-of-thestory-sbd-8/ (accessed Jan. 21, 2016).
99
Simpson, “A Reformation Is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Promising Theology for an Emerging Missional
Church,” in The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry, edited
by Craig Van Gelder, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 78-81.
98
52
another. Each member sacrificially loves one another and gives themselves to each other
in selfless love.100
Scripture does not neatly define this divine relationship, but it does give glimpses
into this perichoretic relationship, particularly in John 14-16. For example, Jesus says to
his disciples, “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” (Jn. 14:11).
Jesus later speaks of the Spirit’s involvement within God, “But the Helper, the Holy
Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things …” (Jn.
14:26). The Father, Son, and Spirit, while described distinctly in identity, display a divine
communion and redemptive unity.101 They point away from themselves to bring glory to
each other. The Son points toward the Father (John 12:28), the Spirit points toward the
Son (John 16:14), and the Father gives the Spirit (John 14:26).Thus, self-giving love
binds the Father, Son, and Spirit together while each member of the Trinity pours love
into one another in open communion.102
Seamands, noting Mark Shaw’s work, offers four characteristics of the Trinity
that define this distinct relationship: full equality, glad submission, joyful intimacy, and
mutual deference.103 Specifically, Seamands observes these characteristics in John’s
gospel. For example, in John 5 the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because “the Jews were
seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was
100
Though an in-depth analysis of Trinitarian theology goes beyond the scope of this paper, Moltmann
gives a detailed account of this history and subsequent implications of Perichoresis. Jurgen Moltmann,
“Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word for a New Trinitarian Theology,” in Trinity, Community, and Power,
edited by M. D. Meeks, (Nashville, TN, Kingswood: 2000): 111-115.
101
John Mark Hicks, “Our Triune God: The Wonder of the Story,” John Mark Hicks Ministries (blog), May
18, 2009, http://johnmarkhicks.com/2009/05/18/our-triune-god-the-wonder-of-the-story-sbd-8/ (accessed
Jan. 21, 2016),.
102
I like Motlmann’s specific identification of Trinity as an “open community.” When open, the Trinity
functions as a “broad rooom” when divine love gives “free space for all its creatures… this is what is meant
by the inclusive Tirnity of God.” See Moltmann, Perichoresis, 118.
103
Seamands, Ministry, 36.
53
also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (Jn. 5:18). Jesus
is assuming relational equality with God. In verses 22-23 of the same chapter John
continues, “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all
may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son
does not honor the Father who sent him.” Is this not an example of the Father deferring
to the Son? Moreover, glad submission is evidenced in John 5:19, “Very truly, I tell you,
the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever
the Father does, the Son does likewise.” And finally in 5:20 Jesus invites a picture of
joyful intimacy by declaring, “The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he
himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be
astonished.”104 Thus, these four characteristics are ways of defining the relationship
between God as son, spirit, and father.
But the Trinity also invites us to live relationally with one another as we live with
God. Every human being is invited to join in the divine perichoresis and to share in the
self-giving love of God. Jesus says, “Abide in Me, and I in you … abide in My love. If
you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love” (Jn. 15:4, 9-10; cf. 1 Jn. 3:24).
Thus, the being of a person is not as an individual who exists for himself (or herself),
rather we exist as “two-dimensional” beings: vertical (relationship to God) and horizontal
(relationship to the other).105 So if God invites us into this two-dimensional relationship,
should this not characterize how we relate to other persons? Even more, does the Trinity
not connect us relationally to one another in a specific way? Thus, I want to suggest that
life with the Triune God can be instructive for elders and preachers as they lead together.
104
These four characteristics are not limited to John 5. Other passages in John could (and should) be
considered as further attention is given to how the Trinity exists together.
105
Seamands, Ministry, 35.
54
In conclusion, I would like to suggest four ways elders and preachers could lead
together relationally by embodying particular perichoretic characteristics. Dwight
Zschiele offers four ways leaders can embody the Trinity in their relationships with one
another.106 First, perichoresis calls forth “diversity-in-unity.” Consider the following:
The life of genuine mutuality of the three persons of the Trinity invites us to
affirm the full humanity and giftedness of others around us as God given and vital
not only for the world's well being and growth, but for ours too. In a Trinitarian
perspective, otherness is not to be erased, diminished or overwhelmed, but rather
treasured and enhanced within the pattern of a larger unity and purpose. Thus
reconciled diversity, not uniformity or division, becomes normative for a
Trinitarian understanding of human community.107
Accordingly, elders and preachers embrace one another’s theological, ethnic, and familial
diversity as a gift to the leadership team. This is especially normative as the group makes
decisions. In the midst of multiple perspectives and theological opinions, the “unity-indiversity” invites elders and preachers to value the “other” while maintaining individual
viewpoints. Thus, leaders do not just seek to understand another’s view but value that
view as a part being in relationship.
Second, Trinity invites “cruciformity.” At the heart of the triune God is
Incarnation and the cross. God’s willingness to identify with humanity by becoming
human is in essence an act of “self-emptying.” And the cross was the ultimate act of
sacrifice of self for the sake of the other. Therefore, cruciform leadership is the invitation
for us to emulate identification with the other for the sake of the other- even to the point
of “dying to self.” This is boldly demonstrated in Philippians when Paul invites the
Zschiele’s article is a concise defense for Trinitarian leadership. He not only traces the history of its
theology but offers practical applications of a doctrine that, “nearly ceased to function in the life of the
western church for several centuries in the modern period… retrieving it holds rich promise for
theologically re-conceptualizing religious leadership in the twenty-first century.” Dwight Zschiele, “The
Trinity, Leadership, and Power,” Journal of Religious Leadership, 6 no.2 (fall 2007): 43-63.
107
Ibid., 53.
106
55
Philippian church to consider Christ’s sacrifice as a model for relational wholeness. Thus
Paul writes:
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the
form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but
emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And
being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point
of death— even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-7)
Third, Trinity creates a burden for “cultivating a community.” For Zschiele
community has the “most pregnant implications for a Trinitarian re-imagining of
Christian leadership.”108 If leadership groups function as a community then no one leads
in isolation. And knowing you are “not alone” can be a tremendous comfort and strength
times of difficulty and distress. In addition, operating as a community allows the group to
lean into one another’s giftedness. As with any group, there will be some elders who
excel at pastoral care and others who are gifted administratively. A Trinitarian view
allows for the community’s gifts to complement one another and even potentially relieve
the burden of “doing everything.” Thus, Trinitarian communities “embrace a level of
mutuality, reciprocal acknowledgement of each other's gifts, vulnerability to one another,
and genuine shared life that transcends simply getting the job done.” 109
Finally, Trinity reimagines “visioning.” The Trinity not only shapes a community
but invites the community to vision together how God might be at work. Consider the
following from Zscheile:
Our emphasis on individualism, self-reliance, autonomy, and heroic ideas of
leadership in modern American culture have tended to foster a solitary conception
of visioning, in which the leader huddles with God privately and then returns to
dictate the vision to the people. A collaborative, Trinitarian approach calls instead
108
109
Ibid., 55.
Ibid., 57.
56
for the leader to listen attentively in community for God's movement in its midst
and in the world.110
And through the Trinitarian community, the Spirit must not be discounted as a mysterious
stepchild. Throughout the witness of the earliest church in Acts, it is clear the Spirit plays
an active role in its life and process. Consider how the Spirit is mentioned four times in
Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (2:17, 18, 33, and 38) and the “gift of the Holy Spirit” was
given upon baptism. And in Acts 4:31 while the church was gathered together, “the place
in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the
Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.” Even more, in Acts 15:28 the
“apostles and elders” decided to compose a letter to the churches concerning the
inclusion of the Gentiles. The letter began “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and
to us.” Though the Spirit is at work in the life of the early church it remains mysterious as
to how the Spirit works. And yet, it is clear that the Spirit fueled the imagination of the
early church and a Trinitarian view creates appropriate space for mysterious imagination.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this chapter seeks to ground the research and methodology in
particular scriptural and theological foundations. Overall, this chapter argues for a
particular way of reading scripture while adhering to the rich texture of the New
Testament ‘s claims for relational leadership. Though this was not an exhaustive
treatment of one particular area, this chapter seeks to demonstrate theological grist as it
pertains to the shared leadership of elders and preachers in the Churches of Christ. The
110
Ibid., 60. Emphasis mine.
57
project now turns to an in-depth explanation of my context while offering background for
my methodology.
58
CHAPTER 4: CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY
The Highland Oaks Church of Christ
The context of this project is the Highland Oaks Church of Christ in Dallas, TX.
The Highland Oaks Church of Christ (HOCC) was established in 1855 and is considered
one of the oldest Churches of Christ in Dallas, TX.111 The last 40 years the HOCC was
known for its large facility, burgeoning singles program in the 1980’s and contemporary
worship and multi-site expansion. Noteworthy for this project, HOCC has enjoyed the
tenure of only three preachers in the last 39 years.112 The longest tenured preacher began
in 1977 and retired in 2002. Since 2002, there was only one other preacher before my
tenure began in 2009. Highland Oaks has also had several elders throughout its history.
Since 1977, HOCC has had fifty men serve in this leadership capacity. Though some
elders retired, moved away, or shifted to other local churches, the eldership largely
maintained a “traditional” leadership model that invited the preacher to lead within the
confines of appropriate elder authority. Even so, the “traditional” leadership model
experienced unrest and unforeseen transition when the preacher of twenty-five years
retired and the new, much younger and bolder, preacher was hired in 2002.
In the first few years of his tenure, the freshly hired preacher launched a bold
initiative that included hiring specialized ministry staff (worship minister, executive
minister, etc.), remodeling the antiquated worship center, establishing a second campus
111
Self-published historian, Sheryl Curlee, made a recent compilation of the history of the HOCC available.
Interestingly, the sub-title of the book is “History of the First Church Erected in Dallas, TX.” Though I
have little doubt there were other “churches” in Dallas, TX in 1855, this was clearly one of the earliest, if
not the first, Church of Christ. Curlee, S.T. (2015), Building a Church, Building a City, Publisher: Sheryl
Taylor Curlee.
112
I say “only” because of the presumably high rate of turnover of preachers in the Churches of Christ.
59
north of Dallas, and creating a debt load of almost seven million dollars. In sum, by 2007
the elders of the Highland Oaks Church of Christ grew anxious of the current direction
and financial woes and the preacher grew frustrated by a perceived lack of support.
Unfortunately, both the elders and preacher failed to work through the difficult season
and the preacher departed in 2007 amidst division and controversy. To add insult to
injury, a few elders resigned, the congregation grew distrustful and anxious, and the
ministry staff floundered without a clear direction forward. As a result, by the fall of
2007 the HOCC was steeped in massive debt, the ministry staff was flustered, the elders
felt like failures, and the congregation was emotionally drained and anxious for a new
start. And there was a vacancy in the pulpit of the HOCC for almost two years.
One way forward was the desire for a clear shift in how the elder group and
preacher worked together. Thus, the HOCC elders searched for a new way to govern that
would strive towards a relational partnership rather than managerial hierarchy. The
result was the exploration of an elder oversight “model” called Policy Governance®. This
particular elder governance model could serve as a launching point for changing the
trajectory of the elder/preacher relationship while leading the church deeper into the
mission of God. After careful consideration, the elders officially adopted this new model
while beginning a search for a new preaching minister.
Since my arrival in 2009, as preacher of the HOCC, I have had the opportunity to
explore this model and its opportunity for creating a new relationship between the elder
group and preacher. Throughout the interview process of my hire, the vision for this
relationship was discussed at length. In particular, there was a desire to examine such
questions as:
60

How could we work towards relational trust in light of past relationships between
the elder group and preacher at the HOCC?

Are there specific practices we could adopt that foster a relationship that honors
Christ-like conduct?

Can the current governance structure of the HOCC sustain a relational partnership
between the elders and preacher?

What theological principles ought to serve as guideposts for a gospel-centered
relationship between elders and preacher?
The burden of this project (and my participation in the Doctoral Program of the Hazelip
School of Theology) is to explore these questions while examining how I, as the
preacher, could function more fully in relational partnership alongside the elders in the
existing governance model. Moreover, the task of this project was to determine if a “rule
of conduct” could be constructed that would acknowledge specific theological
convictions while establishing behavioral commitments to one another. The intended
outcome would be a sustainable way for the elders and me, as preacher and Lead Minister
at the HOCC, to lead together in shared “gospel” relationship.
Therefore, the aim of this chapter is three fold. First, I will articulate the context
of the elder-preacher relationship at the HOCC. Specifically, I will provide explanation of
the current Policy Governance® model. Second, I will briefly explain the two specific
research methods used for constructing a “new chapter” in the HOCC leadership story.
Finally, I will explain the six-month process that includes the intentional collaborative
space for the elders and me to “dwell” in a specific passage of scripture which led to the
production of a “rule of conduct.”
61
Policy Governance® at the HOCC
As stated in Chapter 2 of this project, there are few tools available to aid the
elder-preacher relationship in the Church of Christ. It is my conviction that many Church
of Christ members have the mistaken assumption that all elder groups function alike.
While Churches of Christ have historically placed a high value on “doing Bible things in
Bible ways,” there is little information in the Bible that actually describes how elders
function together. Though the New Testament gives indication of the qualities for
spiritual leaders and the specific functions they are to perform, there is no clear teaching
that expressly describes how a group of elders are to function. In particular, there are no
clear directives for how an elder and preacher ought to relate to one another. Recently, an
elder in the Church of Christ reflected:
“Our experience has led us to believe that most Elders groups operate on the basis
of uninformed tradition and habit. Somewhere in the past, the typical church
selected a group of Elders and the people who served as Elders somehow
developed what they felt were workable ‘elder activities.’ Over time these
activities and practices became traditions and habits. And whenever new Elders
are chosen, they come on board and observe the culture of the current Elder group
and the role it plays. They become acculturated, function the same way, and the
situation perpetuates itself, usually without challenge.”113
Beginning in 2006, the elder group at the HOCC willingly decided to make a shift on
how they would operate as an elder group. They sought to proactively address what they
understood as the two primary functions of elders from Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over
yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.
Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Based upon
this passage, the HOCC elders assumed two clear scriptural roles: shepherding and
overseeing. Though much could be said about the shepherding function, the desire was to
113
Taken from a presentation made by Barry Packer at the Dallas 2015 Elderlink conference. Packer,
Barry. “Re: Elderlink Paper.” Message to the author. 13 Oct. 2015. email.
62
explore a governance model that specifically addressed the appropriate responsibility of
oversight.
The HOCC elders decided to pursue a governance model, adapted from the nonprofit world, known as the Policy Governance® model based on the writings of John
Carver. Before offering an overview of this model, it is noteworthy that the elders of the
HOCC recognize this specific model is not a Biblical model. In other words, there is
recognition that church governance was not conceived in the earliest church. However,
the belief was the proposed governance model increased the likelihood of “order and
decency,” which are Biblical principles.114 Further the HOCC elders chose this particular
model because it had an effective balance of delegation to the ministry staff while
maintaining appropriate “oversight” accountability for the elder group.
The Policy Governance® model is not designed to dictate a specific structure.
Rather, it is based upon several universal principles that can be appropriately applied to
any given organization or church. These principles, when consistently applied, allow an
elder group to provide effective oversight for their church while freeing the elder group to
spend the majority of its time on shepherding the church family. So, what does the
governance structure at the HOCC look like? Rather than provide an exhaustive
explanation of our policy, it is prudent to note the ten principles of the Policy
Governance® model.115 The principles, with appropriate HOCC explanation, are:
114
Much of what follows is taken from the wise summation of Ted Hull. Because John Carver conceived
Policy Governance® for non-profit businesses (as opposed to churches), there has not been literature for
churches to use for explanation of the “Carver” model. Hull wisely constructed a short book that gives a
basic yet thorough overview of Policy Governance® for churches. Hull, Ted. Focusing Your Church
Board: Using the Carver Policy Governance Model (Winnipeg: Word Alive Press, 2015).
115
Ibid., 110-112. The specific principles are from Hull and the explanations are mine. I am indebted to
Barry Packer, who has been trained by John and Miriam Carver, for assisting me in simplifying these
principles for the purposes of this project.
63
Principle #1 – Ownership
The elders, as a group, are accountable to the members of the HOCC. Yet elders
acknowledge a greater accountability to the chief shepherd Jesus Christ – the true Head
of the church. It is from Jesus that the elders derive their authority and it is to Jesus they
are accountable. Thus, as we (the elders) represent the collective members of the HOCC,
it is vitally important the group of elders is intimately “owned” by the true head, Jesus
Christ. For the HOCC elders, this is a primary theological conviction.
Principle #2 – Oversight Position
A role of the HOCC elder group is that of overseer. The elders have a
responsibility, under the Headship of Jesus Christ, to provide leadership for the entire
church. Thus, the elders have the responsibility to oversee, or govern, everything that
takes place at Highland Oaks. It is important to note that the elder groups—not the
ministers— bear full and direct responsibility for everything that takes place within the
HOCC. Thus, the policy is meant to create positional awareness for the elder group as it
relates to the preacher and ministry staff.
Principle #3 – Elder Holism
If the elders are to lead, then they must strive to speak with one voice. The
strength of a single yet unified voice arises from the diversity of viewpoints all the elders
bring to the group. Thus, the authority of the elders is not as individuals but as a
corporate group entrusted to oversee the operations of the church. This one-voice
principle does not imply there should be unanimity or lack of diversity among the elders.
On the contrary, differences among individual elders are not only to be respected but also
encouraged. For example, a decision will rarely be a unanimous vote and those elders,
64
who are in the minority, must accept that the elder group has spoken and the decision(s)
must be implemented as decided.
Principle #4 – Oversight by Policy
The word “policy” is often used in various types of organizations, particularly
among those who are leaders. Yet, the term is rarely defined with any clarity. So, the
Policy Governance® model defines policy as the value or perspective that underlies
action. It goes on to delineate strict rules as to the form of the policy. Policies established
in churches should be the heartfelt expressions and convictions of the elders as a group.
Policies created under this model should embody the elders’ beliefs, commitments,
values, and vision while falling under the umbrella of the Headship of Jesus Christ.
Thus, the elder’s collective philosophy, reflecting the heart of Jesus, should be central to
elder policy. There are four categories of elder policy for the HOCC: Ends, Staff
Limitations, Elder-Staff Delegation, and Elder Process. (Principles #6 – #9 below will
provide explanation of these particular policies.)
Principle #5 – Policy “Sizes”
The elder group at Highland Oaks has formulated policy by determining the
broadest values before progressing to more narrow ones. Policies may be about very
important, large issues, or they may be about less important, smaller issues. They can be
stated broadly, or more narrowly. The advantage of stating broad values is that such a
statement can be inclusive of all smaller statements. The disadvantage, of course, is the
broader the statement the greater the range of interpretation. Thus, all “large” policy
decisions will contain smaller, related policies. For example, think of policy sizes as a
series of nesting bowls whereas each bowl is contained within a larger bowl. The largest
65
bowl symbolizes the broadest policy while enveloping every “smaller” policy within it.
Thus, each of the four sections of the HOCC policies begin with a very broad statement
that can be referred to as a “global” policy (the large nesting bowl) and within this policy
all others are contained.
Principle #6 – Ends Policies
Ends policies are at the very heart of how the HOCC identifies itself. The ends
policies focus on why the Highland Oaks church exists and address such questions as:
“What is our purpose?” and “What difference are we going to make in the world?” Ends
is a peculiar word invented to denote a peculiar concept. No other word in our language
(goal, result, outcome, product) says quite enough to cover the full meaning of Ends.
However, “ends” policies provide answers to three specific questions: (1) What results
are to be achieved? (2) For which people? (3) At what cost? It is noteworthy that ends
policies are not specifically designed to address what a church does (the activities we
engage in); rather, they are about the impact or result they intend to have. 116
Principle #7 – Staff Limitations Policies
This category of policy addresses all of the operational means that take place
within the HOCC. Operational means encompass all of the ministries and activities that
are put in place to see that the Ends policies are accomplished. The elders are not only
responsible for seeing that the Ends are achieved; they are also accountable for the way
the church conducts itself. So, the church’s conduct, activities, methods, and practices
are its “means” rather than its ends. Thus, budgets, ministries, personnel policies,
building & grounds, equipment, etc., are within this policy. The elders delegate such
activities to the staff but remain ultimately responsible for them. Interestingly, how do the
116
See Appendix A, Section 1 for an example of the HOCC ends policy.
66
elders address such operational matters without becoming mired in the details and
distracted from the primary function of shepherding? Foremost, the elders have chosen to
resist the temptation to prescribe staff means. The staff limitation policy does not allow
the HOCC elders to tell the preacher or any staff member how to do their job. Rather, the
elders inform the Lead Minister, in writing, which staff means would be unacceptable or
off limits. The elders explicitly state what kind of means they will not accept by
establishing boundaries or “riverbanks” within which to operate. These boundaries or
“limitations” are constructed with negative language. Though this might sound odd, the
intent of the negative language is meant to be a “positive” because it allows freedom for
the ministers to make their own choices within the particular boundary or limitation. This
action by the elders is like providing an enclosure within which freedom, creativity, and
ultimately action are allowed and encouraged.117
Principle #8 – Elder Process Policies
The HOCC elder group states what it expects of itself in the elder process policy.
These policies describe how the elder group will conduct itself and perform its own job.
In particular, this policy addresses such things as: oversight style, elder group job
description, role of the chairman, elders’ responsibilities, elders’ code of conduct, etc.118
Principle #9 – Elder-Staff Delegation Policies
This category of elder policy is intended to describe how the HOCC elder group is
“linked” with the staff. It does not articulate what is being delegated (that is spelled out
in the Ends and Staff Limitations policies). Instead, Elder-Staff delegation describes how
specific delegation from the elder group to the ministers takes place. Important to this
117
118
See Appendix A, Section 2 for an example of a HOCC Staff-limitations Policy.
See Appendix A, Section 3 for an example of a HOCC Elder Process Policy.
67
project, this policy commits the HOCC elders to “link” or delegate to the staff through
only one individual. The individual or current “link” is the Lead Minister.
It is noteworthy that the “job” of the Lead Minister is simply defined and clearly
evaluated by two expectations: (1) The Lead Minister is responsible to ensure that the
congregation as a whole accomplishes expectations as set out by the elder group in its
Ends policies and (2) The Lead Minister does not engage in the means which the elder
group has prohibited in its Staff Limitations policies.119
Principle #10 – Monitoring
When the elder group clearly communicates how the link or Lead Minister is to
achieve certain ends without violating certain staff limitations, monitoring performance
becomes no less (and no more) than checking actual performance against the above
mentioned two sets of expectations. Good monitoring is necessary if the elders are to
relax about operational matters and seriously attend to the shepherding responsibilities.
In this approach to oversight, monitoring is a key component of Policy Governance®.
Important to note is monitoring must be conducted only against existing elder-stated
criteria in the Ends and Staff Limitations policies. Thus, pre-established criteria are
required for good monitoring. Having set the criteria, the elders require information that
directly addresses these criteria while the information in the “monitoring report” provides
data and evidence that demonstrates compliance with the established policies.120
In sum, Barry Packer, current elder at the HOCC, offers the following benefits for
using the Policy Governance® model to fulfill the oversight responsibilities at the
HOCC:
119
120
See Appendix A, Section 4 for an example of a HOCC Elder-Staff Delegation Policy.
See Appendix A, Section 5 for an example of a HOCC Monitoring Report.
68
1. Elders can focus on the future.
2. Elders can provide meaningful oversight of the congregation without meddling
in staff activities.
3. Ministers are empowered to lead the congregation.
4. Elders are freed to focus their time and energy on shepherding responsibilities.
5. The elders and minister know what is required of them.
The aim of this explanation is to demonstrate how the Policy Governance® model
is not only the prescribed way of leading the HOCC but ensures that the elders and I, as
Lead Minister, can understand one another and our specific governing responsibilities.
Even more, the model allows tremendous freedom and trust between the elder and Lead
Minister.
However, there are noticeable exceptions or drawbacks to this model.121 For the
purpose of this project, there is one drawback or deficiency in particular that I have
experienced while working at the HOCC the last seven years: there is an assumption that
the Elders and preacher will form relationship within the model. This is evidenced by the
few behavioral expectations within the Policy Governance® model. Outside of the
expectation for the Lead Minister to interpret policy and submit monitoring reports on a
regular basis, there are no clear ways that ensure the two groups will behave
appropriately together. Is there not a distinct possibility the preacher and elders will
experience tension and conflict when disagreements arise over theology, interpretation of
certain policies, or unforeseen circumstances not included in written policy? Even more,
I was particularly impressed by Ted Hull’s article on “The Ten Drawbacks to Policy Governance” at
which he self-proposes deficiencies of the ten principles. See Hull, Ted. “The Ten Drawbacks to Policy
Governance,” Ted Hull Consulting, http://www.tedhullconsulting.com/newsfeed/drawbacks.html, accessed
22 February 2016.
121
69
if the elders have already decided the boundaries of the operations of the church, is there
not the potential for a “hands off approach” that could give way to relational disconnect?
In light of the past deficiencies between the elders and previous preacher at the
HOCC, the specific task of this project was to determine if the above-mentioned concerns
within our current governance model could be addressed. Further, if the aim was to create
a new “story” for our leadership team, could specific practices be adopted within the
current model that would foster deeper relationship?
Research Preparation
A difficult task was to determine the best approach for constructing a new story
for the elders and preacher at the HOCC. It was determined that a narrative based model
of research would be used. By listening to the elder group in order to gain an awareness
of the work of God in our particular community, two specific methods were used for the
construction of this new story: Appreciative Inquiry and shared study of scripture.
Through these two approaches, a new story would emerge that would be defined by
theological convictions and behavioral commitments.
Before this project could be implemented, several preliminary details had to be
addressed. First, an explanation of this project was given to the elders of the HOCC in
August of 2015 as a requirement for completing the Doctor of Ministry degree. I asked
their permission to engage a specific methodological process that would take several
months. Next, considering the deadlines for completing the D.Min project, it was
determined the most appropriate timeline for this project was a six month process that
would begin in October of 2015 and conclude in March of 2016. Finally, it was
70
determined that the project would take place in two particular phases. Phase one would
require a one-on-one interview with every elder of the HOCC. The interviews would be
set up by me and would follow the Appreciative Inquiry model. The second phase would
be an invitation to study scripture together over the course of five specific lessons. The
study would follow a unique process called “Dwelling in the Word” and would invite
collaborative listening and engagement with me as a theological guide. Further,
“Dwelling in the Word” would take the place of the “devotional” that precedes our
monthly operational meeting. The elders agreed to participate in both the AI interviews
and shared study. It was agreed upon that the interviews would take place in October
through December and would accompany the five-part study beginning in December and
concluding in March. The intended outcome or goal of the AI interviews and study would
be the construction of a “rule of conduct” that would allow the elders and me, as Lead
Minister, to forge a new story of our shared work together at the HOCC.
Research Methodology
The specific method of research chosen was qualitative in nature. As opposed to
quantitative research (raw data collection), the specific goal for this project was to gather
qualitative information from shared stories and experiences so that a “new story” might
emerge. The hope was the new story for the HOCC would “not be crafted from a
normative script that infers a prior plan or framework but attempts to evoke a story that
hears nuances and emergent meanings.”122 The new story for the leadership team of the
HOCC would be accomplished by two methods of research over a six-month period.
This is part of the description of “narrative research” as discussed by Savage and Presnell, Narrative
Research in Ministry: A Postmodern Research Approach for Faith Communities (Louisville: Indian
University Press, 2008), 47.
122
71
First, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) interviews would be conducted with each existing elder
so that the best and most valuable narrative qualities of the elder group could be heard
and a new way forward could be realized. It is noteworthy that a particular strength of AI
is to move an organization (or church) away from a deficit based solution towards images
that are life giving and positive.123 The AI approach was critical considering the previous
hurt and damage of the recent history of the HOCC. Interestingly, three of the existing
nineteen elders were installed in August of 2015 while the other sixteen have been elders
for various lengths of time.124 I chose to limit the AI interviews to the existing nineteen
elders of the HOCC.125 The interview was based upon six carefully worded components.
Each component invited specific responses to questions that created space to listen for
their observations and hopeful desires for the future of the HOCC leadership team.126 The
components and questions were:
1. What do you love most about being a shepherd at Highland Oaks? What do you
consider to be some of the most exciting components of our Shepherding
group?127
The Appreciative Inquiry (AI) process was taken from Branson’s model for AI research. The process
involves five basic steps with four specific phases. The specific phases of AI are: initiate, inquire, imagine,
and innovate. Important for this project is the AI interviews were an outgrowth of my understanding of the
“inquire and imagine” phases of this process. The ultimate conviction is that in using AI, the research
“provides a means for forming congregational conversations which reshape the interpretive work so that
attention is paid to the most generative and hopeful texts, practices, and narratives.” Mark Lau Branson,
Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change (Herndon: Alban
Institute, 2004), 24.
124
It is important to note that only seven of the existing nineteen Elders were Elders under the previous
preaching minister. In other words, their previous experience of being an Elder was either influenced by
their participation as a member of HOCC or as a member of another congregation. Thus, in my opinion the
majority of the current Elder group is not biased by the tumultuous experience of the previous preaching
minister. And yet, the story of the way the “Elders and preachers got along” is largely pejorative.
125
There was consideration given to broadening the AI interviews to include previous Elders of which
many still remain either at HOCC or in the area. However, it was determined that it was best for the
purview of this project to contain this phase of the research to the current Eldership.
126
See Appendix B for a copy of the Appreciative Inquiry Interview.
127
It is noteworthy that I chose to use the designation “Shepherd” and “Elder” in different questions. This
delineation was a purposeful attempt to focus their question towards a pastoral or “shepherding” response
or an oversight or “Elder” response.
123
72
2. As a Shepherd in a church, there are inevitably high points and low points,
successes and frustrations. What stands out for you as a high point when you
were part of a Shepherd group? If this is your first time as a Shepherd, what were
some perceived high points that encouraged you to desire this leadership task?
3. Not including my specific tenure here at Highland Oaks, name some
characteristics of a healthy relationship between an Elder group and
preacher/Lead Minister. How might you imagine the two “parties” experiencing
spiritual growth and maturity?
4. Imagine the Highland Oaks Church of Christ ten years from now. Name some
ways the relationship between the preacher and Elder group has been sustained.
Ten years from now how would you imagine other churches would see our
working relationship?
5. When you think of specific practices for the Shepherd group and preacher to
utilize for their work together, what comes to mind as having the most positive
impact? How might Paul’s invitation from Philippians: “Conduct yourselves in a
manner worthy of the gospel” serve as a framework for our spiritual vitality?
6. What small changes could we make right now that would really encourage our
leadership team to get engaged with improving our working relationship?
Inevitably, one of the drawbacks of this particular method was the potential for
personal bias. Though narrative research ought to consider personal story and
background, there were considerations taken to ensure differentiation for this specific
process.128 First, I wanted to become a “story-broker” for our leadership team. Taking the
time to hear the elders articulate the preferred and emerging stories from the questions
above, a goal was to listen so a new story could be written. The elders provided the words
while I became the “broker” of a new story for the future. Second, I assumed a “kenotic
position” as I received the stories. I wanted to empty myself, as best as possible, of
“preconceptions, paradigms of interpretation, and presumptions about stories that
128
The details of some of my personal story and background were included in the introductory chapter of
this project. The following approach is taken from Savage and Presnell, Narrative Research in Ministry: A
Postmodern Research Approach for Faith Communities (Louisville: Indian University Press, 2008), 75-76.
73
emerge.”129 Last, I wanted to remain non-reactive to the responses. In hearing stories of
current experiences there is always the possibility of either becoming anxious or overly
excited. The goal was to remain differentiated in my attitude and posture for the duration
of the interview.
The second phase of research is based upon the two primary theological frames of
the third chapter in this project. The two frames are: a missional reading of scripture and
a Trinitarian view of relational leadership. Thus, in order to write a new story for the
elders and Lead Minister of the HOCC, the Biblical story must not only be engaged but
an integral component of the process. I chose to use a method known as “dwelling in the
word.” Dwelling in the Word is a practice of listening to scripture, to the Spirit, and to
neighbor while inviting the group to imaginatively attend to the Biblical text.130 The
process is as follows: a particular passage of scripture is chosen and read aloud to the
group. The group is invited to listen to either where their imagination was “caught” or
captured in the text or to consider a particular question the text raises. Then, after a brief
period of silence and mediation, the group is invited to pair up and share what they heard.
Finally, after a period of 10-12 minutes of sharing, the group “reports back” what their
partner said in response to either of the two invitations. The strength of this method of
study is found in its deference to the group as a discerning body. Dwight Zscheile writes,
Inviting people to wonder imaginatively about what they hear resists a kind of
instrumentalization of the text – where there is one “right” theological or moral
answer that people are supposed to find in it. It assumes, most profoundly, that
129
Ibid., 76.
This method of study is taken from Pat Taylor Ellison and Patrick Keifert, Dwelling in the Word (St.
Paul: Church Innovations Institute, 2011). Both Ellison and Keifert both acknowledge the work of
missiologist Alan Roxburgh, Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood (Grand Rapids: Baker Press,
2011).
130
74
God’s Spirit is alive and working in this process, including speaking through a
neighbor.131
Through this method of study, the world of scripture is opened and the collaborative
sharing becomes a way for the group to discern God movement in the text for their
current time and place. The same passage of scripture is used each time the group
assembles. Thus, the aim is for the particular text to speak in new and fresh ways through
the Spirit while maintaining steady repetition and collaborative listening. By hearing
scripture together this way, as relational partners, the elders and I are invited to share in
the missio Dei. The hope is for the elders and me to become restoration leaders who
willingly embrace a Trinitarian God by “dwelling in the word” through a faithful
missional lens.
For this project, I chose Paul’s letter to the Philippians – specifically, Philippians
1:27 – 2:4 – as the text for Dwelling in the Word over the course of five sessions with the
elder group. The aim was to follow a particular process while “Dwelling in the Word”
became the means for collaborative conversation. Ultimately, the goal was to use this text
that allowed us to listen and discern how we might “conduct ourselves in a manner
worthy of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27).132 The process of our study included four main
components. First, I sent out “pre-study” material to the elders via email before each
meeting. The objective was to send a brief overview of the particular study that included
a few ideas or questions to consider before the meeting. The hope was to “wet the
appetite” for the conversation as well as give an awareness of the focus of our
conversation for the evening. Second, we began each session by “Dwelling in the Word.”
Dwight Zschiele, “Dwelling in the Word: Affirming Its Promise,” Word vol. 32 no 4 (Fall 2012): 408410.
132
See Appendix C for a paper titled, “Philippians 1:27 – 2:4 – A Missional Text for Dwelling in the
Word” for an in-depth explanation for why I chose this text.
131
75
As mentioned above, we read aloud Phil. 1:27 – 2:4 each time we assembled and
followed the “Dwelling” process. Third, after hearing the responses of the group, I guided
the elders through a study of particular themes from Philippians. Rather than tackle the
specific passage “verse by verse,” I chose to dig deeper into specific missional themes
inherent through Philippians 1:27 – 2:4. Again, the purpose was to have shared dialogue
about the textual themes while listening for the Spirit to evoke certain themes that might
shape the understanding of how we, as a leadership team, would behave with one
another. Last, we discerned together what the text might be saying for our time and place.
We concluded each session by asking the “so what” question(s) and praying for further
guidance. Again, the aim of each session was not to simply gain more (constitutional)
knowledge about Philippians. Rather, we gathered around the text, listened to one
another, and trusted the Spirit to guide us towards a new story for our time and place as
leaders at the HOCC.133
As noted above each of the five sessions began by “Dwelling” in the text of
Philippians 1:27 – 2:4. And because there is an importance for reading and understanding
scripture through a missional lens, in contrast to a Stone/Campbell constitutional reading,
it was vital to study the text using a missional hermeneutic. The hope was that each
would invite the elders and me to understand together, through the Philippian letter, how
leadership ought to be shared relational partnership in the missio Dei.
Session one explored the occasion and context of Philippians. We explored four
major themes. First, I established that when reading a letter like Philippians, context
matters. The context for Philippians is more than a letter of “joy.” Rather, Paul gave
instructions for a church context deeply embedded in the world of Rome. The kingdom of
133
See Appendix D for the five-part curriculum for our study.
76
Caesar defined the Roman world and all its citizens were expected to give allegiance to
Caesar as lord and king. The invitation for the Philippian Christians was to live as
citizens of a different kingdom where Jesus is the true Lord and King. Second, Paul
appears to be writing to a community in conflict. Based upon several key passages, it is
plausible the Philippian community was struggling to get along. Thus, our framing verse,
“to conduct yourself in a manner worthy of the gospel” was rooted in the apparent
tension and conflict of the Christian community. Third, because the Christian community
was invited to live first as citizens of “heaven” and not as citizens of “Rome,” there was
something publically at stake while their behavior was in disarray. When Paul wrote to
“conduct yourselves,” the root Greek word for conduct was also the word for the Roman
“polis” or “city.” Thus, I suggested that Paul was inviting a particular behavior in light of
an invitation to consider how their conduct as Christians impacted their witness in the
community. Last, we concluded there were definite similarities between the Roman
world and our present conditions. Though we currently live in a free country and enjoy
many religious privileges, there ought to be tension as citizens of our country while
remaining true to our witnesses as citizens of heaven. Thus, when we, as the HOCC,
experience conflict we must keep in mind how our “conduct” bears witness to the world
around us. We concluded with two questions of discernment: “Based upon our shared
study this evening, how might the occasion and context of Philippians be instructive for
us as leaders at the HOCC?” and “If Paul were to write a letter to the leadership of
HOCC, what might he include?”134
Session two explored Paul’s use of the word “gospel.” If we were to discern what
“conduct in a manner worthy of the gospel” looked like, it was vital to explore what Paul
134
See Appendix D, Section 1 for the complete “Pre-study Material and Session 1”.
77
meant when he used the word gospel. First, it was prudent to acknowledge that the way
we understand gospel is influenced by our past and present “church” experiences. So,
though Paul seemed to characterize “gospel” in many ways throughout his letters, it was
significant to note that gospel for Paul was not limited to “a belief statement that saves
you” or a classification for “preaching.” Rather, gospel for Paul was a word pregnant
with meaning. In this, I chose to explore the opening verses of I Corinthians 15 as a way
to understand what Paul meant by “gospel.”135 I Corinthians 15:1-5 reads,
“Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to
you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel
you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you
have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he
was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and
that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”
We noted five key ways of understanding gospel from this specific text:
1. Gospel is at the core of Paul’s relational connection to the church
2. Gospel is something that is rooted in personal experience.
3. Gospel is a story of the main events in the life of Jesus.
4. Gospel is connected to a larger story in scripture.
5. Gospel is the story of salvation.
We concluded session two by asking two questions for discernment: “Of these five points
from I Corinthians 15, which is most challenging for you?” and “Which of these five is
the least understood by this leadership team?”136
135
I chose this text due in part to reading Scot McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News
Revisited (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2011), 47-56. McKnight provides a simple yet helpful framework for
understanding gospel from I Corinthians 15. See Appendix D, Lesson 2 for further explanation.
136
See Appendix D, Section 2 for the complete “Pre-study Material and Session 2.”
78
Session three was a continued exploration of the word “gospel.” Specifically, we
noted that in Philippians gospel was a word rooted in contrast to the “good news” of the
Roman Empire. In short, gospel was a direct affront to the empire and kingdom of Caesar
and announced adherence to the kingdom of God. Interestingly, I noted that even the
“qualification texts” for elders have direct connections to pagan rulers (i.e. I Tim. 3).
Thus, though Paul’s words are influenced by his time and place, they should always be
“seen” through the lens of gospel. Last, I noted how gospel invited the Philippian church,
especially its leaders, to consider how their shared life together might be different
because of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a clear invitation that gospel
ought to invite the church to live differently than the world! If Christ is the center of the
gospel then all of life, especially our behavior, ought to flow first from a person rather
than a theological position.137
Session four was a movement towards the “practical” implications of Phil. 1:27 –
2:4. This session focused specifically on how Paul invites the church to “become the
gospel” by living from a center (Christ) while moving towards one another. Using
Michael Gorman’s figures of “centrifugal” and “centripetal” gospel-force, we explored
the following four themes: (a) Stand firm in the one Spirit,” (b) Strive together as one for
the faith of the gospel, (c) Don’t be frightened in any way by those who oppose you, (d)
It has been granted to you on behalf of Christ to suffer for him.138 We examined each of
the above components while asking this question: “What might Paul be inviting the
See Appendix D, Section 3 for the complete “Pre-study Material and Session 3”
Gorman argues for the reader of Philippians (and Paul) to think about a “gospeled life” as having a
center (Christ). And the ones who participate in this Christ-life together are consistently moving “in”
(centripetal) and “out” “centrifugal” from this center. Gorman’s thoughtful work of Paul and gospel was of
critical importance to my understanding of this specific text in Philippians and I am indebted to his
scholarship. See Michael Gorman, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2015): 19-20.
137
138
79
HOCC to in this specific invitation?” Further, I asked us to consider how Paul gave the
Philippians a “new story” for their behavior together. We noted how Paul invited the
church specifically to:

Have the same love.

Be one in spirit and of one mind.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.

In humility value others above yourselves

Don’t look to your own interests but to the interests of the others.
We concluded by asking specific questions of ourselves, as the HOCC leaders, from the
above-mentioned invitations. The specific goal was to leave session four with a hunger
for further exploration of how these themes could become the framework for constructing
a “rule of conduct” for our life together as leaders.139
The final session focused our attention to the practical realities of the previous
studies. Leaning into the clear invitation from Paul and the Philippian correspondence,
the aim was to consider how Paul, through this text, would invited a way to form deeper
relationship between the elder and Lead Minister at the HOCC. The aim was to briefly
review “where we had been” the previous four sessions while collectively naming
specific theological convictions from this text. In other words, from our shared study
what gospel convictions arise from this text for the Philippian church? Additionally, we
named specific behavioral commitments that grew from these gospel convictions. Finally,
139
See Appendix D, Section 4 for the complete “Pre-study Material and Session 4”.
80
using these convictions and commitments, I led the group in a conversation that framed a
specific “rule of conduct” for the HOCC elders and me.140
In all, the objective of both phase one and two of the research was to craft a “rule
of conduct” for our life together as a leadership team. As noted in the introduction of this
chapter, the Policy Governance® model adopted by the HOCC gives no framework for
“behaving together” as a leadership team. The aim of the AI interviews (phase one) was
to evoke a narrative platform for the construction of a “rule of conduct.” The narrative
would bring forward the best parts of the past while arousing imaginative possibilities for
the future of our shared leadership. The aim of the study (phase two) would be to root our
shared behavior in the theological convictions and commitments ascertained by dwelling
in the word together over a three-month period. Ultimately, the hope was that through
shared story and listening to one another through Dwelling in the Word, the Spirit would
confirm a way for the elders and me, as Lead Minister, to work together in a new chapter
of leadership for the HOCC.
140
See Appendix D, Section 5 for the complete “Pre-study Material and Session 5”.
CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS
Phase One: Appreciative Inquiry Interviews
The Appreciative Inquiry interviews began in October of 2015 and concluded in
February 2016. The interviews were face-to-face meetings that lasted approximately
forty-five minutes. Each of the elders at the HOCC were emailed six narrative
components of the interview. Each component entailed specific questions that created
space to listen for their observations and hopeful desires of the HOCC elders and
preacher. Before providing the specifics of the research, it is noteworthy to describe the
demographics of the existing HOCC elder group. Currently there are nineteen elders at
the HOCC and the group is diverse in age and tenure. Nine of the elders have been
serving for ten years or longer. Of these nine, all are at least fifty years of age with two
approaching the age of seventy. Seven of the elders were installed in the fall of 2010, a
year after my arrival as preacher. These seven men range in age of forty to seventy years
old. Of these seven, only one had previously served as an elder in another congregation.
The final three elders were installed in October 2015. Of these three, they vary in age
between fifty and sixty years and each of them were not elders in previous congregations.
In all, the elder group at the HOCC is rich with diversity and experience. The following
are the six components of the AI interview and include common themes or threads
evident in their responses:
1. What do you love most about being a shepherd at Highland Oaks? What do you
consider to be some of the most exciting components of our Shepherding group?
Though each elder gave a unique response to what they “loved most about being a
shepherd,” there were a few common themes that rose to the surface. First, the central
81
82
claim was about “people.” One elder remarked, “When I have the opportunity to serve
and love at the same time there is huge satisfaction in knowing that I have helped.”
Another simply said, with tearful emotion, “It is the people.” It was evident that each
individual elder was aware of the chief responsibility to the people of the church. As one
of the newly installed elders stated, “The role of a Shepherd is found in the quality of
their character; as evidenced in their love of people.” Another theme that emerged was
the opportunity to pray for the church. Several elders said a “highlight” of the meetings
was the intentional prayer focus for specific needs of the congregation.141 One elder
characterized the meetings as a “barrage of prayer” while another lamented, “We do not
have more time to pray over the church.” Last, several mentioned the existing governance
model as a key reason for “what they love most.” One elder stated, “There is an obvious
concern for the people that comes before the operations of our church because of our
governance model.” And still another replied, in reference to the governance model, “We
have moved away from administration to being with the people.” In all, the research
demonstrated that the love for being an elder at the HOCC is about people, prayer, and
the appropriate space the governance model gives for these pastoral tasks.
When I asked about the “most exciting components” of the elder group,
almost every elder mentioned the diversity of the group as a positive component.142
And the diversity was not only the difference in age or season of life, the primary
“exciting component” was the theological diversity of the group. One elder
141
The Elders have determined to meet only twice a month on the second and fourth Tuesdays. The first
elder meeting is a “shepherding meeting” that focuses specifically on prayer and pastoral or shepherding
needs. It is important to note that no operational matters are discussed at this meeting. The second meeting
is deemed the “operational meeting” and the purpose is to allow me to present Monitoring Reports and
cover any “business” matters for the HOCC. It is also noteworthy that the format of two-meetings-per
month is rare and due mostly to the existing trust the governance model allows between the Elder group
and me.
142
When I say “almost every elder” I mean that 17 of the 19 mentioned this specifically.
83
exclaimed, “There is a relational camaraderie in our group and I love how our
connectedness is still apparent through our disagreements.” Another elder
compared the differences of the group to “snowflakes” and noted, “Diversity is such
a good thing in our group – I love how different we are.” One of the elders, who has
been in place for only five years, said it best: “Our group is willing to listen to one
another without hostility or judgment.”
In conclusion, though there was acknowledgment of the weight of responsibility
for being a shepherd, the group self-identified in overwhelmingly positive ways. One of
the newest elders, installed in October of 2015, said it best when he observed, “I really
had no idea what to expect when I became a shepherd…but I didn’t expect this.”143 When
I inquired about the meaning of “this” the elder replied, “The way the meetings are so
focused on people instead of arguing over carpet and paint colors.” I thus conclude from
this introductory question that being an elder at the HOCC is a positive experience. And
the focus on people and prayer allows the theological diversity of the group to remain a
primary strength in our existing governance model.
2. As a Shepherd in a church, there are inevitably high points and low points, successes
and frustrations. What stands out for you as a high point when you were part of a
Shepherd group? If this is your first time as a Shepherd, what were some perceived high
points that encouraged you to desire this leadership task?
Again, the predominant response to the “high points” of being a shepherd was
about people. Interestingly, about half of the elders mentioned a high point was the
relationship they have either gained or deepened with the other elders. One of the new
elders remarked, “A definite high point for me was the belief in my fellow elders that I
could do this job.” Still another elder replied, “This group is comprised of every walk of
Throughout this chapter I will frequently refer to a “new” elder. This will be my identification of those
three men who were installed as elders in October 2015.
143
84
life – and it’s more than just different mindsets or thoughts, it’s a melting pot
representing the church.” One reason that a “relationship with the fellow elders” was a
“high point” was illuminated by a new elder when he said, “There was a separation that
occurred when I became an elder between my friends and me…and yet these men have
become new friends to me in this season of life.” Another highlight for the elders was the
recent study on “Women’s Role in the Church.”144 Many elders noted how this study
created a deeper awareness of the diversity of the opinions of the group. Even more, the
“highlight” was the camaraderie the group experienced throughout the study in the midst
of differing opinions and viewpoints. Several elders used words like, “respect, joy,
challenging, and humility” when describing their participation in this study. Last,
especially important to the purposes of this project, was the specific mention of “finding
a new preacher.” Though many of the elders were complementary of my role as preacher
these last seven years, the primary “high point” was noted by those who were elders
before my hire. In other words, the longest tenured elders referenced the pain of the
previous relationship. One of the elders remarked boldly, “A high point was the prayerful
survival of the church in the wake of that bad experience.”
The low points for being an elder varied and there was not a common theme. As
mentioned above, a few of the longer tenured elders referenced the pain of the previous
preacher and his departure. One elder reflected, “It’s a good day when you don’t hurt as
bad as you did yesterday.” Other elders, referring to this difficult season at the HOCC,
used descriptive words like “healing, keeping the peace, and wounds” to describe their
The HOCC embarked on a congregational study of “women’s role in the church” in the Fall of 2013.
The goal was to explore scripture together through shared resources and speakers while seeking the
possibility for greater inclusion of women into the public participation at the HOCC. The study, for the
Elders, lasted approximately four months and was the launching pad for a congregation-wide study in 2014.
The result of the process was the increased inclusion of women in the assembly and classes.
144
85
experience as elders. Interestingly, a few of the elders had a difficult time naming specific
“low points.” Yet, there were several that noted the “guilt” of not meeting with as people
as they should.
In conclusion, the research pointed to several high points that illuminated the
importance and value of relationship. Surprisingly, the relationship with fellow elders
rose to the surface as much as relationship to the church. Also, this specific component
confirmed the (still) painful realities from the previous preacher. Though the elder group
is almost ten years removed from this tumultuous season, the group is aware of the
congregational pain that was caused by his departure. In all, one elder summed up a
common sentiment of the group, “This is a very love-oriented team and the joyful
camaraderie exists because respect is shared by all.” Thus, as a whole the Elder group
reflected on both high and low points in the context of shared relationship with each
other.
3. Not including my specific tenure here at Highland Oaks, name some characteristics of
a healthy relationship between an Elder group and preacher/Lead Minister. How might
you imagine the two “parties” experiencing spiritual growth and maturity?
This component of the research can be summarized by five common themes.
First, the predominant characteristic the elders mentioned was communication. If there is
not open and honest communication between the elder group and preacher, there is no
room for health in the relationship. Many elders compared the dynamic of the
relationship to a marriage. For example, when there is poor communication there is room
for “whispers and rumors.” Similarly, one elder replied emphatically, “When something
happens in the church we react out of the trust we have built together through healthy
communication.” Second, respect was used over and again to describe a healthy
86
relationship. Though respect can mean different things, the elders described respect as it
pertained to “listening to one another.” Especially in light of differing theological
viewpoints, respect for the other resulted in the acceptance of the other’s “difference of
opinion.” Third, the willingness to listen was key for healthy relationship. One elder
noted, “I like the word ‘pastor’ because it speaks towards my responsibility to listen for
the needs of the other with care and attention.” Still another elder remarked, “When we
listen we take the opportunity to hear each other’s heart.” Fourth, transparency was a
marker of healthy relationship. One elder replied, “There is no room for masks in our
group; the mask must come off and there is no need for secrecy.” Even more, several
elders noted how transparency could not be gained without spending time together. Thus,
the time the team spends together, particularly in meetings, must move away from
positional posturing and towards authentic sharing. Last, trust and love were mentioned
as co-characteristics of healthy relationship. Several noted that though the task of
shepherding was challenging both spiritually and emotionally, if love and trust exists
there was no need for worry or panic. One elder summarized the sentiment of the group
well when he said, “If I know that I trust my fellow elder or the preacher and that love
exists between us, then we can make it through anything.” Finally, the conversations
inevitably pointed towards a healthy governance model. The elder group recognized the
importance of setting specific boundaries for a preacher while maintaining the
appropriate trust to live within those bounds. One elder remarked, “It is not just the Lead
Minister that ought to be aware of the boundaries but the willingness of both parties to
stay within the appropriate bounds we have set.”
87
There were two predominant themes when asked about the “two parties
experiencing spiritual growth and maturity.” First, the devotional time spent before the
“meeting” was a critical component of spiritual maturity.145 Many of the elders used
words like, “necessary, essential, and deliberate” for our devotional times. The other
element mentioned was the ardent focus on prayer. And prayer was not characterized as
“prayers for the sick;” rather, prayer was an opportunity for focus and listening. One
elder remarked, “It is imperative that we listen to the Holy Spirit through prayer.” Even
more, prayer was seen as a way to “hear one another’s heart.” One elder noted, “When I
hear someone else pray I love hearing what they have to say.” In sum, one elder
suggested the group ought to “worship our way through meetings.” And, according to
this elder, this would invite us to ask the question: “What if we really invited the Holy
Spirit to work through us – what would this look like?”
In conclusion, the research illuminated several themes that characterized a healthy
relationship between the elder group and preacher. The key themes were:
communication, listening, respect, transparency, and trusting love. In addition, the elders
agreed that spiritual growth and maturity for the “two parties” was experienced in times
of deliberate prayer and study together. One elder responded in conclusion to this
question with a unique observation: “We just know it when it happens.” In other words,
spiritual growth and maturity for the elder and preacher is not something that can be
constructed or manipulated by a devotional time. Rather, spiritual growth and maturity is
an outgrowth of the Spirit’s work through shared study and prayer.
145
Before the operational meeting, I am tasked to lead the group in a devotional thought. In all honesty, this
devotional time felt like an obligatory way to begin our meeting when we added this element over 5 years
ago. However, based upon this research it has become clear to me that this element of our meeting is most
critical to the spiritual perspective while tending to the “operations” of the church.
88
4. Imagine the Highland Oaks Church of Christ ten years from now. Name some ways
the relationship between the preacher and Elder group has been sustained. Ten years
from now how would you imagine other churches would see our working relationship?
This particular question was the most difficult to answer. Perhaps it was due to
the word “imagine” or the abrupt invitation to think long-term? (Or it may have been a
poorly worded question!) Yet, there were familiar themes that continued to characterize
the existing narrative of the HOCC. When asked to imagine ways the relationship was
sustained, many of the elders pointed to previous characteristics such as trust and prayer.
Also, communication was mentioned several times as a key factor that would sustain the
relationship for the future. Remarkably, the majority of the elders remarked how the
HOCC governance model was a key for the sustainability of trust in the existing
relationship. One elder said, “The specific policies do not permit an ‘us’ versus ‘them’
dynamic.” More deliberately, an elder added, “The model is either a piece of paper or a
way to embody our goals.” Clearly the elders not only believe the model provides an
appropriate way to oversee the church but a primary means for the elder-preacher
relationship “working.” One elder mentioned that the relationship would be sustained
because the model “created less of an opportunity for a domineering manner or person.”
Ten years from now many of the elders hoped our governance model would be
emulated. The hope was that other churches would see our “harmony and togetherness”
rather than a “combative or adversarial” spirit. Moreover, one elder reflected on several
years of previous elder experience at the HOCC and said, “This model can and ought to
work.” Overall, the research from this component illuminated the pride of how the
HOCC leadership exists in our current governance model. It was refreshing to hear
positive self-awareness rather than shameful self-criticism. Though I did not hear
89
irresponsible delusions of grandeur, I understood the elders’ desire to have other churches
“follow us.”
In conclusion, one of the new elders made a helpful comparison to his secular
occupation of coaching high school football. In particular, he enjoyed a seventeen-year
tenure with the same group of coaches. Based on this experience he said about our elder
group: “After seventeen years there is a bond that is felt. The bond doesn’t have to be
mentioned or articulated – it’s born out of living life together year after year while
attacking the same goals time and again.” Perhaps this is why another elder remarked,
“We are shepherds first and elders second.” And this means there is a healthy focus on
shared relationship rooted in love for one another.
5. When you think of specific practices for the Shepherd group and preacher to utilize for
their work together, what comes to mind as having the most positive impact? How might
Paul’s invitation from Philippians: “Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the
gospel” serve as a framework for our spiritual vitality?
The goal of this component was to inquire about specific practices that we
currently use as a leadership team. Moreover, the aim was to ask this question before the
elders knew the specific outcome of this project. Thus, I will report first from elders who
answered this question before we embarked on our shared study together. There were
three particular themes that came from the first question. First, the elders were clear that
the monitoring reports were key to “specific practices” that had positive impact. As
mentioned in chapter four of this project, the monitoring report is my way, as Lead
Minister, of providing the appropriate assurance to the elder group that the Ends policies
are being upheld and the operations of the church are staying within prescribed
boundaries. Thus, though the reports may seem mundane or routine to an outsider, they
are at the heart of the governance model. The reports built mutual trust and demonstrated
90
responsible care of the elder’s desires as “shepherds of the flock” at the HOCC. Second,
the devotional time at the beginning of the meeting was key to the “positive impact” of
the working relationship. One elder noted the old adage, “The family that prays together
stays together.” And still another elder reflected back to the women’s role study and said,
“There is such bonding that happens when we study together.” Thus, the study and prayer
time at the beginning of the meeting was a key practice. Last, there was an
acknowledgement that in order for the relationship to stay positive there must be more
time together. Though most elders felt the group spent adequate time with me as Lead
Minister, there was an awareness of the need for more time with one another and the
entire ministry staff.146 One elder remarked, “We need to become friends who see one
another outside of the meeting.”
When asked about Paul’s specific invitation from Philippians, many elders
equated “gospel” with Bible study. In other words, how can one live in a manner worthy
of the gospel if the gospel is not “studied.” Still others replied the invitation pointed us to
the essential character and qualities of Christ. One elder said, “The gospel is not just what
the Bible says to think but it’s an invitation to behave and interact with one another.”
Moreover, one elder noted the role of the Spirit in “gospel conduct.” He said, “The
manner of the gospel is what the Spirit leads you to do.” Though a majority of the elders
were interviewed before the five-part study, it was refreshing to hear unprompted
overtures of Christ-like conduct and Spirit-led behavior.
146
Currently, the governance model encourages my attendance at elder meetings as opposed to each
minister at the HOCC. We have 6 ministers on staff at the HOCC in addition to several “ministry partners”
who office in our facility. Though beyond the scope of this project, there is room to grow in how the elders
relate to an entire team of ministers.
91
For the five elders interviewed either after our study began or after learning about
the hopeful outcome of this project, it was clear the time we spent Dwelling in the Word
was making an impact. One of them said emphatically, “I had no idea our study would be
so meaningful to our work together.” Still another replied, “The more I read and
participate with this text the more I can see the text.” In conclusion, it was clear that
practices for working together that created positive impact flowed from the devotional
time together as well as the space the monitoring reports allowed for appropriate trustfilled accountability. And it was equally clear that “gospel” conduct came from time
spent in Scripture.
6. What small changes could we make right now that would really encourage our
leadership team to get engaged with improving our working relationship?
More than any other component, this question engendered blank stares and
awkward silence. Though I can only guess the reason for this reaction, I was surprised the
elders were not more eager to make suggestions or comments for moving forward. One
elder paused and finally said, “This is a hard question.” Even so, there was a plea for the
elders and me to spend more time together. Again, though I currently meet with each
elder individually outside of the meeting, there was a desire for deeper relational
connection.147 One elder stated, “We have to know one another and knowing one another
takes time outside the walls of the church.” Another elder suggested there be more
“training” for the group. In particular, there was positive reflection on the elder training
147
Since my arrival at the HOCC I have made a distinct effort to meet with elders for lunch or breakfast.
This began as my effort to spend intentional time with them in light of their previous elder-preacher
experience. At first, these meetings (which are typically twice a week) were characterized by church
business and general questions of familiarity. Now, after meeting for several years in this way, the elders
and me enjoy time with little agenda or expectation. In other words, there is no replacement for time spent
together outside of the meeting.
92
they received before they were “officially” installed as elders.148 Thus, a suggested small
change, made with little effort, was more opportunity for organized training. The
suggested training could either take the place of a regular scheduled meeting or take place
“off-campus” in a retreat setting. In all, I think this particular question was difficult
because there was not enough difference in its desired response from previous questions.
Also, it was the last question of a long interview process. Thus, though it was an
important question it was the least favorable in response.
Summary and Themes
In sum, the AI interviews were immensely helpful in understanding the current
narrative of the HOCC leadership. Though it is impossible to capture every nuance of the
individual conversations, there are four broad conclusions that emerged. These four
conclusions provided a basic understanding me as I considered how to lead the next
phase of the research. If a new story was to emerge for the leaders of the HOCC through
shared story and scripture, should there not be an awareness of our common themes?
Thus the themes that emerged from the interviews were:
1. There is an awareness of where the elder group has been and where the group is
now.
Though none of the elders were derogatory or mean-spirited about the past, there
was clear awareness that the past narrative of the HOCC leadership dynamic was poor.
One of the ways we have prepared the elders and “elders to be” at the HOCC is the requirement of a
three month training program before the elders are “installed.” Our then Executive Minister, Jon Mullican,
and myself conceived this training before elders were installed in 2010. The training includes sessions for
policy governance, conflict management styles, roles of the shepherd wife, practicing spiritual disciplines,
and specific topical studies. It is noteworthy that the training includes both existing and elder nominees and
their spouses. In all, this program is hugely successful in preparing our elders for the task and has been used
as a resource in several other congregations.
148
93
The HOCC elder group is painfully aware of the effects of a weak relationship between
the Elder group and preacher. It is important to note that the previous preacher was the
first to live under the current governance policy. Though the policy was in its infancy, the
previous preacher exposed its capacity for relational expectations. It is clear the current
elder group feels strongly about the boundaries of this model and desires to maintain a
better relational connection with me as the Lead Minister.
2. Relationships with people are central to our Elder-preacher team.
The HOCC leadership team must be focused on building relationships with one
another more than making decisions on church operational matters. The interviews
clearly expressed deep joy in journeying together as fellow elders. Even more, there was
awareness that the group enjoyed being together in the midst of its diversity. In addition,
because the relationship with me as Lead Minister is largely positive, the group identifies
the need for relationship as a positive reality rather than an unachievable deficit. Thus,
the relationship between the elder group and me ought to be pursued with great
intentionality and thoughtfulness.
3. Prayer and study are at the heart of our current story.
Over and again the elders pointed to the importance of prayer and study. It is
noteworthy that prayer and study for our team is more than just the accumulation of
Biblical knowledge or theological agreement. It is an opportunity for listening to one
another. And in listening, the elders grow in appreciation of each other’s unique
perspectives and various theological viewpoints. Because the Church of Christ has
traditionally been a “people of the book,” this renewed appreciation for study and prayer
is centered in the commitment to scripture being a means for collaborative participation
94
with God for mission. And this commitment, though not specifically articulated in the
interviews, is a decisive move away from a judicial or constitutional reading of scripture
and towards a relational reading of scripture. By reading this way, there is a commitment
to a missional God who invites study and prayer through relationship rather than rules.
4. There is a hunger for more.
It is evident the elders do not believe that we, as a leadership team, have arrived at
the mountaintop of relational connection. There is a desire for more study and prayer.
There are aspirations for continued moments of Spirit-led conversations that move us to
take deeper risks and spiritual challenges. There is a hunger for deeper commitment to
one another for the sake of the missio Dei. In all, the elders are desperate to discover how
a relationship can not only be sustained but grow in depth and insight.
Phase Two: Shared Study of Philippians
The second phase of research was based upon the two primary theological frames
of this project: a missional reading of scripture and a Trinitarian view of relational
leadership. Building on the information from the AI interviews, the goal of this phase was
for the elders and Lead Minister to study together. By Dwelling in the Word I invited the
group to the practice of listening to scripture, to the Spirit, and to each other. Dwelling in
the Word thus invited the group to imaginatively attend to Paul’s word to the Philippian
church over a period of five sessions. In each session I served as a “travel guide” through
pre-determined theological themes and concepts based upon my study of the text. In all,
the aim of this phase was to create intentional conversation around a specific text so the
95
missio Dei would become the additional mean for crafting a rule of conduct. Again, the
text for our shared study was Paul’s specific admonition to the Philippian church:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of
Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as
one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that
you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf
of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if
any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like
minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing
out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above
yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
the others. (Phil. 1:27-2:4)
As mentioned in chapter four of this project, Dwelling in the Word followed a
particular process. In each session we used the specific process of prayer, listening to the
text aloud together, sharing with one another “what we heard God was doing in the text,”
and transitioned to the study of a specific theme. We concluded each session by asking
specific questions of discernment. The aim was for each “study” or session to include
three specific components: dwelling in the word, digging in the word, and discerning the
word.149 Each component was integral to the ultimate goal of this study – the crafting of a
rule of conduct for the HOCC elders and preacher. The following summations are general
observations from the components of our shared study (dwelling, digging, and
discerning).
149
Again, these lessons can be found in Appendix D, sections 1 – 5.
96
Dwelling in the Word
Overall the shared study produced a common sentiment: “There is value in
listening to one another.” In the past, the devotional prior to our meeting consisted of the
elders as receivers and not co-participants. Dwelling in the Word ensured that the elders
and I would spend time listening to the text while reporting back to one another. When
the elders “reported” back to the group, the overwhelming feedback was characterized by
one elder when he said, “I was surprised by how much I learned from someone else.”
Even more, Dwelling in the Word began to extend into the daily routine of several of the
elders. One in particular shared with me, “I found myself drawn back to our passage of
scripture throughout the week in between our meetings – I love this!” Dwelling in the
Word allowed the group to experience the text from different perspectives and invited
them to “study” by listening over and again to the same text for three months.
The depth of dwelling in one particular text also surprised the group. After the
first session one elder reluctantly exclaimed to the group, “I am not sure how we are
going to spend three solid months in this one text – what about the rest of Philippians?”
Interestingly, the same elder replied at the conclusion of our study, “I hope we do not
stop now – we’ve learned so much! Can we continue doing this?” Thus, dwelling in one
particular text proved not only to be meaningful for this study but invited an imagination
for more in the future.
Last, Dwelling in the Word together produced different feedback each time we
gathered. Interestingly, the elders began to move to different seats in the room as we
began each session. This was unprompted and unexpected! (You can imagine how
difficult it must be for men to “change seats” for their meeting.) Thus, Dwelling in the
97
Word served as a space for intentional engagement with different voices and
perspectives. So, week after week different elders would sit beside one another and listen
for what “God was up to” in Paul’s invitation to the Philippian church. In sum, Dwelling
in the Word became the Spirit-led space for listening to God and one another.
Digging in the Word
When the time came to transition towards digging in the word, many elders noted
the helpfulness of the “pre-study” material I sent before the meeting. One elder remarked,
“The pre-study material not only helped me see what was coming but also gave me good
questions to think about to prepare for our study.” Thus, I was surprised by how many of
the elders shared this sentiment and expressed how they “enjoyed” the pre-study material.
When we transitioned to “digging,” three common themes merged from the text
and study. One, the group observed each week how the word “gospel” was rich with a
variety of meanings. In other words, when Paul used “gospel” he was not simply
referring to facts about Jesus. Rather, gospel for Paul was an invitation to embody a
particular story. Even more, the story was not adherence to intellectual fact but a move to
behave in “gospel” ways with one another. Second, the group was surprised to learn that
“public” witness was a framing principle of the text. Because the original language for
“conduct” contained the Greek word for “city,” we observed that gospel conduct implied
a public witness to the world. One elder remarked, “I never thought the gospel meant
something for those on the outside. This text ought to place a burden on us to pay
attention to our neighborhood.” And this observation allowed the group to see our Bible
“digging” as a way to join God in the world around us. Third, many in the group were
98
drawn to the opening two words: “whatever happens.” One elder replied, “I cannot get
past the first two words of this text. Each time we have come together I think I will be
drawn somewhere else but I get stuck here.” Another replied at the conclusion of the fivepart study, “I’d like to observe that even though the first two words can cover a lot of
ground, they remind me that this text can be for any season of our church.” In all, I found
it fascinating that beyond the themes I “prepared,” the simplicity of the first two words
from this text established a missional frame for our study: Paul is inviting the Philippian
leaders to consider any season of their church life together as opportunity for gospel
conduct.
Discerning the Word
Each session concluded with specific questions of discernment for the group. It is
noteworthy that the questions were not intended to specifically lead the group toward
crafting a “rule of conduct.” Rather, the intention was for the questions of discernment to
allow appropriate space for the Spirit to prompt imaginative responses to the text.
Remarkably, the awareness of the Spirit was an integral theme that emerged from the
text. The elders noticed Paul’s invitation to “stand firm in one Spirit” and the “common
sharing in the Spirit.” In every session of discernment, the notion of the Spirit’s
engagement “among us” was mentioned. Again, though a Trinitarian view of relationship
was central to the theology of this project, I did not plan for the discernment of the group
to end with a common conviction for the role of the Spirit in our study.
At the end of the five-part study, there was awareness that Dwelling in the Word
together made the group “better shepherds.” One elder replied, “Each time I have left our
99
study I have felt more in tune with my role as a shepherd of this church.” Further, another
elder said to me privately, “Dwelling in the Word has brought to light my need for deeper
Bible study – can you help me in this area of my life?” Thus, the discernment process
brought an appropriate “gospel” mirror to our group and allowed the elders and me to see
our team in light of the invitations of the text.
Last, the group expressed a common sentiment during our time of discernment, “I
cannot get over the simplicity of these invitations.” In particular, the group was drawn to
such themes as “love, sharing, selflessness, unity, suffering, and compassion.” Though
simple to describe, the group acknowledged the incredible depth of these words. In all,
the period of discernment allowed appropriate reflection for how these themes emerged in
past seasons of church life and conflict. And yet, the themes also became ways of
imagining life for the future. As one elder surmised, “We cannot handle any conflict in
our church without a gospel of love and unity.”
Crafting a Rule of Conduct
The aim of this project from its inception was to craft a rule of conduct from
shared story and scripture. As I concluded the study, I was nervous to begin the final
stage of this process. And the nervousness came from the belief that I should not have a
preconceived notion of what the rule ought to look like. Even more, I was trusting that
the group could come together and craft a common rule that would name specific
behavior for our shared life together.
As the study came to a close, I was personally struck by two “pieces” that
emerged from our story and study. First, there were obvious theological convictions that
100
arose from our shared study together. The convictions, though rooted in the theology of
this project, came from the group’s willingness to name the convictions of the text. In
other words, a framing question emerged as we considered crafting our rule: “If Paul was
to write a letter to the HOCC leaders, what would he claim as the most important
theological components for our gospel conduct?” Second, from these theological
components there must be specific commitments. And the commitments would be
specific ways to “live into” our theology. Thus, another framing question emerged: “If
we chose to abide by our convictions, what specific actions could we call our group to
embrace?”
Thus, in our last session together, with a blank white board and marker, we
launched into a discussion of specific theological convictions and behavioral
commitments. After a forty-five-minute discussion, the following “rule” emerged. The
seven lines contain both a conviction and commitment from our shared story and study:
Because relationship matters to the Elders and Lead Minister of the Highland Oaks
Church of Christ, we commit ourselves to conduct worthy of the gospel of Christ.
Therefore, we commit that:
1. We must love one another by demonstrating care and concern for one another.
2. We must value each other more than ourselves by first considering the perspective of
one another.
3. We must lead with tenderness and compassion by dispensing grace and mercy.
4. We must strive together and not alone by a shared commitment to pray and study with
one another.
5. We must maintain unity of the Spirit in the midst of our differences by trusting the
Spirit will empower us to be of one mind.
6. We must not be afraid but stand firm by leading into the mission of God with bold
conviction.
101
7. We must endure suffering by standing together.
Conclusions and Future Considerations for Study
In all, the group was excited for the future possibilities of our “rule of conduct.”
Overwhelmingly, there was awareness that the rule must not only become a “result of
Pat’s doctoral work” but a way for our team to live in deeper relationship. Upon further
reflection of the two phases of research and the rule of conduct, I offer a final story that
frames the predominant conclusion of this project.
In a recent TED talk, Robert Waldinger, a Harvard University researcher,
explained the results of a unique study.150 In 1938 Harvard decided to conduct a
longitudinal research study of adult development. They invited over 250 sophomores
from Harvard University and over 450 inner-city teens from Boston’s poorest
neighborhood. The researchers, fully funded by grants, began to explore the ways these
“teenagers” developed into adults. Upon agreement to participate, the members of the
study agreed to be interviewed by questionnaire each year, submit to a medical test every
five years, and be interviewed face-to-face every fifteen years. The goal was to capture
psychological trends, social implications, measure health and happiness, and hopefully
discern common threads and traits among adults over an entire life span. What the
researchers discovered, after sifting through thousands of pages of research and data,
were three simple themes. And each theme had one central component: relational
connectedness mattered to happiness and health. In other words, after over seventy-five
years of research the most common themes equated to happier lifestyles, better marriages,
150
TED talk, (2016, January 25). Robert Waldinger, What Makes a Good Life? Lessons from the Longest
Study on Happiness [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkKuTCFvzI.
102
and even mental health were the ability and willingness to stay connected to another
human being. Interestingly, as the researchers began to interview spouses, children, and
grandchildren, conflict that arose from particular seasons of life was managed in healthy
ways because of the quality of their relationships. Thus, relational connectedness was at
the heart of positive emotional, social, physical, and mental well-being of those
researched in the study. And while there are approximately only 65 people left in the
study, the overwhelming conclusion was: Relationships are at the core of happy
octogenarians.
This TED talk invited me to consider why so many churches are either dying,
unhappy, or in the midst of controversy and strife. Even more, it caused me to consider if
a reason for their turmoil might be because leaders never took time to consider ways to
stay relationally connected? Would churches be healthy and happier with their existence,
after 50, 75, or even 160 years, if their leaders pursued concrete ways to stay relationally
connected? My hunch is that Paul would say, “Yes!” And the research from this project
allows me to conclude that the quality of the relationship between the elders and preacher
matter to the life and mission of the local church. Even more, the relationship matters to
the elders and me at the Highland Oaks Church of Christ. I am excited to see where the
Spirit may lead for our future together. Even more, I sense that when the day arrives for
my departure from the HOCC, I will reflect on this research project and find myself on
the shores of Ephesus, with my elders, weeping and embracing one another for the
journey of our shared gospel conduct.
As with all endeavors, lessons are learned that would lead to valuable changes in
the future. If I were to repeat this study in the future, I would offer the following
103
recommendations. First, I would use less questions and allow for more story-telling in the
interview process. I felt like the A.I. interviews for this project were too “scripted” and
did not allow room for appropriate storytelling. Though much was gained from the
questions, I would ask more open-ended questions that invited positive stories from the
past. Another consideration for future study would be to interview previous elders at the
HOCC. It would be important to include the stories of their previous experience in order
to learn about new ways forward. Additionally, it would be fascinating to interview other
churches, similar in size, and explore how their responses would compare and contrast.
Though this would be a different study altogether, it would be beneficial to learn how the
HOCC can improve in light of other church’s positive experiences. Last, I would include
an interview of elder wives in this study. A major “blind spot” of this particular project is
that it encompassed only one gender for the study. Though presently the HOCC has
restricted the role of elder and preacher to male only, the unfortunate reality of this
restriction is the singular perspective. I imagine the research and storytelling would be
much different if the elder wives were asked the same questions.
As far as the study is concerned, I would extend the study over a much broader
time frame. Simply put, five sessions were barely adequate for the appetite of our group.
Thus, I would continue to pick one framing text for “dwelling” while taking six months
to a year before drawing any conclusions. In addition to a time extension, I would include
the spouses of the elder group in our study. It is noteworthy that several elders come to
me following the study and exclaimed, “I wished my wife was able to be a part of this.”
Though the elders and their wives are included in our elder training process, they were
not included for the purpose of this study. Yet, based on the experience of our weekly
104
staff meetings, which are widely diverse in gender, the inclusion of females would
certainly enhance the progress and outcome of this study. Last, a future consideration
would be extending this study to the elders and entire ministry team. Though I limited the
scope of this research to the particular dynamic of the elders and preacher, there is
wisdom in the inclusion of the entire ministry staff. This would allow for even greater
relational depth for the HOCC while inviting an awareness of “team” that extends beyond
the scope of one link to the elder group. These considerations, as well as others, will
hopefully redefine future studies and allow the HOCC to continue to write new chapters
of a story informed by gospel conduct.
105
APPENDIX A: HOCC GOVERNANCE POLICY
Section 1: Ends Policy
POLICY TYPE: ENDS
POLICY TITLE: MISSION AND PRIORITIES
POLICY 1.0
The Highland Oaks Church of Christ will be a kingdom people who exist to love God and
love people, at a cost that demonstrates Christ-like stewardship of the resources provided
by God.
Accordingly, we will be a people who:
1.
Pursue God’s heart
“He made the entire human race … so we could seek after God, and not just
grope around in the dark but actually find him.” (Acts 17:26-27)
“When you come looking for me, you’ll find me.” (Jeremiah 29:13)
Such people will:
a. Actively practice spiritual disciplines
b. Exhibit the fruit of the spirit
c. Reflect God’s holiness in daily living
d. Assume the mind of Christ
2.
Experience authentic community
“Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved
you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my
disciples—when they see the love you have for each other.” (John 13:34-35)
“Live creatively, friends. If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving
your critical comments for yourself You might be needing forgiveness before
the day’s out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share
their burdens, and so complete Christ’s law. If you think you are too good for
that, you are badly deceived.” (Galatians 6:1-3)
Such people will:
a. Be real and honest about who they are
106
b. Engage in transparent and mutually accountable relationships
c. Walk with other people on the journey of faith
d. Genuinely love and accept all people without prejudice
3.
Cultivate servant hearts
“So if I, the Master and Teacher, washed your feet, you must now wash each
other’s feet. I’ve laid down a pattern for you. What I’ve done, you do.” (John
13:14-15)
“Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal
status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the
advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he
set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became
human! Having became human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly
humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless,
obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death—and the worst kind of
death at that—a crucifixion.” (Philippians 2:5-8)
Such people will:
a. Demonstrate a posture of giving rather than receiving
b. Model the example of Jesus who came to serve rather than be served
c. Utilize their God-given gifts in meaningful ministry and servant leadership
d. Have a consistent concern for the welfare of others
4.
Embrace God’s mission
“God’s Spirit is on me; he’s chosen me to preach the Message of good news to
the poor, sent me to announce pardon to prisoners and recovery of sight to the
blind, to set the burdened and battered free, to announce, ‘This is God’s year to
act!” (Luke 4:18-19)
“Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: ‘God authorized and
commanded me to commission you: Go out and train everyone you meet, far
and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have
commanded you. I’ll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right
up to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)
d.
Such people will:
a. Make God’s name known throughout the earth
b. Engage the community by being Christ to those who don’t yet know him
c. Identify with and provide for those who are poor and marginalized
Participate with God in the making of disciple
Section 2: Staff Limitations Policy
POLICY TYPE: STAFF LIMITATIONS
POLICY TITLE: FINANCIAL PLANNING AND BUDGETING
POLICY 2.3
The Lead Minister shall not cause or allow financial planning for any fiscal year or the
remaining part of any fiscal year to deviate materially from the elder group’s Ends priorities,
risk financial jeopardy, or fail to be derived from a multi-year plan.
Accordingly, he shall not allow budgeting that:
1.
Risks incurring those situations or conditions described as unacceptable in the
“Financial Condition and Activities” policy (2.4).
2.
Omits credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of capital and
operational items, monthly cash flow projections, and disclosure of planning
assumptions.
3.
Provides less for elder prerogatives during the year than is set forth in the “Cost
of Oversight and Shepherding” policy (4.9).
4.
Fails to engage the Resource Management Team in meaningful consultation in
the budget process.
5.
Has not been agreed upon by the elder group on an annual basis.
107
108
Section 3: Elder Process Policy
POLICY TYPE: ELDER PROCESS
POLICY TITLE: CHAIRMAN’S ROLE
POLICY 4.5
The chairman, a specially empowered member of the elder group, ensures the integrity of
the elder group’s process and, secondarily, occasionally represents the elders to outside
parties.
Accordingly:
1.
2.
The assigned result of the chairman’s job is that the elder group behaves
consistently with its own rules and those legitimately imposed upon it from
outside the organization.
a.
Meeting discussion content will consist solely of issues that clearly belong
to the elder group to decide or to monitor according to elder policy.
b.
Information that is neither for monitoring performance nor for elder
decisions will be avoided or minimized and always noted as such.
c.
Deliberation will be fair, open, and thorough, but also timely, orderly, and
kept to the point.
The authority of the chairman consists in making decisions that fall within topics
covered by elder policies on Elder Process and Elders-Staff Delegation, with the
exception of (a) employment or termination of the Lead Minister and (b) areas
where the elder group specifically delegates portions of this authority to others.
The chairman is authorized to use any reasonable interpretation of the
provisions in these policies.
a.
The chairman is empowered to chair elders’ meetings with all the
commonly accepted powers of that position, such as ruling and
recognizing.
b.
The chairman has no authority to make decisions about policies created
by the elder group within Ends and Staff Limitations policy areas.
Therefore, the chairman has no authority to supervise or direct the Lead
Minister.
109
3.
c.
The chairman may represent the elder group to outside parties in
announcing elder-stated positions and in stating chair decisions and
interpretations within the area delegated to him.
d.
The chairman may delegate this authority, but remains accountable for its
use.
The chairman, selected by the elder group, will serve for a one-year term that
runs from July through June. His term may be renewed for an additional oneyear term, after which he must step aside from the role for at least one year.
110
Section 4: Elder Staff Delegation
POLICY TYPE: ELDERS-STAFF DELEGATION
POLICY TITLE: UNITY OF CONTROL
POLICY 3.1
Only officially passed motions of the elder group are binding on the Lead Minister.
Accordingly:
1.
Decisions or instructions of individual elders, officers, or committees are not
binding on the Lead Minister except in rare instances when the elder group has
specifically authorized such exercise of authority.
2.
In the case of individual elders or elder committees requesting information or
assistance without full elder authorization, the Lead Minister can refuse such
requests that:
a.
require, in the Lead Minister’s opinion, a material amount of staff time or
funds, or are disruptive.
b.
violate an individual’s privacy.
111
Section 5: Monitoring Report
HOCC ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
POLICY 2.3– FINANCIAL PLANNING AND BUDGETING
OCTOBER 2015
I hereby present to the Elders my monitoring report on your Staff Limitations policy 2.3
“Financial Planning and Budgeting” in accordance with the monitoring schedule set
forth in elder policy 3.4. I certify that the information contained in this report is
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Signed: _______________________________, Lead Minister
15
Date: 10-26-
BROADEST POLICY PROVISION: “The Lead Minister shall not cause or allow financial
planning for any fiscal year or the remaining part of any fiscal year to deviate materially
from the elder group’s Ends priorities, risk financial jeopardy, or fail to be derived from a
multi-year plan.”
LEAD MINISTER’S INTERPRETATION: As Lead Minister, one of my primary
responsibilities is to ensure the elder group that the Highland Oaks Church financially
executes its operations with sound judgment and complete integrity. Further, based
upon the resources that have been entrusted to my care, I understand “financial
planning” as my responsibility to appropriately budget the expected revenues and
expenditures of the HOCC as part of an overall plan that ensures its financial stability.
Further I understand “fiscal year” as the time period beginning January 1 of each
calendar year and concluding with the last day of that same calendar year. I also
understand that once a financial plan has been submitted and agreed upon by the elder
group, I must not materially deviate from the plan during the fiscal year without
reasonable cause or due process of informing the elder group of my intentions. I further
understand that this policy requires the submission of a budget or financial plan that
ensures the elder group that the Ends priorities are upheld and that there be no
foreseeable financial jeopardy as part of the proposed budget and plan. Last, I
understand “multi-year plan” as a responsibility to prepare the budget and plan as part
of a three year projection that not only leads the HOCC towards financial maturity and
faithful stewardship but also appropriately forecasts the use of current assets while
maintaining a goal for the timely reduction (and eventual elimination) of debt.
The Elder Ends Policies (Policy 1.0) state that the Highland Oaks Church of Christ will be
a kingdom people who exist to love God and love people, at a cost that demonstrates
112
Christ-like stewardship of the resources provided by God. Accordingly, we will be a
people who
 Embrace God’s mission – The Front Yard - GO
 Cultivate servant hearts – The Kitchen - SERVE
 Experience authentic community – The Family Room – EAT
 Pursue the heart of God – The Spirit of the House - SHARE
These four phrases represent the Highland Oaks core values. These values have been
fashioned into a house metaphor, each value being assigned a “room” of a house. Each
week, these values are presented to the church to reinforce them as a guide toward our
vision of being disciples of Christ. Further, each of these values has been assigned a
verb to help encourage our church family to act on their faith as disciples of Jesus.
In preparing the 2016 budget, I ensured that each staff member and servant leader kept
these Ends/Core Values/House Rooms front and center in their planning. As an
example, with regard to pursuing God’s heart, the Elders’ Ends Policies state that we will
be a people who:
a. Actively practice spiritual disciplines
b. Exhibit the fruit of the spirit
c. Reflect God’s holiness in daily living
d. Assume the mind of Christ
Our plans and budgeting include activities and spending that intentionally summon our
people toward these ends and, collectively, the twelve key points in the other Ends. In
addition, I believe that each dollar we budget is an outgrowth of our desire to be more
intentional disciples. Discipleship will be the renewed shift and focus for our journey
ahead. One specific way this spending is evidenced is such things as: the continuation of
Rhesa Higgins as a part time Spiritual Formation Director to aid both staff and Directees
in their spiritual development; in allowing Sally Gary office space within HOCC to
catapult her Centerpeace ministry into the DFW Metroplex; the continual partnership
with Genesis Alliance and the subsequent global training that is executed from our
facility; the housing of Arms of Hope on our third floor and their joining with us for a few
Wednesday night meals; and in how money continues to provide spiritually forming
experiences in children (Christmas Play), students (retreats and camps) and adults.
I submit that the subsequent provisions comprehensively define this policy. My
interpretations and reports are presented below.
Accordingly, he shall not allow budgeting that:
POLICY PROVISION #1: Risks incurring those situations or conditions described as
unacceptable in the “Financial Condition and Activities” policy (2.4).
113
LEAD MINISTER’S INTERPRETATION: I understand this provision to mean that I must ensure
the elder group that in the budgeting process for the projected fiscal year I have
appropriately budgeted funds that adhere to the situations and conditions as required
in the provisions of the “Financial Condition and Activities” policy 2.4.
REPORT:
To ensure I remain in compliance with Elder Policy 2.4, I have chosen to lower the
expected weekly revenue from the congregation to $37,003 (compared to 2015’s
$37,912 weekly expected giving).
This level of giving is based on the following:
1. Our revenue and expense projections for 2015 indicate an average weekly giving of
$37,050 and expenditures near $36,500 per week.
2. The Resource Management Team recommended this reduction of 2.41% based on
our reduced attendance, projected giving for 2015 and the ability to keep ministry
funding nearly flat while finding reductions in areas of administration and business
management.
These factors have me choosing to live within our average weekly giving means and use
any surplus for blessing our church’s future rather than having to dip into our reserves
during the summer because our costs exceed our revenues until a “catch up” in
December.
This budget presumes a $13,000 annual accumulation of cash to bolster the established
sinking fund (which stands at $283,000) or to pay down debt.
Based on all the above, I am therefore reporting compliance.
POLICY PROVISION #2: “Omits credible projection of revenues and expenses, separation of
capital and operational items, monthly cash flow projections, and disclosure of planning
assumptions.”
LEAD MINISTER’S INTERPRETATION: I understand this provision to mean that in the
budgeting process for the projected fiscal year I must provide adequate proof of
credible projections regarding revenue and expenses. I understand that I must also
separate capital expenditures from operational expenditures in the budgeting process
while including the foreseeable costs in the proposed budget. I also understand that in
forecasting the budget for the fiscal year I must take into account the monthly cash flow
projections based upon our recent history of giving patterns and expenditures. Finally, I
understand this policy to mean that I must adequately disclose assumptions for the
upcoming year in the budgeting process.
114
REPORT: The average weekly giving for Highland Oaks Dallas over the last three years
from January to November is just over $37,000. Extraordinary December giving elevates
the average weekly amount by almost $3,000 per week, to $40,000. Based on our
current giving patterns, I am projecting flat year to year giving, which means this pattern
of extraordinary giving is likely to continue; however, as described above, I have chosen
to lower our budget to lessen the reliance on end of year giving to get us “caught up” at
year end.
Since I can only spend what is provided in a fiscal year (Policy 2.4.1), the 2016 budget
calls for expenditures that match giving, except for a cash accumulation of $13,000
annually. We have continually fought to reduce costs with every new or renewed
contract, as well as limit our spending in every possible area. Saving money in these
ways allows us to better budget in the facility area, which requires more and more funds
due to our aging buildings.
It can be seen from the budget that we have continued with capital lines in the areas
where necessary and do not mix capital with operational expenses. We have
established monthly cash flow projections that keep us within the limitations of Policy
2.4.3 and we have generated budgets for 2017 and 2018 that reflect the same values as
2016 with conservative increases of 3% per year on lines subject to inflation while
maintaining a $250 per week cash accumulation.
I am therefore reporting compliance.
POLICY PROVISION #3: “Provides less for elder prerogatives during the year than is set forth
in the “Cost of Oversight and Shepherding” policy (4.10).”
LEAD MINISTER’S INTERPRETATION: I understand this provision to mean that in the
budgeting process for the projected fiscal year I must include the incurred costs of the
elder group as it pertains to the “Cost of Oversight and Shepherding” (policy 4.10).
REPORT: The elder group has identified $4,350 as the amount needed to enable them
to oversee and shepherd effectively. The 2016 budget includes an allowance of $4,350
for this purpose. I am therefore reporting compliance.
POLICY PROVISION #4: “Fails to engage the Resource Management Team in meaningful
consultation in the budget process.”
LEAD MINISTER’S INTERPRETATION: I understand this provision to mean that I have a
responsibility to adequately consult the RMT (Resource Management Team) in
preparing the upcoming budget. I also understand this to mean that “consultation”
implies suggestion and foresight based upon their area of professional expertise. Thus, I
interpret this to mean that the RMT may not dictate the process of budget preparation
or have the authority to trump my judgment or prerogatives. Rather, they are to serve
as an advisory board in the budgeting process.
115
REPORT: As lead minister, I delegated the engagement of the RMT for the budgeting
process to then Executive Minister and now Minister of Church Development, Jon
Mullican. After this year, this responsibility will lie with the current Executive Minister,
Becky Burroughs. Jon and Becky met with the RMT and provided them with the
appropriate information so that appropriate budgeting for 2016 could proceed. The
RMT reviewed the proposed budget (including all revenues and expenses, monthly cash
flow projections, etc.) made appropriate suggestions and recommendations to the
proposed budget before its presentation to the elder group in October of 2015. I am
therefore reporting compliance.
POLICY PROVISION #5: “Has not been agreed upon by the elder group on an annual basis.”
LEAD MINISTER’S INTERPRETATION: I understand this to mean that the proposed budget for
the upcoming fiscal year must be agreed upon each year by the elder group. Further, I
understand this to imply that no assumptions are to be made by me or any other
minister based upon prior year’s approval. Ultimately, I understand this to mean that I
must present the proposed budget to the elder group in a manner that allows them
adequate time for review and process.
REPORT: As lead minister, I requested that Jon Mullican, Minister of Church
Development, and Becky Burroughs, Executive Minister, present the 2016 budget to the
elder group in October 2015. Becky, Jon and I will give the proposed budget to the elder
group on Tuesday, October 27th, and included, to the best of my knowledge, all the
above mentioned requirements and provisions. Thus, the 2016 budget will be submitted
to the elder group and await their agreement in a meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
October 27th, 2015. I am therefore reporting compliance.
116
APPENDIX B: A.I. INTERVIEW
Congregation: Highland Oaks Church of Christ
Investigator: Patrick H. Bills
MF
1234567+
F IS OS
W AfA AsA H NA Pl
0-2 3-4 5+
1. What do you love most about being a shepherd at Highland Oaks? What do you
consider to be some of the most exciting components of our Shepherding group?
2. As a Shepherd in a church, there are inevitably high points and low points, successes
and frustrations. What stands out for you as a high point when you were part of a
Shepherd group? If this is your first time as a Shepherd, what were some perceived high
points that encouraged you to desire this leadership task?
3. Not including my specific tenure here at Highland Oaks, name some characteristics of
a healthy relationship between an Elder group and preacher/Lead Minister. How might
you imagine the two “parties” experiencing spiritual growth and maturity?
4. Imagine the Highland Oaks Church of Christ ten years from now. Name some ways
the relationship between the preacher and Elder group has been sustained. Ten years
from now how would you imagine other churches would see our working relationship?
5. When you think of specific practices for the Shepherd group and preacher to utilize
for their work together, what comes to mind as having the most positive impact?
How might Paul’s invitation from Philippians: “Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy
of the gospel” serve as a framework for our spiritual vitality?
6. What small changes could we make right now that would really encourage our
leadership team to get engaged with improving our working relationship?
____________ I hereby give consent for my responses to be used for Patrick H Bills’ final
Doctor of Ministry research project. I understand that all of my responses will be
completely anonymous.
APPENDIX C: PHILIPPIANS PAPER
Philippians 1:27 – 2:4: A Missional Text for Dwelling in the Word.
I believe Paul’s letter to the Philippian church is particularly instructive for church
leaders. In particular, Paul addresses conflict within a young church family while making
a strong appeal to behave as they work though the conflict. The most apparent cue is the
encouragement to “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ”
(1:27). At a cursory glance, this appeal seems logical and forthright- the believers in
Philippi should live out their lives in harmony with the message of the gospel!151 But,
what does it mean to live in such a “manner”? In other words, what does gospel behavior
look like? This is the driving question for Paul’s ethical appeal.
An overall reading of Philippians shows that Paul was writing for a specific
occasion. Although difficult to completely reconstruct the exact situation of the
Philippian community, there is ample evidence the believers were experiencing some
degree of inner turmoil.152 Initially, Paul writes how the believers need to “stand firm in
one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel” (1:28). Paul also instructs
the converts to be “one in spirit and purpose” and to “do everything without complaining
or arguing” (2:2, 14). Perhaps the most obvious indication of strife within the community
Interestingly, Hawthorne notes that verse 27 begins with the adverb monon which he translates, “only
and always.” He stresses the use of this word because it indicates that Paul is stressing the “one essential
thing for the Christian is to live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” See Gerald Hawthorne,
Philippians, in Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glen W. Barker (Waco: Word,
1983), 55.
152
I disagree with Marshall’s notion that “all attempts to isolate a specific problem in Philippi are vague.”
See J. Marshall, “Paul’s Ethical Appeal in Philippians,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from
the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of
the New Testament: Supplemental Series, vol. 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 361.
Although it is problematic to know exact details of the struggle in Philippi, it appears that we have specific
names of those in the church, unambiguous instruction for the problem, and a detailed attempt to instruct
the community to “get along”. Though we may not know specific details of the problem(s), the issues are
certainly not vague.
151
117
118
is Paul’s plea to Euodia and Synteche to “agree with each other in the Lord” (4:2).
Though unclear who these women were, it is obvious that they were fellow workers with
Paul and he cared deeply about their influence on the Christians in Philippi.153 Although
difficult to completely reconstruct the exact situation of the Philippian community, there
is ample evidence the believers were experiencing some degree of inner turmoil.154 But
how does Paul urge them to address the conflict? Before I examine how Paul addresses
the conflict, it is noteworthy how Paul chooses to enter the conversation. In other words,
before Paul gives instruction he establishes a relational connection.
Though much of Paul’s other writing indicates a special bond with his converts, I
believe there is a deep friendship with the church in Philippi.155 In no other letter does
Paul use the Greek prefix suv (together) more in his writing.156 By consistently using a
word like “together” Paul is illuminating a unique companionship with the Philippian
church. He even thanks them in the opening of the correspondence for their “partnership
in the gospel” (1:5) while portraying them as “dear friends” (2:12) and his “joy and
crown” (4:12). Further, Paul affectionately notes how he “holds them in his heart” (1:7)
Fee notes that “apart from the greeting and occasional mention of fellow workers, Paul rarely mentions
anyone by name.” Fee goes on to say that Paul mentions Euodia and Synteche by name as a sign of
friendship and concern. G. Fee, Philippians, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R.
Osbourne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 167.
154
I disagree with Marshall’s notion that “all attempts to isolate a specific problem in Philippi are vague.”
See J. Marshall, “Paul’s Ethical Appeal In Philippians.” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from
the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of
the New Testament: Supplemental Series, vol. 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 361.
Although it is problematic to know exact details of the struggle in Philippi, it appears that we have specific
names of those in the church, unambiguous instruction for the problem, and a detailed attempt to instruct
the community to “get along”. Though we may not know specific details of the problem(s), the issues are
certainly not vague.
155
I am thinking specifically of such passages as I Thessalonians 2:7 when Paul compares his care to a
nursing mother or the multiple references at the conclusion of his letters to “greet” his friends and
companions.
156
P. Sampley, “Reasoning form the Horizon’s of Paul’s Thought World: A Comparison of Galatians and
Philippians,” In Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul
Furnish, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. and Jerry L. Sumney (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 121.
153
119
while the converts are “rejoicing with him” and “sharing in the progress of their faith”
(1:25). Finally, Paul invites the Philippian church to not only befriend him but to share in
the “koinonia of his sufferings” (3:10).157 Additionally, Paul uses strong rhetorical
language in his communication. For example, at the beginning of chapter two, Paul
repeatedly uses the word “if” (2:1-4). Craddock notes that when we use the word “if,” it
often carries a connotation of “uncertainty or a condition contrary to fact.”158 However,
Paul uses “if” as a rhetorical tool to affirm the Philippians’ faith. Thus, a more plausible
reading would be “since there is encouragement, comfort from his love, fellowship with
the spirit, and tenderness and compassion.” Hence Paul’s appeal is based both on his
friendship and the common blessings shared in Christ.159 From these few examples it is
clear that Paul is writing alongside of them rather than over them! Even more, Paul is
leading in such a way that communicates a desire for relationship and even friendship.
Based upon this relational connection, how does Paul instruct the Philippian church to
behave?
Paul instructs the Philippians in 1:27 to “live your life in a manner worthy of the
gospel of Christ.” It is important to note first that verses 27 – 30 constitute only one
sentence in the Greek containing one verb: politeuesthe. This verb is only used twice in
the New Testament (1:27 and Acts 23:1) and usually carries the meaning to “live out
one’s life.” Originally the verb carried a deeper meaning that signaled one to live out
Koinonia or fellowship is a rich New Testament word. Martin notes that the word “basically denotes a
participation in something with someone and its meaning is that Christians share with one another in a
common possession of Christ.” R. Martin, The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and
Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 48.
158
See Craddock, Philippians, Interpretation, ed. James Mays, (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 35.
159
See See Thielman, Philippians, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995), 96.
157
120
their life “as a citizen of the state” or to “take an active part in the affairs of the state.”160
By using this word for the Philippians, I believe Paul is stressing a deeper meaning. The
believers are exhorted to live out their lives within the city-state or polis. 161 So Paul’s
appeal to behave in a “manner worthy of the gospel” is in direct contrast to living within
the ideals and worldview of the Roman city-state. The believers must behave as good
citizens of Philippi as they are citizens of a greater kingdom – the kingdom of heaven. I
cannot help but imagine Paul thinking of Jesus’ conversation about leadership with his
disciples in the gospel of Mark:
You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and
whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not
come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Thus, Paul urges the Philippians to behave and live according to the story and
mission of Jesus.162 As Fred Craddock writes, it is “incumbent on them to live among the
people and institutions of Philippi in a way that is informed and disciplined by the gospel
of Christ.” 163
Moreover, in order to live as kingdom participants, Paul writes that they must
“stand firm in one spirit contending as one man for the faith of the gospel” (1:27).164
160
See Moises Silva, Philippians, second edition, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 88, Gerald
Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glen W. Barker (Waco:
Word, 1983), 55, and F.W. Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries,
ed. Henry Chadwick (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1959), 66 for a general consensus on the use of
politeuesthe. Silva in particular offers heavy background in noting Philo, Diognetus, and Clement.
161
Beare notes that the polis was not just a place for humans to live. Rather the Greek polis was “the
theatre of activity of every kind in which the individual citizen found scope for the use of all his gifts. It
was the highest of all fellowships and associations.” F.W. Beare, The Epistle to the Philippians, Harper’s
New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1959), 67.
162
See Thielman, Philippians, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995), 93.
163
See Craddock, Philippians, Interpretation, ed James Mays (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 33.
164
It is problematic to know what Paul means by “spirit.” Is he referring to the Holy Spirit or the human
spirit? It does not fit the purposes of this paper to detail the supposed meaning. However, Hawthorne
121
What did Paul mean by “standing” and “contending?” Interestingly, “to stand” conveys
the image of “unflinching courage” by soldiers who are fighting in the midst of an intense
battle who refuse to leave their posts.165 In addition, the believers are to “contend” as one
man/person or “struggle alongside of one another.” Here, Paul makes a subtle shift away
from military imagery to an image of athletes who compete together as a team.166 Thus,
for Paul it is imperative for the Philippians to live out their gospel lives corporately or
together. Thus for Paul, there is no individual faith or solitary leader in the church, there
is simply the appeal to sort out the problem together. Therefore, they must be of “one
spirit, one soul, contending together.” Paul is emphasizing that the strife of the individual
citizen must be encountered within the larger framework of the community of faith. 167
So, these particular expressions of Paul serve as a dutiful reminder that as Christfollowers when they find themselves in the midst of a battle, Christ urges them toward a
united front as the best strategy for victory.
In sum, Paul demonstrates a unique pastoral relationship with the church in
Philippi. Even more, Paul is engaging a particular conflict out of shared partnership
rather than as rigid overseer or dictator. Thus, Paul is leading the Philippians to handle
their conflict first out of a deep relational trust with the Philippian community. So Paul’s
role as a leader within the Philippian community is best characterized by spiritual
offers a brief discussion of Paul’s meaning with several footnotes for additional study. Hawthorne,
Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glen W. Barker (Waco: Word, 1983),
55-56.
165
Ibid., 56.
166
Hawthorne makes the striking observation that the term “to contend” is a rare word in the New
Testament and in classical Greek. He notes that Paul uses these images to strongly convey the message that
they must exist as a common unit struggling towards one end or goal. Ibid., 57.
167
Silva notes that Paul’s command is made even more forceful by the chiastic pattern in the Greek. See
Moises Silva, Philippians, second edition. In BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 82.
122
friendship.168 Out of this spiritual friendship Paul is able to offer a way to work out their
problems in light of their commitment to the gospel story. Ultimately I want to suggest
the Philippian letter offers a model for Elders and preachers to not only build spiritual
friendship with the church but one another as well. Even more, if Elders and preachers
are tasked with managing conflict, should their own behavior not be lived out “in a
manner worthy of the gospel?” Should they not work as “one spirit and one soul”
contending together as they lead the church into the mission of God?
Interestingly, scholarship has debated as to whether or not Philippians is classified as a “friendly letter”.
Fitzgerald notes that the characteristics of a friendly letter consist of a vocabulary of “gratitude, affection,
recollection of past experiences, anticipation of seeing again, expressions of yearning for friends, and the
offering of advice for current situations.” See J. Fitzgerald, “Philippians, Epistle to The,” In The Anchor
Bible Dictionary, ed. David Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:320. It is obvious to me that
Philippians contains the features of a “friendly letter” and proves how deep Paul’s relationship was with the
believers.
168
APPENDIX D: PHILIPPIANS CURRICULUM
Section 1
Pre Study: The Occasion and Context Matters
As we begin our study together, refresh your memory of Paul’s experience as a
missionary in Philippi as recorded in Acts 16. Though the story may be familiar, read the
following passages and consider the following questions:
Read Acts 16:9-40
 Did you notice anything you had forgotten about Paul’s journey to Philippi?
 Luke records that Philippi was “a leading city of the district and a Roman colony”
(Acts 16:12), what might this detail tell us about Philippi the city and the type of
people Paul might encounter?
 Luke seems to indicate the importance of “Roman citizenship” in this particular
occasion. Why do you think Roman citizenship is integral to the telling of this
story?
When you think of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, you might think of a theme like “joy or
rejoicing.” Consider the following sound bytes:




“What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether
out of false motives or true; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue
to rejoice…” (1:18)
“… and in the same way you also must be glad and rejoice with me.” (2:18)
“Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to
you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard.” (3:1)
“Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.” (4:4)
But Philippians is also full of other wonderful instructions. Consider some other (famous)
sound bytes:
 “For to me, living is Christ and to die is gain.” (1:21)
 “Make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full
accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in
humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your
own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was
in Christ Jesus.” (2:2-5)
 “I want to know Chris and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his
sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the
resurrection from the dead.” (3:10-11)
 “But this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to
what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of
God in Christ Jesus.” (3:13-14)
123
124

“I know what it is to have little, and I know what it is to have plenty. In any and
all circumstances I have learned the secret of being well-fed and of going hungry,
of having plenty and of being in need. I can do all things through him who
strengthens me.” (4:12-13)
With all of these powerful words of scripture, how could we learn why Paul wrote these
instructions?
Do you think we ought to take each verse individually or are there greater themes that
provide a framework for understanding “the parts in light of the whole?”
Pray for our study together. I look forward to “dwelling – digging – and discerning” with
you all!
Lesson 1: Philippians: The Occasion and Context Matters
Let’s begin with the following prayer:
“Gracious God, as we come together alongside this ancient text. May we be
reminded of the power in these God-breathed words. These words O God have
stood the test of time, been an encouragement to generation of faithful
witnesses, and contain truths that are meant to form us into your very image.
So breathe deeply into us as we receive them. May we be open to your word
coming alive in us and among us; words of life, words of comfort, words of
instruction. And words of Spirit-formation. Amen.
I. Dwelling in the Word
Simply put, dwelling in the word is a way to read Scripture. And the way proposed in
this study invites us to consider how the text in Philippians might serve “God’s action or
intentions in the world.”169 And as God’s text comes to us in this text, the invitation is for
Scripture to speak afresh, in the midst of our diversity and unique hearing, and invite us
to hear God through one another as we receive the text.
The format we will use is as follows:170
1. Start with some silence, inviting the Spirit to guide your attending to the Word of God.
2. Turn to the specific text for our study: Philippians 1:27 – 2:4.
3. I will read the passage aloud to the group and then allow some silence to unfold as
people let the words have their impact.
169
This methodology or “hermeneutical shift” was introduced to me by Pat Keifert and Mark Love
during the DMin class, “Missional Theology.” Love draws insight from such authors as Christopher J.
H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2006) and writes, “I am proposing a hermeneutical shift that does not begin with the
relationship of the reader and the text but instead with the relationship between God and the biblical
texts.” See Mark Love in Missio Dei 5, no. 1 (February 2014).
170 This format is adapted from Pat Taylor Ellison and Patrick Keifert, Dwelling in the Word: A Pocket
Handbook (Robbinsdale, MN: Church Innovations, 2011).
125
4. Next, I will invite the following:
 Turn to a person next to you and “listen that person into free speech” as he or she
tells you what they heard in the passage. Listen that person by answering one of
two questions: 1) What captured your imagination? or 2)What question would
you like to ask of this text?
 Listen well, because your job will be to report to the rest of the group what your
partner has said, not what you yourself said.
5. After about 6-8 minutes, I will draw the group back together and ask for you to share
what you have learned from your partners.
6. Finally we will wrestle together as a group and ask, “What might God might be up to
in the passage for us today?”
So as we begin, listen to the text from Philippians:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of
Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as
one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that
you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf
of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if
any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like
minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing
out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above
yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
the others.
(Steps 3-6)
II. Digging in the Word
When someone writes a note, email, or message they have a particular reason for writing.
I recall fondly the hand-written letters I often received from my grandmother. Though the
challenge to decipher her scribble grew as she aged, I soaked in every word of news and
encouragement. We’ve lost a bit of this “ancient” form of communication. Perhaps it is
because we live in such a fast-paced world and the access to information is immediate. Or
maybe it is because we simply cannot find the time to sit down, with pen and paper, and
handwrite a note. Whatever the case, it is imperative to remember that in Paul’s day, the
1st century, letter writing was a primary way of communicating. And every word written
was read aloud and received with eager anticipation.
Paul’s letter to the church in Philippi is one of the most endearing letters in the New
Testament. It is filled with favorite scriptures that bring encouragement to those
experiencing suffering and trials. A cursory reading allows one to see Paul writing,
126
(seemingly) from prison, to encourage rejoicing. Consider the following sound bytes
from the letter:
“What does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way, whether out of
false motives or true; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice…”
Philippians 1:18
“… and in the same way you also must be glad and rejoice with me.” Philippians 2:18
“Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is
not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard.” Philippians 3:1
“Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice.” Philippians 4:4
But I would like to extend a caution for reading Philippians through a simple “assumed”
lens of joy. Rather, there is a more intentional context or occasion for this letter that I
believe is instructive for its purpose and meaning. One commentator writes, “Paul’s letter
reveals that he was concerned about three problems in the church in Philippi: disunity,
suffering, and opponents.”171 I would like for us to focus on the first of these “problems”
–disunity.
Consider these “other” texts from Philippians what might be implied:
“Stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends! I plead with Euodia and I plead with
Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord.” 4:2
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others
above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the
others.” 2:3-4
“Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and
pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will
shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life.” 2:14-15
Based upon these words, it is clear that Paul is urging the church to “get along” in the
midst of conflict or tension. But what is the tension? What is the conflict? We don’t
know! And yet, it frames the way we read Philippians if we understand that part of Paul’s
intention was to urge the church towards a particular behavior with one another. And the
behavior went beyond a plea to be “joyful in the midst of hard times.” It was, according
to our key text, an encouragement to “stand firm” and “look out for others interests.”
Can we name some potential areas of “conflict” or “tension” our faith community
has experienced in the last few years that would invite a similar appeal?
171
G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, Pillar New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009).
127
Has the leadership struggled with similar tensions?
More specifically Paul urges the church to “conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the
gospel of Christ.” Interestingly, the Greek verb “conduct yourselves” (politeueshthe)
could be interpreted as “live as citizens.” In other words, Paul was not simply inviting the
church to get along because “that is what good Christian people do.” Rather, Paul is
reminding them of a particular way to behave in light of their citizenship as Christians
who live as citizens in Rome.172 One writer translates the verse this way: “The one thing I
stress is that your public behavior must match up to the gospel of the King.”173 Thus,
there is danger in the public witness of the gospel being jeopardized by the church’s
behavior with one another. Even more, when Paul writes in 2:15 for the church “to shine
like stars in the world” among “a crooked and perverse generation” I would suggest Paul
is proposing a particular behavior as Christian citizens who live in a Roman colony. This
is further evidenced by Luke’s description of Paul’s initial visit to Philippi in Acts 16. Do
you recall the number of times Luke mentions the word “citizen” and its importance to
the establishment of the church? It is noteworthy to explore what life might have been
like in such a Roman world. In particular, what was life like as a citizen of Philippi?
Consider this description of life in Rome. Follow along with me and underline some
things you see as significant:
The first point to grasp is the character of the spell exercised over the minds
of men by the very name of Rome during the period of the early Caesars. Rome
in the first century of our era occupied a position of influence unique in the
annals of history. It had become the magnetic center of the civilized world, and
it was itself the most cosmopolitan of cities that have ever existed. The Rome of
Claudius and of Nero was the seat of an absolute and centralized Government,
whose vast dominion stretched from the shores of the Atlantic to the borders of
Parthia, from Britain to the Libyan deserts, over diverse lands and many races,
all of them subdued after centuries of conflict and of conquest by the Roman
arms, but now forming a single empire under an administrative system of
unrivalled flexibility and strength, which enforced obedience to law and the
maintenance of peace without any unnecessary infringement of local liberties
or interference with national religious cults. One of the most remarkable
features of this great Empire was the freedom of intercourse that was enjoyed,
and the safety and rapidity with which travelling could be undertaken. Never
until quite modern times has any such ease and security of communication
between place and place been possible. And this not merely by those admirable
military roads which were one of the chief instruments for the maintenance of
the Roman rule and for the binding together of province with province and of
the most distant frontiers with the capital; the facilities for intercourse by water
also were abundant and were, except during the winter months, freely
used. The
Roman Empire, as a glance at the map reveals, was—even at its zenith—essentially a
172
Moises Silva gives a detailed argument of this position while noting other scholars (Hendrickson, 1962
and Schenk, 1984) in Philippians, Baker Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Press, 2005).
173
NT Wright in Paul for Everyone, The Prison Letters (Louisville: Westminister, 2004).
128
Mediterranean power. Its dominion consisted mainly of
the fringe of territory
174
encircling that sea.
In addition, it is worth noting that Phlippi was a town on a key “interstate” or road of
Rome. In other words, the city received regular visits from travellers and was well-known
for its reputation as a key Roman colony. It was comprised of retired military veterans.
The name of the city is derived from Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the
Great.
Based upon this description of life in Rome and, in particular, life in Philippi, it is
understandable that being a Christian citizen of Rome could have its difficulties.
What are some comparisons you could draw between 1st Century Rome and our world
and time?
In conclusion, Paul does not want disunity in the church to become a hindrance to the
“confirmation of the gospel” (1:7). The plea is for the church to “conduct themselves” so
their witness might shine for the world to see. Thus, an occasion for Paul’s writing is
certainly to encourage the church to “get along.” In particular, the encouragement is for
the church to “stand firm in one spirit” while “looking out for each other’s interests.”
III. Discerning the Word
This study is helpful to the extent that it moves us, as leaders, into a time of discernment.
What might the Spirit of God be confirming in us as we have studied together?
Based upon our shared study this evening, how might the occasion and context of
Philippians be instructive for us as leaders at the HOCC?
If Paul were to write a letter to the leadership of HOCC, what might he include? Why?
Our next study will focus specifically on the word “gospel.” If we are going to embrace
Paul’s encouragement to “live in a manner worthy of the gospel,’” it is helpful to
understand what Paul means by “gospel.” Be looking for additional “pre-study” material
on this topic.
Pray to Close
174
Taken from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.iv.html accessed 12.8.15
129
Section 2
Pre-Study: Paul and the “Gospel”- Part 1
As you begin take some time reflecting back on the following points derived together
from our shared study and dwelling in the word:

When reading a letter like Philippians, context matters. The context for
Philippians is more than a letter of “joy.” Rather, Paul is giving instruction for a
church context deeply embedded in the world of Rome. The kingdom of Caesar
defines the Roman world and all citizens are expected to give allegiance to Caesar
as Lord and King.

Paul seems to be writing to a community in conflict. Based upon several key
passages, it is plausible the Christian community is struggling to get along. Thus,
our framing verse “to conduct yourself in a manner worthy of the gospel” is
rooted in the apparent tension and conflict of the Christian community.

Because the Christian community has been invited to live first as citizens of
“heaven” and not as citizens of “Rome,” there is something publically at stake
when their behavior is in disarray. When Paul writes to “conduct yourselves,” the
root Greek word for conduct is also the word for the Roman “polis” or “city.”
Thus, I suggested that Paul was inviting a particular behavior in light of an
invitation to consider how their conduct as Christians impacted their witness in
the community.

We concluded there were definite similarities between the Roman world and our
present conditions. Though we live in a free country and enjoy many privileges,
there remains a realized tension as citizens of our country yet remain true to our
witnesses as citizens of heaven. Thus, when we experience conflict as a
community at HOCC we must keep in mind how our “conduct” bears witness to
the world around us.
This study will focus primarily on what Paul means when he uses a word like “gospel.”
As you know, our focus of our study is rooted in Paul’s invitation from Philippians 1:27
to “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel.” In preparation, write your own
definition of the word gospel:
How did you decide what to include in your definition of the word gospel?
Did certain scriptures come to mind? Paul mentions the word “gospel” over 70 times in
his letters. Consider the following sound bytes from other letters of Paul when he
mentions “gospel.”
Make a note of what you think Paul is saying about the gospel from these passages:
130
Romans 1:1-2
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of
God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures…
Romans 1:16-17
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation
to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the
righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as
it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
I Corinthians 9:16-17
For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me
if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I
am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that
in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my
rights as a preacher of the gospel.
I Corinthians 15:1-2
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which
you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if
you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
Galatians 1:6-8
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the
grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.
Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the
gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other
than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already
said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you
accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
I Thessalonians 2:7-9
Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, so we cared for you. Because we loved
you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our
lives as well. Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we
worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the
gospel of God to you.
Based on these few passages, is it safe to assume that when Paul uses a word like
“gospel” he could mean different things?! In other words, I want to caution us as we
study and embody this call to “gospeled conduct” in Philippians: understanding what
Paul means by “gospel” is imperative to understanding gospel conduct!
And so, as you reflect on your own personal study and some of the above-mentioned
notes, write down those things you think are most important as we consider the meaning
of the word gospel:
131
Here are a few of my personal considerations as we prepare:

The gospel is something that started before Jesus. It is a continuation of the
ongoing good news of God. Thus, to understand gospel one must understand the
story of Israel as it is resolved in the story of Jesus.

Gospel is rooted in an understanding of “news.” In other words, before the gospel
was good it was simply news- the reality that something happened – an event
occurred – that was worth reporting and embodying.

The gospel is always rooted in the identity of a person. Thus, the gospel is more
than a set of facts and truths to believe as “true.” The gospel is an invitation to
live a particular way. The gospel is the unwavering conviction that if Jesus as
Messiah is good news, then that “news” places a certain demand on our life.

If the gospel is rooted in the person and work of Christ, then the death and
resurrection must be its anchor. So, as we live into the gospel we are framed by
these two realities. However, we cannot reduce the gospel to simply the
“forgiveness of sins.” The gospel is not just deliverance from but deliverance into
a way of life.
I look forward to our study together on Tuesday evening. Come prepared to “dwell in the
word” so we may learn from each other through a common sharing of the word. Also,
come prepared to share your thoughts on the word “gospel.”
Lesson 2: Paul and the Gospel: Part 1
Let’s begin with the following prayer:
“Gracious God, as we come together alongside this ancient text. May we be
reminded of the power in these God-breathed words. These words O God have
stood the test of time, been an encouragement to generation of faithful
witnesses, and contain truths that are meant to form us into your very image.
So breathe deeply into us as we receive them. May we be open to your word
coming alive in us and among us; words of life, words of comfort, words of
instruction. And words of Spirit-formation. Amen.
I. Dwelling in the Word
As we begin, let’s listen to our text from Philippians together:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of
Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as
one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that
132
you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf
of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if
any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like
minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing
out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above
yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
the others.
Please report to the group what you heard the person next to you say:
What were you drawn to in the text?
What question(s) do you have for the text?
II. Digging in the Word
Our study this evening will explore what Paul means when he uses a word like “gospel.”
To begin, I am curious from your pre-study material. Let’s spend a few moments hearing
from one another’s response to this question:
How did you define the word gospel?
It is safe to assume that understanding how we use words matters. Although children
make us laugh when they misuse words or place them out of context, it is dangerous in
exploring the story of scripture to assume everyone has a common understanding of a
particular word or notion. This is certainly the case with a word like “gospel.”
Take for example my earliest introduction to the word gospel. In my earliest church
experience, the gospel was something to be “obeyed.” We even characterized conversion
and baptism by declaring that someone had chosen to “obey the gospel.” Our heritage in
Churches of Christ is peppered with large “tent meetings” upon which a preacher would
be invited to speak for several nights. We called these gatherings “gospel meetings.”
Even more, preachers were not simply men who occupied a pulpit on Sunday mornings
or evenings. A much loftier “spiritual” title was to refer to preachers as “Gospel
Preachers.” So with all this baggage how are we to understand a word like gospel?
The great poet and preacher Frederick Buechner writes in his book, Telling the Truth:
The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale, “Before the gospel was ever good news
it was simply news… something had happened.”175 In other words, I think Buechner is
inviting us to understand gospel as an event of something that happened. And the
“something” that happened, for Paul at least, tells a particular story about the work of
God in the world of the 1st century. So when Paul uses a word like gospel it is more than
a description of who he is as a pastor or preacher. The gospel is more than a description
of a meeting by the river in Philippi. And the gospel is even more than a set of truths to
175
Frederick Buechner, Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Comedy, Tragedy, and Fairy Tale (San Francisco:
Harper Collins, 1977), 10.
133
believe. The gospel, according to Paul, is the declaration that something had happened
and the world, as God imagined, will never be the same.
I think we can all agree the gospel tells a particular story about what God has done in
Christ. But how this story is told (and heard!) depends on how we understand the
meaning of gospel. Take for example this excerpt from author Lee Camp:
Gospel preaching sometimes goes this way, the holy Creator God set forth a
holy law, which that God demands we keep. In rebellion, we transgressed God’s
law and now deserve death. In his mercy, though, God gave his own son in our place,
so we don’t have to die. If we believe this “good news” then we
can be saved from
hell and go to heaven. Thus, you must decide: what will
your fate be when you die?176
Though this story-line is a way to understand the gospel there are several difficulties
within this telling. I want to suggest this isolated understanding of gospel, which I have
found many in our churches believe, can and does truncate the meaning of Paul’s gospel.
In other words, if gospel is reduced to a transaction between God and me so I do not have
to experience “eternal punishment,” something about the scope of God’s whole story has
been lost. Let me offer a few considerations for us as we seek to understand what Paul
meant by gospel.
I believe there are several passages we could unpack in order to understand Paul’s use of
“gospel.” Yet I do not think Philippians is the best place to begin. I would like to explore
a more “famous” passage of Paul in discussing the word gospel. I believe that Paul’s
declaration in I Corinthians 15 could serve as a Paul’s thesis statement for gospel. This
passage is instructive on many levels (and we could spend several weeks here in 1
Corinthians 15!), but I would like to present five observations I have learned about
Paul’s “gospel” from these pivotal words:177
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to
you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel
you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
Otherwise, you have
believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ
died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on
the third day according
to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then
to the Twelve.
1. Gospel is at the core of Paul’s relational connection to the Corinthians
Though this may be implied it must not be undersold. Paul is clear from the outset of
these verses that the gospel is not only what has been preached to the church but what has
invited the church to “take a stand.” It is important to note the Greek word for gospel is
euangellion. And the meaning of this word, in the 1st century, was to declare something
176
Lee Camp, Mere Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003), 59.
Though the following thoughts are my own, I am indebted to Scot McKnight and his book The King
Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2011) for providing a helpful
framework and map for I Corinthians 15.
177
134
good to someone that had happened. So Paul is reminding the Corinthians of this good
news that has connected the church to him. For Paul, the gospel not only saves and
sustains but is the point of relational connection with the church. Simply put, for Paul he
could not conceive a relationship with the church apart from gospel- perhaps this is why
it is of “first importance?”
2. Gospel is, at its core, something that is rooted in experience.
Paul says clearly that the gospel was received in two ways: by the Corinthians from him
and by him (Paul) from someone else. When something is received it is fair to raise the
question: “From whom?” Perhaps it is good to pause and remind ourselves that Paul did
not invent these claims about the gospel. Rather, the gospel Paul “passed on to the
Corinthians” was received as an authentic representation of Jesus and his “appearance to
Cephas and the twelve.” Did not Paul also “receive” the gospel through a light that
rendered him blind for 3 days (Acts 9)? Thus, the gospel Paul was declaring did not
originate with Paul but was an extension of what God had revealed first to the apostles
and now to Paul.
3. Gospel is a story of the main events in the life of Jesus.
The gospel that Paul received and passed on is captured in the following events: that
Christ died, was buried, was raised, and that Christ appeared. The gospel is thus the
telling of how these crucial events in the life of Jesus matter as “first importance.” In
other words, if the root meaning of the word gospel is the announcement of “good news”
then the good news worth declaring is the news about the life of Jesus. More simply, the
gospel is (and has always been) about a person more than a set of truths to believe. To
state it another way, the gospel is a “who” before it is a “what” or “how.”
4. Gospel is connected to a larger story in scripture.
Twice Paul notes how the main events in the life of Jesus were “according to the
scriptures.” Which scriptures? What Paul is saying, rather directly, is the story of Jesus is
located within a larger story or framework. Paul is referencing his Old Testament when
he refers to Jesus! And this changes the way we ought to think about gospel. The gospel
was never intended to be an isolated string of events that took place in the first century.
Rather, I would suggest that Jesus was the fulfillment of the whole story of scripture. In
this, the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and appearing of Jesus are confirmations
of all the promises God has made in scripture. Perhaps Paul said it best in 2 Corinthians
1:18-19: “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me
and Silas and Timothy—was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been
“Yes.” For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And
so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.” The gospel is God’s
great “Yes!” to us in the person and work of Christ.
5. Gospel is the story of salvation.
Though I pushed against the notion of the gospel being reduced to “salvation from eternal
punishment,” it is certainly clear that “saved” means something significant. I think a clear
move Paul makes in developing this thought is in a few verses later. I Corinthians 15: 2022 says, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who
135
have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the
dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made
alive.” I would like to suggest that Paul is not arguing for eternal life as much as he is
highlighting the significance of the “saving” work of Christ from our old selves and the
old law. Where under the Old law appropriate sacrifices had to be made, Christ has done
away with those sacrifices and made himself available for what we could never do on our
own. Thus the saving work of Christ was not just deliverance from something but also
into a gospel way of living. The “end” game for “saving us” is not a simple guarantee for
a future life but a way to live life now.
Two questions for your consideration:
If these five points from I Corinthians 15, which is most challenging for you?
Which of these five is the least understood by those in our churches?
In conclusion, when Paul writes to the church in Philippi to “conduct themselves in a
manner worthy of the gospel,” he is making a particular claim about the gospel. As I have
lived in Churches of Christ for almost 40 years, I can say with confidence most
understand gospel to be rooted solely in a personal salvation experience. Though Paul
had a “personal” experience of the gospel on the Damascus road, the word does not exist
in an isolated vacuum guaranteeing individual outcomes in the 21st century. Gospel is a
dynamic word filled with vitality and movement that frames the entire story of scripture.
III. Discerning the Word
This study is helpful to the extent that it moves us, as leaders, into a time of discernment.
What might the Spirit of God be confirming in us as we have studied together?
Based upon our shared study this evening, how might this understanding of gospel be
instructive for us as leaders at the HOCC?
If Paul were to write to us and “remind us of the gospel he preached to us,” what might
he say?
Our next study will be a “part 2” on the word gospel. Though 1 Corinthians 15 serves as
a helpful framework for gospel, I would like to dive deeper into the world of the
Philippian church and how gospel invited a particular way of living in that time and
place. I look forward to our study!
Pray to Close
136
Section 3
Pre-Study: Paul and the “Gospel”- Part 2
As you begin take some time reflecting back on the following points derived together
from our shared study and dwelling in the word:
Study 1:
 When reading a letter like Philippians, context matters.
 Paul seems to be writing to a community in conflict.
 Because the Christian community has been invited to live first as citizens of
“heaven” and not as citizens of “Rome,” there is something publically at stake
when their behavior is in disarray.
 We concluded there were definite similarities between the Roman world and our
present conditions.
Study 2:
 The word “gospel” has multiple meanings. The way we understand gospel is
influenced by our past and present “church” experiences. Thus, it is important to
try and understand what Paul meant by gospel.

Paul seemed to characterize “gospel” in many ways. In other words, gospel for
Paul was not just limited to “a belief statement that saves you” or a classification
for “preaching.” Gospel, for Paul, was a rich word pregnant with implications.

I Corinthians 15 gives us a wonderful starting place for understanding what Paul
said about “gospel.” Here are five ways to understand Paul’s gospel from I
Corinthians 15:
1. Gospel is at the core of Paul’s relational connection to the
Corinthians.
2. Gospel is something that is rooted in personal experience.
3. Gospel is a story of the main events in the life of Jesus.
4. Gospel is connected to a larger story in scripture.
5. Gospel is the story of salvation.
For this next study I would like to explore in a more intentional way how gospel
functioned in Paul’s letter to the Philippians. Paul uses the word “gospel” 8 times in the
Philippian letter. Listed below are the specific references.
Based upon the “5 ways to understand Paul’s gospel” from the last study, what
number would you place by each verse? In other words, how might you understand
Paul’s use of the word gospel from these individual verses?
Philippians 1:5
because of your sharing in the gospel from the first day until now.
137
Philippians 1:7
It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because you hold me in your heart, for
all of you share in God’s grace with me, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and
confirmation of the gospel.
Philippians 1:12
I want you to know, beloved, that what has happened to me has actually helped to spread
the gospel,
Philippians 1:16
These proclaim Christ out of love, knowing that I have been put here for the defense of
the gospel;
Philippians 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come
and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in
one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel,
Philippians 2:22
But Timothy’s worth you know, how like a son with a father he has served with me in the
work of the gospel.
Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled
beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are in the book of life.
Philippians 4:15
You Philippians indeed know that in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia,
no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone.
Isn’t it fascinating to notice how Paul used gospel? Overall, here is what I would like for
you to consider as we gather tomorrow evening:
When Paul uses “gospel” for the church in Philippi, he is summoning the
community to more than an assent to an intellectual belief of God’s work in
Christ. The gospel is a conviction that must be practiced. For Paul and the
Philippian church, gospel was a way of characterizing life together as the church.
And gospeled life together was full participation in the ongoing mission of God.
Lesson 3: Paul and the Gospel: Part 2
Let’s begin with the following prayer:
Gracious God, as we come together alongside this ancient text. May we be
reminded of the power in these God-breathed words. These words O God have
138
stood the test of time, been an encouragement to generation of faithful
witnesses, and contain truths that are meant to form us into your very image.
So breathe deeply into us as we receive them. May we be open to your word
coming alive in us and among us; words of life, words of comfort, words of
instruction. And words of Spirit-formation. Amen.
I. Dwelling in the Word
As we discussed last time, Dwelling in the Word is a way to read Scripture. And the way
proposed for this study invites us to consider how our text in Philippians might serve
“God’s action or intentions in the world.” As God’s text comes to us in this text, the
invitation is for Scripture to speak afresh, in the midst of our diversity and unique
hearing, and invite us to hear God through one another as we receive the “word of God
for the people of God.”
As we begin, let’s listen to our text from Philippians together:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of
Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as
one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that
you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf
of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if
any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like
minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing
out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above
yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
the others.
Please report to the group what you heard the person next to you say:
What were you drawn to in the text?
What question(s) do you have for the text?
II. Digging in the Word
Our study this evening will from what we explored last time in discovering what “gospel”
means for Paul and us. As you recall, last time we looked at what gospel meant for Paul
and used I Corinthians 15 as a frame for understanding. Tonight I would like to suggest
that in addition to understanding what Paul meant scripturally, there was a specific ethical
or behavioral expectation. In the pre-study material that was sent I asked for you to
consider the various passages in Philippians that used “gospel.”
What did you notice about how Paul used gospel?
Philippians 1:5: the gospel is a point of “sharing” or relational connection
139
because of your sharing in the gospel from the first day until now.
Philippians 1:7: the gospel binds Paul to the church in a special way
It is right for me to think this way about all of you, because you hold me in your heart, for
all of you share in God’s grace with me, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and
confirmation of the gospel.
Philippians 1:12: the gospel has consequences- not just “church connection”
I want you to know, beloved, that what has happened to me has actually helped to spread
the gospel,
Philippians 1:16: the gospel was worthy of “defending”
These proclaim Christ out of love, knowing that I have been put here for the defense of
the gospel;
Philippians 1:27: the gospel matters to how you live your life
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come
and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in
one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel,
Philippians 2:22: the gospel is a work that offers opportunity for togetherness
But Timothy’s worth you know, how like a son with a father he has served with me in the
work of the gospel.
Philippians 4:3: the gospel was not a struggle for one but many
Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled
beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my coworkers, whose names are in the book of life.
Philippians 4:15: the gospel was an indication of Paul’s journey
You Philippians indeed know that in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia,
no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone.
I hope it is reasonable to assume that for Paul, gospel was a word that impacted the world
in every way. Gospel was not limited to a message Paul heard on a road or preached in a
church building, the gospel or good news was a transforming event that something had
happened and there is an invitation for a change of life as a result of that something. And
even more, this life-change is not just “being saved” at the end of life but a change of life
for the here and now. In sum, I would like for us to consider that gospel for Paul had
implications for the way Christians behaved in their world and time.
A terribly helpful point that I have uncovered in my study is recognizing that the word
“gospel” is a word that was not invented by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or by Paul. Rather, the
word gospel- euangelion- was a Greco-Roman word that meant something to those living
in the first century, whether Christian or not! Many scholars have done extensive work in
recognizing the word “gospel” in ancient texts written at the same time as the Bible. For
140
example, Throughout the Roman world of the 1st century, euangelion (gospel) was used
regularly to refer to the birth, announcement, accession, or victory of a great emperor.
There is an inscription in Priene on the Asia Minor coast from 9 BC which refers to the
birthday of Augustus:
by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit
humankind, sending him as a savior [soter], both for us and for our
descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he,
Caesar, by his appearance…. surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even
leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the
birthday of the god [the Theos] Augustus was the beginning of the good
tidings [euangelion] for the world that came by reason of him…
The inscription talks about this day as “the beginning for the world of the gospel that
have come to men through the Savior-King Augustus…” In this context, gospel was
associated with the creation of a new world, an era of peace and justice made possible by
the new Roman emperor. Thus, the inscription refers to Augustus as “a savior for us and
those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order
everywhere…” Interestingly, there are dozens more inscriptions that use gospel in this
way: to announce the news that something has happened in the 1st century world. So,
when Roman heralds came into a city announcing good news of what Caesar had done
there were not simply implying, “Here is something you might want to consider as you
live life in Rome- why don’t you see if this matters to you or not and let me know if it is
convenient…” On the contrary! The good news or gospel was, “Caesar is now lord of the
world and you are the recipients of this good news- and now the king demands your
loyalty, your allegiance, and your taxes. Submit or be punished.”
How can this be helpful in understanding gospel for us?
For me, this has several implications for our study. Foremost, in using a word like gospel,
Paul is asserting that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who lived and died at a particular
time in history. And the event of God coming as Savior was a different good news than
the “pagan” news. For Paul, as citizen of Rome, the world is a different place because of
Christ. There are new ways to think of words like, “kingdom,” “citizen,” “peace,” and
“lord.” Perhaps this is why Paul writes to the Thessalonian Christians:
For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had
among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true
God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead.
(I Thessalonians 1:9-10)
Here Paul is making a particular claim about the Christians turning away from idols to
serve a living and true God- one who was raised from the dead! And, for Paul, I cannot
(and must not) underestimate how the gospel was more than an assent to a particular
belief system or a list of things about God that are “scripturally true.” Rather, the gospel
is meant to be something that invited life under a new King and different rule. Gospel for
141
Paul, and for the Philippian Christians, invited them to a way of being that was
influenced by the reign and rule of Jesus Christ. Gospel was an invitation for life under
the rule and reign of the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of Rome. Thus, the opening of
Paul’s letter to the Philippians might be heard this way:
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus- not servants of Caesar, to all the
saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Grace to
you and peace- God’s peace- from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ- not
the lord Caesar. I thank my God every time I remember you, constantly praying
with joy in every one of my prayers for all of you, because of your sharing in the
gospel – the good news of Jesus not Caesar- from the first day until now. (Phil
1:1-4, italics mine)
So, gospel for Paul reframes everything in his world in light of the Jesus story. And the
invitation and implication for Paul’s churches is to live different lives in response to this
good news.
Additionally, I found one last observation in my research worth noting. When Paul writes
to Timothy and Titus about elders and deacons he gives them a list of “qualifications.”
You are familiar with this passage from I Tim 2:
“Now an elder must be above reproach, married only once, temperate,
sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, not a drunkard, not violent
but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money.”
It has been noted by several historians that this text has strong similarities to other,
secular texts. Historian B. Easton noticed the resemblance of elder qualifications to the
pagan virtue lists, most particularly to that in The General by Tacitus Onasander. This
“pagan” list is striking for two reasons. First, it was written for a known, specific
occasion (circa 50 CE, for the consular Q. Veranius) and is dated at least 10 years prior to
all estimates of the writing of 1 Timothy. Second, the “pagan” text is markedly similar to
the that of 1 Timothy 3:2-3 and reads “the general should be chosen as . . . soberminded,
self-controlled, temperate, frugal, hardy, intelligent, no lover of money, not (too) young
or old, if it may be, the father of children, able to speak well, and of good repute.” In
other words, first-century Christian elders and pagan Greek generals fulfilled essentially
the same duties!
So what does this have to do with Paul, gospel, and the Philippian church? If not for
gospel the leaders of the church would not be expected to act any differently than a
Greco-Roman general. Though some of the ethics of Rome and the gospel were similar,
the expectations of Christian leaders come from a different lord and are loyal to another
kingdom. Paul was not prescribing good “advice” to leaders in any of his churches.
Rather, he was inviting them to live differently in light of the good news and reign of
Jesus Christ. The elders were not just “qualified” to lead, the gospel expected them to
take on the character of Christ as citizens of another kingdom. Thus, Paul writes to the
Philippians to, “Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be
142
blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and
perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world” (Phil 2:14-15).
III. Discerning the Word
This study is helpful to the extent that it moves us, as leaders, into a time of discernment.
What might the Spirit of God be confirming in us as we have studied together?
Based upon our shared study this evening, what did you hear about the word gospel that
might invite us into a different way of leading?
If Paul were to write to us, what might he say “gospel life” looks like?
Our next study will be a very practical look at what Paul says to the Philippian church. As
a result of gospel conduct, what does Paul say specifically about their conduct together?
How might this frame our relationship together as leaders?
Pray to Close
143
Section 4
Pre-Study: Paul and Gospel Conduct
As you begin take some time reflecting back on the following points derived together
from our shared study and dwelling in the word:
Study 1:
 When reading a letter like Philippians, context matters.
 Paul seems to be writing to a community in conflict.
 Because the Christian community has been invited to live first as citizens of
“heaven” and not as citizens of “Rome,” there is something publically at stake
when their behavior is in disarray.
 We concluded there were definite similarities between the Roman world and our
present conditions.
Study 2:
 The word “gospel” has multiple meanings and the way we understand gospel is
influenced by our past and present “church” experiences.
 Paul seemed to characterize “gospel” in many ways. In other words, gospel for
Paul was not just limited to “a belief statement that saves you” or a classification
for “preaching.”
 I Corinthians 15 gives a wonderful starting place for understanding what Paul
said about “gospel.” Here are five ways to understand Paul’s gospel from I
Corinthians 15:
1. Gospel is at the core of Paul’s relational connection to the
Corinthians.
2. Gospel is something that is rooted in personal experience.
3. Gospel is a story of the main events in the life of Jesus.
4. Gospel is connected to a larger story in scripture.
5. Gospel is the story of salvation.
Study 3:
 Gospel for Paul was a word rooted in contrast to the “good news” of the Roman
empire. Gospel, for Paul, was a direct affront to the empire and kingdom of
Caesar and announced adherence to the kingdom of God.
 Even the qualifications of elders have direct connections to pagan rulers. Thus,
though Paul’s words are influenced by his time and place, they should always be
“seen” through the lens of gospel.
 Gospel invited the Philippian church and especially its leaders to consider how
their shared life together might be different because of the gospel of the Lord
Jesus Christ. There is a clear invitation that gospel ought to invite us to live
differently than the world! Christ is the center of the gospel.
Based upon our study of “gospel,” it is now time to move into the more practical reality
of what the gospel called the Philippians to specifically. In other words, what do you
144
think are some of the specific practical implications for gospeled life according to what
Paul writes? Even more, what do these ethical instructions call leaders to specifically?
Look at the list of Paul’s “gospel instructions” to the church in Philippi from
Phlippians 1:27-2:4.
What themes do you notice?
Which stands out as most challenging?
If you had to pick one(s) that we do well (at HOCC) which would it be?
Which one(s) do we do poorly?
Stand firm in the one Spirit
Strive together as one for the faith of the gospel
Don’t be frightened in any way by those who oppose you.
For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ to suffer for him.
Have the same love.
Be one in spirit and of one mind.
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.
In humility value others above yourselves
Don’t look to your own interests but to the interests of the others.
As we gather tomorrow evening we will spend time, again, dwelling in the word and
intentionally listening to one another. And I would like to begin to unpack what each of
the abovementioned might mean as we consider our shared gospel life together as leaders
at the HOCC.
I look forward to our study!
Blessings.
Lesson 4: Paul and the Gospel Conduct
Let’s begin with the following prayer:
Gracious God, as we come together alongside this ancient text. May we be
reminded of the power in these God-breathed words. These words O God have
stood the test of time, been an encouragement to generation of faithful
witnesses, and contain truths that are meant to form us into your very image.
145
So breathe deeply into us as we receive them. May we be open to your word
coming alive in us and among us; words of life, words of comfort, words of
instruction. And words of Spirit-formation. Amen.
I. Dwelling in the Word
As we begin, let’s listen to our text from Philippians together:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of
Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as
one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that
you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf
of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if
any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like
minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing
out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above
yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
the others.
Please report to the group what you heard the person next to you say:
What were you drawn to in the text?
What question(s) do you have for the text?
II. Digging in the Word
In your pre-study material I asked that you consider gospel “instructions” Paul made in
our text. Before we unpack your responses, I would like to reiterate how important it is
for us to understand how Paul uses a word like gospel.
We have discussed over the last three sessions how the word “gospel” is located in a
particular time and place. But it is also good to remind us that gospel for Paul was deeply
connected to the experience of a community as well as an individual. In other words, I do
not think Paul conceived of a word like “gospel” apart from the relationship that joined
Christ followers together. This “sharing” in Christ is what Paul is getting at when he
writes to the Philippians of “any common sharing in the Spirit.” The sharing or koinonia
of the gospel is a deep mutuality of participating together in God’s work. And what is
God’s work that is shared? The gospel! So, gospel, for Paul, is the ongoing togetherness
of the church as they share a gospeled life together. Paul expects in every way the church
to embody the gospel or to become the gospel through their behavior with one another for
the sake of the world.
146
Michael Gorman shares a powerful way to think about this shared gospeled life together
as leaders of a church. Gorman notes there are two specific ways to think about a shared
gospeled life: centripetal and centrifugal. If you think about a “gospeled life” having a
center (Christ), the ones who participate in this life together are consistently moving “in”
(centripetal) and “out” “centrifugal” from this center.
Figure 3 would represent the “centripetal” force of the gospel life. This is the movement
of gospel behavior towards the center. This could characterize the “internal” journey of
the church that orients itself towards Christ with one another. Figure 4 would represent
the “centrifugal” force of the gospel life. This is the movement of gospel behavior from
the center. This could characterize the “external” journey of the church that orients itself
from Christ to the world. So, as life is shared together “internally” life is meant to move
“externally” into the world. The gospel is not a static activity or belief system; it is a
dynamic word that implies movement together from a common center from which a
gospel “force” flows. Both centripetal and centrifugal “gospel forces” are never separate
from one another but co-exist and depend on one another. For me, this is what it means
for our life together as leaders to be “in a manner worthy of the gospel.” So, as leaders of
the Highland Oaks Church, we define gospel conduct as a way of living life together
both towards and from the center; and the center is the gospel as it is revealed in the
person and work of Christ.
With this image in mind, how might we understand the specifics of Paul’s admonition to
“conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel?” Let’s walk through each of these
specific invitations and I’ll add a few notes that might be helpful to us. Each “instruction”
comes with a few questions for our consideration. You may remember that this entire
“section” is built on Paul’s notion of gospel as ones who live as “citizens” in God’s
kingdom.
147
Stand firm in the one Spirit
Standing firm certainly implies there is something to “stand against.” The idea of
standing is tied to the duty of a soldier “standing firm” in battle. Though an adversary
might be strong, there is no backing away or down from the fight. The notion of
“standing firm” is also included at the end of the letter in 4:1.
What are the enemies we ought to stand against in our leadership?
Even more, what are the potential threats to our working relationship?
It is also important to note that Paul invites them to stand firm in one Spirit. Though it is
difficult to tell if Paul meant to “capitalize” Spirit as a reference to the Holy Spirit or just
a “common human spirit,” it is reasonable to assume that Paul is making reference to the
power of the Holy Spirit equipping the church to stand firm. In other words, it is the
Spirit of God that is enabling them to remain together in the face of such opposition or
struggle.
How can we be more aware of the Holy Spirit in our working together?
What does empowerment by the Spirit allow us to do differently?
Strive together as one for the faith of the gospel
Again, building off military language, Paul is inviting the church to stand together as one
solitary cohesive unit. I believe Paul is stressing here that gospel is about “togetherness”
and there are no individual pursuits apart from the whole. Conversely, when leaders are
in conflict together the “faith of the gospel” is at stake. Perhaps this is why Paul is so
insistent on mentioning two people by name in the church (Euodia and Synteche)? There
behavior is jeopardizing their ability to “strive together.” Even more, the centrifugal
component of the gospel is at stake. How can they take a gospel into the world if there is
infighting and hurtful conflict?
What are some specific practices that would allow us to “strive together?”
How does this reframe “gospel conduct” for us as leaders?
Don’t be frightened in any way by those who oppose you.
Interestingly, the word “frightened” is not used anywhere else (by Paul) in the New
Testament. The word is used elsewhere in Greek literature to describe how a horse might
be startled or frightened on the battlefield. Plutarch, a contemporary of Paul, uses this
word in a story of a Roman soldier’s death in a battle due to a frightened horse.178 The
horse, when “agitated,” threw him to the ground and he was killed. So, Paul’s admonition
is to not become frightened or startled when opponents come but, with expectation, stand
together against the enemy.
What does this tell us about opposition?
What are some things that could “frighten” us as leaders?
For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ to suffer for him.
We usually don’t consider “suffering” as a part of working together as a church
leadership team. Suffering, in this context, is most likely a hardship that is experienced
because of a public witness for Christ in a world hostile to Christ. Again, this call for
178
Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: 2009 kindle edition), loc. 1650.
148
suffering is in a 1st century world where Christ was a competitor to the kingdom or good
news of Rome. And I think we can agree that suffering for Paul meant imprisonment and
hardship. So, for the believer and leader in Philippi, suffering and belief were closely
intertwined.
Do we have any comparable moments of suffering for us as leaders?
What does suffering together look like?
Before moving on to the next set of “instructions,” it is important to note a few things
from the original language. First, the opening of “chapter 2” (which by the way is a
designation by good people who compiled the Bible into chapter and verses) begins with
a “therefore.” This is a purposeful word that ties the previous verses to the present verses.
Thus, they cannot and must not be separated! Second, the four “verses” are actually one
long Greek sentence. In this, the dominant idea is to stand united with these qualities or
attributes which culminate in a plea for Christ-like behavior. Third, Paul prefaces the
instructions with the word “if.” In my opinion, this is Paul’s way of spelling out the
realities or certainties of their behavior rather than simple possibilities. In sum, Paul is
expressing a continuation of the previous plea with certain realities of their
“encouragement of being united with Christ, comfort from his love, sharing in the Spirit,
tenderness, and compassion” that completes Paul’s joy. And the invitation is to behave in
the following ways:
Have the same love.
Paul is calling the community to the work of love. And this love is exemplified in Christ;
a sacrificial love that gives itself away. This is the love that calls Paul to exhort the
Corinthians to have the “greater” gift of love that surpasses all other gifts.
What does love look like for our group?
Be one in spirit and of one mind.
Paul is not squelching individual assets or unique callings. Rather, Paul is urging the
group to come together and seek the same purpose or mind. In other words, there is a
common goal at stake that all can find unique participation in. The idea here is “souls
joined together” pulling in the same direction (think parents being on the same page in
rearing their children).
How can we seek the same goal? What might help us measure our progress?
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.
Is this not a command to look out for the “other?” Paul here is focusing in on an attitude
as much as a behavior. You cannot and must not focus entirely on self! This will be
destructive to the common goal of the group. There is little room in a gospel life for selfadvancement or promotion of your own glory.
What could selfishness look like in our leadership team?
149
In humility value others above yourselves
Humility asks us to consider what is best for the “other.” This should be a driving
question for each of us. What is going to be in the best interest of the “other.” And how
was humility best demonstrated? According to Paul it was in death that Christ achieved
the greatest form of humility. So Paul is inviting the church to consider what is best for
others and consider how others might be in “first place.”
Can you think of specific instances where we were called to put others in first place?
Don’t look to your own interests but to the interests of the others.
The word for “look” implies paying careful or close attention. Interestingly, the word
“interests” is not in the original language but was added for clarity. Thus, it’s not so much
others “interests” as in hobbies or preferences, but in the good example or qualities in
someone’s life.
What qualities do we see in one another (on this team) that allow us to see the good
examples we share?
III. Discerning the Word
This study is helpful to the extent that it moves us, as leaders, into a time of discernment.
What might the Spirit of God be confirming in us as we have studied together?
We covered a lot of ground this evening! What are some themes that rise to the surface
for you?
Were there any special insights that were gained that you had not noticed before?
Pray to Close
150
Section 5
Pre-Study: Towards an HOCC Leadership Team “Gospel Rule of Conduct”
As you begin take some time reflecting back on the following points derived together
from our shared study and dwelling in the word:
Study 1:
 When reading a letter like Philippians, context matters.
 Paul seems to be writing to a community in conflict.
 Because the Christian community has been invited to live first as citizens of
“heaven” and not as citizens of “Rome,” there is something publically at stake
when their behavior is in disarray.
 We concluded there were definite similarities between the Roman world and our
present conditions.
Study 2:
 The word “gospel” has multiple meanings and the way we understand gospel is
influenced by our past and present “church” experiences.
 Paul seemed to characterize “gospel” in many ways. In other words, gospel for
Paul was not just limited to “a belief statement that saves you” or a classification
for “preaching.”
 I Corinthians 15 gives a wonderful starting place for understanding what Paul
said about “gospel.” Here are five ways to understand Paul’s gospel from I
Corinthians 15:
1. Gospel is at the core of Paul’s relational connection to the
Corinthians.
2. Gospel is something that is rooted in personal experience.
3. Gospel is a story of the main events in the life of Jesus.
4. Gospel is connected to a larger story in scripture.
5. Gospel is the story of salvation.
Study 3:
 Gospel for Paul was a word rooted in contrast to the “good news” of the Roman
empire. Gospel, for Paul, was a direct affront to the empire and kingdom of
Caesar and announced adherence to the kingdom of God.
 Even the qualifications of elders have direct connections to pagan rulers. Thus,
though Paul’s words are influenced by his time and place, they should always be
“seen” through the lens of gospel.
 Gospel invited the Philippian church and especially its leaders to consider how
their shared life together might be different because of the gospel of the Lord
Jesus Christ. There is a clear invitation that gospel ought to invite us to live
differently than the world! Christ is the center of the gospel.
151
Study 4:
 We explored the following specific themes from Paul to the church in Philippi:
Stand firm in the one Spirit
Strive together as one for the faith of the gospel
Don’t be frightened in any way by those who oppose you.
For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ to suffer for him.

We also considered how Paul gave the Philippians a “new story” for their
behavior together. Specifically, he invited them to:
Have the same love.
Be one in spirit and of one mind.
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.
In humility value others above yourselves
Don’t look to your own interests but to the interests of the others.
Tomorrow night I want to lead us into a time of discernment and reflection on the above
mentioned themes. In particular I want to invite us to consider how the above-mentioned
themes might help us to craft a “rule of life” together. Some of you may be asking: Why
do we need a “rule of life?”
Good question.
Allow me to explain.
Recently, Barry Packer and I were asked to compose some information regarding the
ways we “govern” ourselves at the HOCC for the Elderlink(Dallas) conference. In this,
Barry offered five benefits to for our use of the Policy Governance® model to fulfill the
oversight responsibilities:
1. Elders can focus on the future.
2. Elders can provide meaningful oversight of the congregation without meddling in
staff activities.
3. Ministers are empowered to lead the congregation.
4. Elders are freed to focus their time and energy on shepherding responsibilities.
5. The elders and minister know what is required of them.
I hope you will agree that the Policy Governance® model is not only an effective way of
leading our church but ensures the Elders and Lead Minister understand one another and
our specific responsibilities. However, a noticeable exception to the model is the lack of
clarity for our behavior within the model. In other words, is there wisdom in
establishing language that allows for us to exist in “gospel conduct” with one
another for the sake of leading together in relationship?
I would thus like for us to consider how we might compose a “rule of conduct” for our
leading together. Can we take the following Pauline principles: have the same love, be
one in spirit and of one mind, do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, in
humility value others above yourselves, and don’t look to your own interests but to the
152
interests of the other, and construct specific commitments to one another as we lead
together?
Inevitably conflict will arise among us. We will certainly experience a need to stand firm,
not be frightened, and suffer together. What might we take from our shared study of
Philippians and commit towards for the sake of our life together?
Think about the “rule” in two parts:
1. Based on the following convictions from our shared study…
e.g. We believe the gospel is more than a set of beliefs or a position to hold
but an invitation to live life in a particular way.
2. These are the ways we commit to leading together…
e.g. We commit to regular study and prayer as a way of becoming more aware
of the Spirit’s role in our leadership dynamic.
I have only one pre-conceived expectation: that we walk away with a clear “rule” for us
to grow together in our shared future for the HOCC.
Please think and pray about this in preparation for tomorrow night. I look forward to
seeing you there.
Lesson 5: Towards an HOCC Leadership Team “Rule of Conduct”
Let’s begin with the following prayer:
Gracious God, as we come together alongside this ancient text. May we be
reminded of the power in these God-breathed words. These words O God have
stood the test of time, been an encouragement to generation of faithful
witnesses, and contain truths that are meant to form us into your very image.
So breathe deeply into us as we receive them. May we be open to your word
coming alive in us and among us; words of life, words of comfort, words of
instruction. And words of Spirit-formation. Amen.
I. Dwelling in the Word
So as we begin, listen to the text from Philippians:
Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of
Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my
absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as
one for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those
who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that
you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf
of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.
Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if
any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any
tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like
153
minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing
out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above
yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of
the others.
What did you hear from someone else?
Is there a question you have for the text?
II. Digging in the Word
It’s hard to believe we are coming to a close from our study! Let me begin by saying
thank you for participating with me in this journey. Several of you have commented to
me personally how much you have enjoyed our shared study together.
Let’s not stop.
In fact, I am convinced that our sharing in the word together is a way to become attuned
to the Spirit’s presence among us. After all, this is what Paul was after when he invited
the Philippian church to: “stand firm in the one Spirit.”
As you know from your pre-study material, tonight we will walk away with a “rule of
conduct” for our leadership team. I hope you are clear about this objective. Before I call
us to a time of sharing Paul’s convictions and commitments, let me share a brief story
with you that demonstrates the power of what we are experiencing.
For those who do not know, TED talks are brief presentations given by particular
speakers. The mission from their website is: “TED is a global community, welcoming
people from every discipline and culture who seek a deeper understanding of the world.
We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately,
the world. On TED.com, we're building a clearinghouse of free knowledge from the
world's most inspired thinkers — and a community of curious souls to engage with ideas
and each other, both online and at TED and TEDx events around the world, all year
long.” That being said, I ran across a particular TED talk that resonated with me and our
shared experience together. Allow me to briefly explain.
Harvard University decided to conduct a longitudinal research study of adult
development. They invited over 250 sophomores from Harvard and over 450 inner-city
teens from Boston’s poorest neighborhood. The researchers, fully funded by grants,
began to explore the ways these students developed as adults. Upon agreement to
participate they would be interviewed through questionnaire each year, have a medical
test performed every five years, and be interviewed face-to-face every fifteen years. The
goal was to capture psychological trends, social implications, measure health and
happiness, and hopefully discern common threads and traits among adults.
What the researchers have discovered, after looking through thousands of pages of
findings, were three simple common themes. And each theme had one central
component: relationship.
In other words, the three common themes that equated to happier lifestyles, better
marriages, and even mental health was the ability and willingness to stay connected to
another human being. Interestingly, even among those who were interviewed conflict was
154
a definite reality. Yet, if the people knew they could count on someone relationally the
conflict did not define the person’s health. Relational connectedness was at the heart of
positive emotional, social, physical, and mental well-being of each person in the study.
And here is the most surprising component of all: the study began in the year 1929. And
there are only around 65 people left in the study. Can you imagine? Researching the
emotional, social, physical, and mental well-being of someone for 75 plus years?!
And what did they discover? Relationships are at the core of happy octogenarians.
So this simple TED talk invited me to consider why so many churches are either dying,
unhappy, or in the midst of controversy and strife. Could a reason be because their
leaders never took the time to consider ways to stay relationally connected? Would
churches be healthy and happier with their existence, after 50, 75, or even 160 years, if
their leaders pursued concrete ways to stay relationally connected?
My hunch is that Paul would say, “Yes!” And I would like to suggest the invitation is a
consideration of this: “Conduct yourself in a manner worthy of the gospel.”
So, I’d like for us to consider to parts to constructing this “rule of conduct.” First, I would
like for you to look at the first part of our text again and consider what we have
shared/studied these last few months, and ask:
“What are the theological convictions in this text?”
“Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.
Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that
you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as one for the faith of the gospel without
being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will
be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to
you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, since you are
going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have. Therefore
if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his
love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion…”
In other words, what is it that matters to Paul theologically for his view of gospel
conduct? Let’s spend some time sharing with the following headline:
Based upon our shared study of Philippians 1:27 – 2:4, the Elders and Lead
Minister at the HOCC want to embrace the following theological convictions in our
relationship with one another:
(list on the board)
Second, I would like for us to consider the second “half” of Paul’s invitation. And this
time we are looking to specific commitments Paul would invite us to make to one another
as a leadership team:
“Then make my joy complete by being like -minded, having the same love, being one in
spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in
155
humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you
to the interests of the others.”
So, what might you imagine Paul would want the church leaders to commit to
specifically as they learned to “conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel?
Let’s spend some time sharing with the following headline:
Based upon our shared study of Philippians 1:27 – 2:4, the Elders and Lead
Minister at the HOCC want to make the following behavioral commitments to one
another:
(list on board)
My hope is that we can draft this “rule” into our Policy Governance®. Ultimately our
goal is to create a way, not only for us but future generations, to lead together for the sake
of the mission of God. Thank you so much for your willing participation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Leonard. Distant Voices: Discovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing Church.
Abilene: ACU Press, 1993.
Anderson, Lynn. They Smell Like Sheep. West Monroe: Howard, 1997.
Banowsky, William S. The Mirror of a Movement. Stone-Campbell e-prints. Christian
Publishing Company, 1965.
Barclay, W. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians revised ed.
Philadelphia: Westminister, 1976.
Beare, F.W. The Epistle to the Philippians. Edited by Henry Chadwick. Harper’s New
Testament Commentaries. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1959.
Belasco, John. “Motivating the Local Church.” Harding College Lectures. Austin: Firm
Foundation, 1978.
Best, Ernest. “Paul’s Apostolic Authority.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament
27 (1986): p. 3-25.
Boles, H. Lee. The Eldership of the Churches of Christ. Nashville: Gospel Advocate,
1900.
Branson, Mark Lau. Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and
Congregational Change. Herndon: Alban Institute, 2004.
Buechner, Frederick. Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Comedy, Tragedy, and Fairy Tale.
San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1977.
Campbell, Alexander. The Christian System: In Reference to the Union of Christians, and
a Restoration of Primitive Christianity, as Plead in the Current Reformation.
Electronic Edition. Pittsburgh: Forrester and Campbell, 1839.
http://icotb.org/resources/Campbell,Alexander-TheChristianSystem.pdf.
Campbell, Charles L. Preaching Jesus: The New Directions for Homiletics in Hans
Frei’s Postliberal Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Campbell, Thomas. The Declaration and Address of the Christian Association of
Washington. Electronic Edition. Pennsylvania: Brown and Sample, 1809.
https://archive.org/stream/declarationaddre00campiala#page/6/mode/2up.
Camp, Lee. Mere Discipleship. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003.
Casey, Pat. “The Role of the Preacher as Set Forth in the Gospel Advocate from 18951910 with Beliefs and Consequences to 1980.” DMin Thesis, Harding Graduate
School of Religion, 1980.
Churchill, Craig. “Lectureships.” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement.
Edited by Paul M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and
Newell D. Williams. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Clark, Robert. Emerging Elders: Developing Shepherds in God’s Image. Abilene:
Leafwood, 2008.
156
157
Cloer, Steve. “Missional Polity: The Minister-Elder Relationship in Churches of Christ,
Experiencing Missional Transformation.” DMin Thesis, Luther Seminary, 2015.
Craddock, Fred. Philippians. Edited by James Mays. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox,
1985.
Crisp, Joe. “Toward a Theology of Ministry for Churches of Christ.” Restoration
Quarterly 35, no. 1 (1993): 9-19.
Curlee, Sheryl Taylor. Building a Church, Building a City: History of the First Church
Erected in Dallas, TX. Self Published, n.d.
Easton, B.S. “New Testament Ethical Lists.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51, no. 1
(1932): 1-12.
Ellison, Pat Taylor. Dwelling in the Word: A Pocket Handbook. Robbinsdale, MN:
Church Innovations Institute, 2011.
Fair, Ian. Leadership in the Kingdom: Sensitive Strategies for the Church in a Changing
World. Abilene: ACU Press, 1996.
Fee, Gordan. Philippians. Edited by Grant R. Osbourne, Stuart D. Briscoe, and Haddon
Robinson. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Ferguson, Everett. “Authority and Tenure of Elders.” Restoration Quarterly 18, no. 3
(1975): 142-150.
———. The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996.
Fitzgerald, J. “Philippians, Epistle to The.” Edited by David Noel Freedman. The Anchor
Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Fleer, David, and Charles Siburt, eds. Good Shepherds: More Guidance for the Gentle
Art of Pastoring. Abilene: Leafwood, 2007.
———. Like a Shepherd Lead Us: Guidance for the Gentle Art of Pastoring. Abilene:
Leafwood, 2007.
Foster, Otto. “The Conduct of the Gospel Preacher.” Abilene Christian College Lectures.
Austin: Firm Foundation, 1943.
Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Gorman, Michael. Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.
———. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
———. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004.
Greenfield, Guy. “The Ethics of the Sermon on the Mount.” Southwestern Journal of
Theology 45 (1996): 13-19.
158
Hansen, Walter. The Letter to the Philippians. Pillar New Testament Commentaries.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Hatch, Nathan O. American Origins of Churches of Christ: Three Essays on Restoration
History. Abilene: ACU Press, 2001.
Hawthorne, Gerald. Philippians. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glen W. Baker. Vol.
21. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco: Word, 1983.
Hicks, John Mark. “Our Triune God: The Wonder of the Story.” Blog. John Mark Hicks
Ministries, May 18, 2009. http://johnmarkhicks.com/2009/05/18/our-triune-godthe-wonder-of-the-story-sbd-8/.
Hooper, Robert E. “David Lipscomb.” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell
Movement. Edited by Paul M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L.
Dunnavant, and Newell D. Williams. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Huffard, Elza. “Having the Proper Leadership.” Austin: Firm Foundation, 1959.
Hughes, Richard. Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in
America. Kindle Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Hull, Ted. Focusing Your Church Board: Using the Carver Policy Governance Model.
Winnipeg: Word Alive Press, 2015.
———. “The Ten Drawbacks to Policy Governance” Ted Hull Consulting,
http://www.tedhullconsulting.com/newsfeed/drawbacks.html.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Scripture and Discernment: Decision Making in the Local
Church. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Klausner, Joseph. From Jesus to Paul. Translated by William F. Stinespring. New
York: MacMillan Press, 1943.
Knowles, Michael. We Preach Not Ourselves: Paul on Proclamation. Grand Rapids:
Brazos Press, 2008.
Lipscomb, David. “Are There Too Many Ministers?” Gospel Advocate 42 (1900).
———. “A Scriptural Way to Get to Evangelizing.” Gospel Advocate 38 (1896).
———. “Elders and Preachers.” Gospel Advocate 45 (1903).
———. “Evangelistic Numbers.” Gospel Advocate 47 (1905).
———. “No Title.” Gospel Advocate 42 (1900).
Love, Mark. “Missional Interpretation: The Encounter of a Holy God through a Living
Text.” Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis 5, no. 1 (2014):
9-18.
Mahan, Michael. “Toward a Restorationist Theology of Leadership: Elder Implications.”
Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 4, no. 1 (2012): 70-87.
Marshall, J. “Paul’s Ethical Appeal in Philippians.” Rhetoric and the New Testament:
Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Journal for the Study of the New
Testament: Supplemental Series. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
159
Martin, Ralph. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
McGarvey, J. W. A Treatise on the Eldership. Ohio: Deward Press, 2010.
———. “Church Government.” The Missouri Christian Lectures, Selected from the
Courses of 1889, 1890, and 1891. St. Louis: Christian Publishing Company,
1892.
McKnight, Scot. The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Moltmann, Jürgen. “Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word for a New Trinitarian Theology.”
Trinity, Community, and Power. Edited by M. D. Meeks. Nashville: Kingswood,
2000.
Newton, Gene, Glenn Newton, and Mark Newton. Elder/Preacher Relationships That
Last. Nashville: 21st Century Christian, 2012.
Olbricht, Thomas. “Hermeneutics in the Churches of Christ.” Restoration Quarterly 37,
no. 1 (1995): 1-24.
Packer, Barry. “Re: Elderlink Paper,” October 13, 2015.
Patterson, Bill. “Principles of Leadership.” Harding College Lectures. Austin: Firm
Foundation, 1967.
Pope, J. Curtis. “Evangelist.” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Edited
by Paul Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and Newell D.
Williams. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Reeves, Homer Putnam. “Preacher-Elder Relations.” Harding College Lectures. Austin:
Firm Foundation, 1953.
Robertson, Charles H. “The Organization of the Church.” Abilene Christian College
Lectures. Austin: Firm Foundation, 1933.
Roxburgh, Alan. Missional: Joining God in the Neighborhood. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2011.
Sampley, P. “Reasoning From the Horizon’s of Paul’s Thought World: A Comparison of
Galatians and Philippians.” Theology and Ethics in Paul and His Interpreters
Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish. Edited by Eugene H. Lovering and Jerry
L. Sumney. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
———. Walking Between The Times: Paul’s Moral Reasoning. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991.
Saterlee, Craig A. “Preach Jesus, Not Oprah: Proclaim Christ as Savior.” Covenant
Quarterly 68, no. 3 (2010): 25-38.
Savage, and Presnell. Narrative Research in Ministry: A Postmodern Research Approach
for Faith Communities. Louisville: Indian University Press, 2008.
Seamands, Stephen. Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian
Service. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
160
Siburt, Judy. “Re: Just Some Notes,” January 18, 2016.
Silva, Moises. Philippians. 2nd ed. The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Simpson. “A Reformation Is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Promising Theology for an
Emerging Missional Church.” The Missional Church in Context: Helping
Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry. Edited by Craig Van Gelder. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Smith, Christian. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical
Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2012.
Smith, Jay. “The Declaration and Address.” Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 3 (1961): 113118.
Speck, Henry Eli. “The Preacher, His Task, and Opportunity.” Abilene Christian College
Lectures. Cincinnati: Rowe Publishing, 1919.
Thielman, Frank S. Philippians. Edited by Terry Muck. The NIV Application
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Thompson, James W. “Ministry in the New Testament.” Restoration Quarterly 27, no. 3
(1984): 143-156.
Tidball, Derek. Ministry by the Book: New Testament Patterns for Pastoral Leadership.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Waldinger, Robert. What Makes a Good Life? Lessons from the Longest Study on
Happiness. TED talk, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkKuTCFvzI.
Wallace, Glenn L. “Evangelist.” Abilene Christian College Lectures. Austin: Firm
Foundation, 1954.
Webster, John B. “Christology, Imitability, and Ethics.” Scottish Journal of Theology
39 (1986): 309-326.
Williams, Newell D., Paul M. Blowers, and Douglas Foster. “Ministry.” Edited by Paul
M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and Newell D. Williams.
The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2005.
Wilson, John. “Saints, Shepherds, Preachers, Scholars: Leadership Crisis in Churches of
Christ.” Restoration Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1992): 129-134.
Woods, Guy N. “Christianity in a Changing World.” Abilene Christian College Lectures.
Austin: Firm Foundation, 1939.
Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.
Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Wright, N.T. Simply Christian. New York: Harper Collins, 2006.
———. Paul for Everyone, The Prison Letters. Louisville: Westminister, 2004.
———. The New Testament and the People of God. London: Fortress Press, 1992.
161
Zschiele, Dwight. “Dwelling in the Word: Affirming Its Promise.” Word 32, no. 4
(2012): 408-410.
———. “The Trinity, Leadership, and Power.” Journal of Religious Leadership 6, no. 2
(2007): 43-63.