D-o-D
I don't want to sound like a TPC apologist but you are picking on pastor Mike's weakness. Not all are called to pastor or shepherd the church. Though Mike is called the 'pastor' this is not his gifting and I don't really hold him responsible for that. The elders know it, they need stronger pastoral care within the body. It is hard to think of a person leading a charge who is not pastoral in nature. It goes against every notion we have a lead pastor. I can't speak for the circumstance with Mitch. I don't have enough information to make a fair statement.

I would hope that there is some grace for TPC. This is a charge that does many things for the Kingdom of God that are excellent. There is unfortunately some things they are lacking in. I think they know about most but some may be a mystery to them. I think more transparency with the congregation would alleviate some of the underlying issues and questions on why they do what they do. It would also help them know how to serve the body better.

I know that Mitch's wife attended the church for years after he died. I think that if there was some sort of pain created by how that was handled she would have left. My assumption is that maybe there was reconciliation there? Are we fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought? Just a question, I don't have the answer.

Mitch's wife left Turning Point for a while. She was devastated, and even though she came back after a time, I don't think she ended up staying. Can anyone else verify this?

We're not picking on mere weaknesses here, T-attender, we're calling for reform/repentance from CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH, FALSE DOCTRINES, BLATANT LIES, UNBIBLICAL AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP, and SELFISH AMBITION. (Again, even the mormons do nice things for the community and "the kingdom"; this is no proof of Christ-centered ministry.)

You cannot sweep away Pastor Mike's indifference, which is different than a mere "pastoral weakness." To have a weak level of pastoral care is completely different than having a calloused heart toward people. If you refuse to go see one of your deacons when he or she is on a deathbed, then there's more than a "weakness" going on.

Feel free to go to Pastor Mike to get the whole scoop on this story, though. Ask Mike why he didn't go see Mitch and whether Mary struggled with Mike's decision not to go. Then get back to us on whether you believe this was a weakness on Mike's part or cruel indifference.

We'll look forward to hearing what you discover.

Quote
tpcwocattender
D-o-D
I don't want to sound like a TPC apologist but you are picking on pastor Mike's weakness. Not all are called to pastor or shepherd the church. Though Mike is called the 'pastor' this is not his gifting and I don't really hold him responsible for that. The elders know it, they need stronger pastoral care within the body. It is hard to think of a person leading a charge who is not pastoral in nature. It goes against every notion we have a lead pastor. I can't speak for the circumstance with Mitch. I don't have enough information to make a fair statement.

I would hope that there is some grace for TPC. This is a charge that does many things for the Kingdom of God that are excellent. There is unfortunately some things they are lacking in. I think they know about most but some may be a mystery to them. I think more transparency with the congregation would alleviate some of the underlying issues and questions on why they do what they do. It would also help them know how to serve the body better.

I know that Mitch's wife attended the church for years after he died. I think that if there was some sort of pain created by how that was handled she would have left. My assumption is that maybe there was reconciliation there? Are we fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought? Just a question, I don't have the answer.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2009 09:19AM by LearningPoint.

Hi Learning Point and tpcwocattender,

Mary is still going to the church. When we left in Feb. she was still there. I agree with you Learning Point. Pastor Mike should make visits to the sick and dying. Just because it isn't his gift doesn't give him any excuses. We all have to do things at times that we are not gifted in. That's life.

Outreach

Quote
LearningPoint
Mitch's wife left Turning Point for a while. She was devastated, and even though she came back after a time, I don't think she ended up staying. Can anyone else verify this?

We're not picking on mere weaknesses here, T-attender, we're calling for reform/repentance from CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH, FALSE DOCTRINES, BLATANT LIES, UNBIBLICAL AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP, and SELFISH AMBITION. (Again, even the mormons do nice things for the community and "the kingdom"; this is no proof of Christ-centered ministry.)

You cannot sweep away Pastor Mike's indifference, which is different than a mere "pastoral weakness." To have a weak level of pastoral care is completely different than having a calloused heart toward people. If you refuse to go see one of your deacons when he or she is on a deathbed, then there's more than a "weakness" going on.

Feel free to go to Pastor Mike to get the whole scoop on this story, though. Ask Mike why he didn't go see Mitch and whether Mary struggled with Mike's decision not to go. Then get back to us on whether you believe this was a weakness on Mike's part or cruel indifference.

We'll look forward to hearing what you discover.

Quote
tpcwocattender
D-o-D
I don't want to sound like a TPC apologist but you are picking on pastor Mike's weakness. Not all are called to pastor or shepherd the church. Though Mike is called the 'pastor' this is not his gifting and I don't really hold him responsible for that. The elders know it, they need stronger pastoral care within the body. It is hard to think of a person leading a charge who is not pastoral in nature. It goes against every notion we have a lead pastor. I can't speak for the circumstance with Mitch. I don't have enough information to make a fair statement.

I would hope that there is some grace for TPC. This is a charge that does many things for the Kingdom of God that are excellent. There is unfortunately some things they are lacking in. I think they know about most but some may be a mystery to them. I think more transparency with the congregation would alleviate some of the underlying issues and questions on why they do what they do. It would also help them know how to serve the body better.

I know that Mitch's wife attended the church for years after he died. I think that if there was some sort of pain created by how that was handled she would have left. My assumption is that maybe there was reconciliation there? Are we fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought? Just a question, I don't have the answer.

Thanks for the update, Outreach! I stand corrected.

When I left, I don't think she was there but sporadically. It's good that she has found it in her heart to forgive (I trust) and even fellowship there again.

I would still love for TPAttender to ask Mike about his reasons and get back to us. I heard his stated reasons in a membership class. I wonder if there was more to it than he shared with us. It would be a relief to find out that there was some legitimate reason Mike didn't show up.

TPAttender, it may seem that I'm being combative with you personally. I apologize for that. I remain adamantly against the the false teachings and am distressed about the apparent unawareness among the people that this is a MAJOR destructive force undermining the church's well being (i.e., false teaching, including authoritarian structures, New Apolstolic Reformation, which has led to the dismissing of elders and Mike's lack of accountability, and word-faith/false prosperity doctrines, to be specific).

I apologize if the tone of my posts in response to yours have felt like an attack on you. I mean you no hurt or harm, and I thank you for sharing your perspective(s). May God grant you wisdom and courage as you navigate the troubled waters at TP.

Hi tpcwocattender,

Sorry, I agree with LearningPoint. People who attend a church, any church not just TPC, have - for good cause - a certain level of expectation about what constitutes a good pastor and how that pastor is supposed to shepherd his congregation. Good pastors know the people who attend their church. I attended TPC for over 4 1/2 years, if I passed Pastor Mike on the street he would not know who I was or that I ever attended their church especially over a period of time. However, if a pastor cuts himself off from his congregation and only allows a certain circle of insiders/clique to get near him -- well that just isn't good pastor behavior. A good pastor shouldn't expect to receive a salary three times that of the average member of his congregation. Research shows that among most denominations with a church the size of TPC the senior pastor should be paid the same salary as the average salary of his congregation. That would be $65,000 and not $180,000. If there is no money to take care of the setup crew with breakfast on Sunday morning, no benevolence fund, no money for just about anything that isn't for publicity or salaries. The Elders, with the exception of one, all are on the payroll or have a spouse on the payroll so whenever a decision needs to be made they cannot overcome their financial relationship with the church. The one elder not of the payroll used the tired phrase "don't you want to bless Pastor Mike" when a non-elder member of the salary review committee objected to the amount the elders wanted to pay Pastor Mike. So my objection is not just to Pastor Mike and his lack of care or concern for his flock, it is also against the entire Elder board.

Lets move on to the five fold ministry and its faulty foundation.

The Faulty Foundation of the Five-Fold Ministry
by Robert Bowman


It has recently become popular to speak of "the five-fold ministry," a system of church government with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. The neo-Pentecostal "Restoration" movement and its offshoot, "kingdom now" teaching, claims that one of the things which God is "restoring" to the church is this five-fold ministry. The sole prooftext used to support this concept is Ephesians 4:11-13, which states that Christ gave "some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,...until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God." The word "until," it is argued, proves that the church today needs apostles and prophets as much as evangelists, pastors, and teachers. However, it is the "building up" of the church (v.12) which must continue until the church is mature, not all five of the offices listed in verse 11. This is clear when the whole text is read as follows: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers; [these offices were given] to equip the saints for the work of service, [which work has as its goal] to build up the body of Christ until we all attain to the unity of the faith..." The offices of apostle and prophet would naturally cease in the church once their role in "equipping the saints" was completed; that is, once the New Testament canon was completed.

Some have objected that there is no reason to bracket off the apostles and prophets from the other three offices listed in verse 11. However, in the very same epistle, Paul states that the church has "been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20) and that Christ's mystery concerning the church was "revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (3:5). These statements indicate that the role of apostles and prophets was fulfilled in the first century.

The New Testament is particularly clear about the temporary role of the apostles, since they were chosen to give eyewitness testimony of the risen Christ (Acts 1:21-26 ; 5:32 ; Luke 1:1-4 ; 1 Cor. 9:1 ). Paul indicated that he was the last person to see the risen Christ and receive an apostolic commission (1 Cor. 15:8 ). The epistles of 2 Peter and Jude, among the very last New Testament writings to be penned, exhort the readers to avoid false doctrines by recalling the teachings of the apostles (2 Pet. 1:12-15 ; 2:1 ; 3:2 , 14-16 ; Jude 3-4 , 17 ). Peter and Jude did not say, "Listen to the apostles living today," but instead urged believers to "remember what the apostles said."

I am not arguing that only the Twelve and Paul were apostles. Barnabas (Acts 14:14 ), Silas (1 Thess. 2:6 ; cf. 1:1 ), and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7 ) all were apostles of Christ, and thus were no doubt among the more than 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6 ). However, none of these persons was chosen as a successor to an earlier apostle (Matthias was Judas's replacement, not his successor, since Judas had forsaken his apostleship, Acts 1:21-26 ).

There are other senses in which the word "apostle" is used in the New Testament. Certain individuals, including Epaphroditus, were "apostles of the churches" (2 Cor. 8:23 ; Phil. 2:25 ). These "apostles" had no authority over the church; they were messengers sent by and subject to their churches. In this latter sense it would be perfectly legitimate to speak of church representatives as "apostles," were it not for the confusion which might result from such usage.

Therefore, in the usual biblical sense of the term, there are no apostles today. Nor are there any prophets in the usual sense, as they were part of the "foundation" laid in the first-century church. This is not to deny the continuing validity of the gift of "prophecy," since Paul does refer to prophesying as a basic activity in which all Christians are urged to participate to the extent God gifts them (Rom. 12:6 ; 1 Cor. 11:4-5 ; 12:10 ; 13:2 , 8-9 ; 14:1-6 , 20-33 ; 1 Thess. 5:20 ), and in a general functional sense persons exercising this gift are even called "prophets" (1 Cor. 14:32 , 37 ). Yet Paul also speaks of specific persons who occupied an office of "prophet" which was second in authority only to apostle (1 Cor. 12:28-29 ). It is this office of "prophet," not all prophecy, which I am arguing passed away around the end of the first century.

Finally, some errors on this matter are worse than others. The loose use of the world "apostle" to refer to missionaries or church planters is not a serious error as long as this usage is sharply distinguished from the concept of an apostle who brings new doctrinal revelations and wields unquestionable authority. Nor is it a grievous error to interpret Ephesians 4:11 to refer to "apostles" in this sense of a church planter. The same would apply to those who hold that Ephesians 4:11 refers to the ongoing charismatic activity of prophesying. I do believe these interpretations are mistaken, but they are not in any way antagonistic to Christian faith.

On the other hand, to interpret Ephesians 4:11 as a call for a restoration of the office of apostle of Christ is not only a mistake in exegesis, it opens the door to heresy. To claim that the church today needs visions and revelations through modern apostles and prophets of Christ is to deny the sufficiency of the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16 ) and to place the church at the mercy of false apostles, the likes of whom the apostle Paul warned us about in no uncertain terms (2 Cor. 11:13-15 ).

The teachers of the "five-fold ministry," in seeking to "restore" a foundation which has never been moved, are actually laying a false foundation which will not support the building up of the body of Christ.

Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute.

COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS: This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.

I am convinced that Pastor Mike and the Elders are leading the body of TPC away from the truth and away from the narrow path. I have talked to other pastors in the area and when I or others have asked questions about the five fold ministry, the responses was similar to the article above. Further it was said of someone who would give themself the title given the unbiblical foundation of the five fold ministry is "dangerous."

When I started asking questions when Pastor Jackie left, the more I found out the less I liked what I was hearing. I was really concerned when a former member of Leadership said 'you want to be seen as more than a wallet or checkbook for Pastor Mike." And for the record it was Pastor Mike himself that talked about the need to put "butts in seats" when I attended TPC 101 class with Pastor Mike. I was offended, but my relationship with other members of staff and members of the church kept me from walking then. Sorry, I don't want to be a butt in a seat or just a wallet to finance double honor for Pastor Mike while members of the church work for the kingdom but are not taken care of.

I don't like the peer pressure offering system of having everyone march up to give their money. The bible is clear on how we are to give and that the right hand should not know what the left hand is doing. I found the whole thing distasteful.

Should I move on to how stewardship money was spent on things it was never intended for? The bus was supposed to be for picking up disabled and shut ins so they could come to church. Not to run around Asbury Field to pickup staff and elders.

I just could not make excuses for what was going on any longer. My salvation and that of my husband is to important to trust to those who are acting in a manner that is self-centered or self-enriching manner.

Sorry, I just cannot find anything to celebrate about Pastor Mike or the Elders.

Daughter of Dorcas

Quote
LearningPoint
Mitch's wife left Turning Point for a while. She was devastated, and even though she came back after a time, I don't think she ended up staying. Can anyone else verify this?

We're not picking on mere weaknesses here, T-attender, we're calling for reform/repentance from CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CHURCH, FALSE DOCTRINES, BLATANT LIES, UNBIBLICAL AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP, and SELFISH AMBITION. (Again, even the mormons do nice things for the community and "the kingdom"; this is no proof of Christ-centered ministry.)

You cannot sweep away Pastor Mike's indifference, which is different than a mere "pastoral weakness." To have a weak level of pastoral care is completely different than having a calloused heart toward people. If you refuse to go see one of your deacons when he or she is on a deathbed, then there's more than a "weakness" going on.

Feel free to go to Pastor Mike to get the whole scoop on this story, though. Ask Mike why he didn't go see Mitch and whether Mary struggled with Mike's decision not to go. Then get back to us on whether you believe this was a weakness on Mike's part or cruel indifference.

We'll look forward to hearing what you discover.

Quote
tpcwocattender
D-o-D
I don't want to sound like a TPC apologist but you are picking on pastor Mike's weakness. Not all are called to pastor or shepherd the church. Though Mike is called the 'pastor' this is not his gifting and I don't really hold him responsible for that. The elders know it, they need stronger pastoral care within the body. It is hard to think of a person leading a charge who is not pastoral in nature. It goes against every notion we have a lead pastor. I can't speak for the circumstance with Mitch. I don't have enough information to make a fair statement.

I would hope that there is some grace for TPC. This is a charge that does many things for the Kingdom of God that are excellent. There is unfortunately some things they are lacking in. I think they know about most but some may be a mystery to them. I think more transparency with the congregation would alleviate some of the underlying issues and questions on why they do what they do. It would also help them know how to serve the body better.

I know that Mitch's wife attended the church for years after he died. I think that if there was some sort of pain created by how that was handled she would have left. My assumption is that maybe there was reconciliation there? Are we fighting a battle that doesn't need to be fought? Just a question, I don't have the answer.

My husband and I used to attend a church (albeit much smaller) in Snohomish. When he ended up in the hospital for 2 nights for an injury, not something life threatening or too serious, the pastor came to visit and pray for him. This was a new pastor to the church, so he was someone we didn't know well yet. Yes, TPC is larger by far, but if Mike was approached personally to make a visit, why couldn't he take the small amount of time from his day to stop by and pray for him??? It doesn't matter if it's his gifting... it's called compassion. It's called respect. It's called his JOB!


Quote:
tpcwocattender
D-o-D
I don't want to sound like a TPC apologist but you are picking on pastor Mike's weakness. Not all are called to pastor or shepherd the church. Though Mike is called the 'pastor' this is not his gifting and I don't really hold him responsible for that. The elders know it, they need stronger pastoral care within the body. It is hard to think of a person leading a charge who is not pastoral in nature. It goes against every notion we have a lead pastor. I can't speak for the circumstance with Mitch. I don't have enough information to make a fair statement.

Oh, TP Attehder....

Grace! There is much grace for TP....but having grace does NOT mean excusing poor behavior, and allowing it to continue.

You say that you are a part of leadership....have you been made aware of Pastor Mike's plan to change the mission and vision of TP? Are you aware of his *position* as "lead Apostle"? Do you know what that means?

Mitch and Mary....do you know that Pastor Cyndi *recruited* a team of people to build a deck at their home for Mike......pulling a group of men from ministering at Mary's home after Mitch died? Did you know that behavior is common, and has happened over and over and over again at TP (excluding the death, of course)?

Did you know that *upward mobility* at TP is based on how much a person gives, and/or does? Did you know that TP leaders will question (cause you to question) your salvation and commitment to God if you don't give enough or work hard enough?

Do you know where the money from the stewardship campaign is? Do you know how much is left?

Do you know why Pastor Mike has completely cut himself off from the body? He doesn't make appointments or speak to anyone that is not leadership, city officials, or pastors. Did you know that every email, every letter, every correspondant that is intended for Mike is screened first, and Mike may or may not ever see it (just incase you were wondering if someone in the body could *get to him* that way).

Did you know that Pastor Mike has said that he *ministers to* young people, because they are more impressionable?

Did you know (before DofD's post) how high Mike's salary is? Do you know how low other staff member's salaries are?

Do you know the real reason's behind the sabatical?


I don't know what your *position* in leadership is.....but I am sad to say, that there are very few postions that I believe can make a difference at this point in time. You will be in my prayers.

My intent on my comment about gifting was merely to state a counter position for thought. I understand the points made by several of you and possibly due to my lack of time in the church didn't know all the circumstances around Mitch. If it seems I am dancing around issues or skirting topics it is not because I don't see or care. I have seen the ugly side of church from a lot of perspectives. I have seen people look for the proverbial smoking gun so they could say 'see! I told you so'. Even if contextually they were wrong. This has numbed me to some issues because I don't see the positives to pursuing. That said, you don't know where I am on my mission to seek answers or test the statements made here or ones I have presumed from my own experiences.

I made a post yesterday that has not appeared for some reason. It was dealing with a statement made about my motives. I will just say this. No ill conceived idea on my part to infiltrate the outcasts. I have been reading your posts all year. Just thought I would dive in and stir the pot - that was a joke.

TP attender,

I can't really tell who your last response it to, sometimes I struggle with this layout.

I didn't get the impression that you are skirting around the issues. I do believe that you are seeking the truth. Honestly, I don't believe that what happened with Mitch is THE issue, it's only one example of the issue. It stands out b/c of Mitch's position as deacon. But, I personally have seen this happen so many times that I can't recall all of them. I will share a couple of them though.

A couple had a leak in their roof, and a lot of subsequent damage. They *hired* someone from TP to do the repairs. After two months, the wife was exasperated b/c the work still was not complete. It turned out that Pastor Mike had gone out of town, and Cyndi wanted to surprise him with some work at their home. The man being paid to work on this other family's home dropped the original project to work on Mike's house.......

A family was moving. They had lined up a group of men to help them out. Moving day came and noone showed up to help. Two days later this family learned that this group was diverted to a leaders home for a painting *party*.............

Another family was moving. Again, a group of men commited to helping.....moving day, only one person showed up. Pastor Mike snapped his finger and another pet project took precedence...........

I personally know of a number of people who were sick and/or injured, in the hospital and/or homebound who were never visited by anyone in leadership, who never received a phone call.

I know men AND women who were hurt and broken seeking help, only to be pushed away by those in leadership.

The trend I've seen over the many years I was at at TP? There are two groups of people that get *attention*. The core (the worshiped leaders) and the potential worshipers. Once they've been *won over* they no longer receive the attention or the level of care that was promised to them early on.

The Lord put on a servants towel and washed the feet of his deciples as an example. If Christ our Lord humbled himself and assumed the role of a servant then why is Mike not doing the same? Why is he so consumed about double honor for himself and the Pastoral staff? If he did in fact say to anyone "you don't honor me enough" then he is wrong. If he did so, I question his ability to sheperd a flock and that means any flock not just TPC Marysville and its off shoots. Mike's actions are not biblical. His teachings are not sound. The Elder's are looking more and more like the see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil monkeys.

If I can read the Bible and figure this out, if Brokenhearted, Veiled No More, Buddy, saved by grace, and others can read the Bible and see the smoke boiling out of the windows and doors then why cannot the Pastoral Staff and the Elders see it? Because Pastor Mike has said to ignore it the Elders are see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil models. I don't know what kind of Bibles they use or if they use them at all but I use mine.

While Pastors Mike and Cindy, the Elders, and Deacons have many admirable traits, I think they are mistaken in what their duties are to the congregation. The following is what scripture says about their roles and obligations to the body at TPC. Quite frankly I think they have crashed the train and left the tracks of what their jobs are as provided for in scripture.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 (The Message)
Leadership in the Church

1-7If anyone wants to provide leadership in the church, good! But there are preconditions: A leader must be well-thought-of, committed to his wife, cool and collected, accessible, and hospitable. He must know what he's talking about, not be overfond of wine, not pushy but gentle, not thin-skinned, not money-hungry. He must handle his own affairs well, attentive to his own children and having their respect. For if someone is unable to handle his own affairs, how can he take care of God's church? He must not be a new believer, lest the position go to his head and the Devil trip him up. Outsiders must think well of him, or else the Devil will figure out a way to lure him into his trap.

8-13The same goes for those who want to be servants in the church: serious, not deceitful, not too free with the bottle, not in it for what they can get out of it. They must be reverent before the mystery of the faith, not using their position to try to run things. Let them prove themselves first. If they show they can do it, take them on. No exceptions are to be made for women—same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine. Servants in the church are to be committed to their spouses, attentive to their own children, and diligent in looking after their own affairs. Those who do this servant work will come to be highly respected, a real credit to this Jesus-faith.

Titus 1:6-9 (The Message)
A Good Grip on the Message

5-9I left you in charge in Crete so you could complete what I left half-done. Appoint leaders in every town according to my instructions. As you select them, ask, "Is this man well-thought-of? Is he committed to his wife? Are his children believers? Do they respect him and stay out of trouble?" It's important that a church leader, responsible for the affairs in God's house, be looked up to—not pushy, not short-tempered, not a drunk, not a bully, not money-hungry. He must welcome people, be helpful, wise, fair, reverent, have a good grip on himself, and have a good grip on the Message, knowing how to use the truth to either spur people on in knowledge or stop them in their tracks if they oppose it.

What are the qualifications of elders and deacons?

The Bible has a very clear set of qualifications for a deacon and an elder and their positions in the body of believers. There is a difference between these two terms even though in our society they are quite often used interchangeably. We first see the word that is translated "deacon" used in Acts, although it is veiled. "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables" (Acts 6:2). The word "serve" is the Greek word "diakoneo," and it comes from a word that means an attendant, a waiter, or one who ministers to another, and it is from this word that we get the word “deacon.” The context here is that there was a dispute in the church in Acts about the way the pooled resources were being allocated, and the apostles were being called upon to arbitrate, and it was a distraction from their ability to give out the gospel. Therefore, a group of seven men were appointed to take care of this task. A deacon, therefore, is one who serves others and especially in the body of born-again believers that make up a local congregation.

The Apostle Paul gives us the qualifications of the bishop or elder in his first letter to Timothy. The Greek word that is used for the office of a bishop or elder is "episkope," and the word used for the one who holds the office is "episkopos." The bishop himself is the superintendent or the officer in general charge or the overseer of the congregation. Our English word "Episcopal" has its basis in the Greek root, which means "knowledge gained by inspection, or seeking out, to look on or to exercise oversight of." Therefore, the bishop or elder was one who was the overseer in charge of the oversight of the local body of believers. This is what we might call a pastor or minister today.

The qualifications of the bishop/elder/pastor are found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

The Apostle Paul repeats these qualifications of a bishop/elder/pastor (the same Greek word "episkopos" is used) in his letter to Titus. "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict." (Titus 1:5-9).

The qualifications of a deacon are similar to those of a bishop/elder/pastor. "Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:8-13). The word translated "deacon" in this passage is the same Greek word "diakoneo" as is used in Acts 6:2, and therefore we know we are talking about the same office.

There is no ambiguity about these qualifications. Rather, they are simple, straightforward statements. Both the deacon and the bishop/elder/pastor should be a male, the husband of one wife, of sterling character and one who rules his own home in a biblical way. These qualifications also presuppose that one seeking such an office is a born-again believer and walks in submission to God's Word. Being faithful to the Word enables these men to be able to exhort and to teach or convince others of God's truth.

These are not offices to be taken lightly. The Lord Jesus Himself is called the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls" (1 Peter 2:25). The two words used here are interesting. The word "Shepherd" is the Greek word "poimen," and it is also translated "pastor" (Ephesians 4:11). This poimen is one who tends herds or flocks and is used metaphorically of Christian pastors because pastors should guide as well as feed the flock the bread of life, the Word of God. The word translated "bishop" is the same word, "episkopos," used by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy and in Titus. Paul also instructs Timothy on the things that exemplify the walk of a good minister. Beginning in 1 Timothy 4:11 through 6:2, Paul gives Timothy 12 things that he should "command and teach."

What are the duties of an elder in the church?"

Answer: The Bible spells out at least five duties and obligations of an elder:

1) The elders help to settle disputes in the church. “While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the Christians 'unless you keep the ancient Jewish custom of circumcision taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.' Paul and Barnabas, disagreeing with them, argued forcefully and at length. Finally, Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:1-2, NLT). The question was raised and forcefully argued, then taken to the apostles and elders for a decision. This passage teaches that elders are decision makers.

2) They pray for the sick. "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James 5:14). Since the elders have to meet specific qualifications, their lives are godly and therefore the sin in their lives is minimal and is confessed regularly; therefore, they are used to pray for the sick. One of the necessities in prayer is praying for the Lord’s will to be done, and they are expected to do this.

3) They are to watch out for the church in humility. "I exhort the elders who are among you, I being also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God among you, taking the oversight, not by compulsion, but willingly; nor for base gain, but readily; nor as lording it over those allotted to you by God, but becoming examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:1-4). Elders are the designated leaders of the church, and the flock is entrusted to them by God. They are not to lead for the pay or the reward but because of their desire to serve and shepherd the flock.

4) They are to watch out for the spiritual life of the flock. "Yield to those leading you, and be submissive, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you" (Hebrews 13:17). This verse does not specifically say “elders,” but it is talking about the church leaders. They are accountable for the spiritual life of the church.

5) They are to spend their time in prayer and teaching the word. "And the Twelve called near the multitude of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word’” (Acts 6:2-4). This is for the apostles, but we can see from the passage above in #3 that Peter equates himself as an apostle and an elder. From this verse you can also see the difference between the duties of elder and deacon.

Simply put, the elders should be peacemakers, prayer warriors, teachers, leaders by example, and decision makers. They are the preaching and teaching leaders of the church. It is a position to be sought but not taken lightly—read this warning: "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1). The role of elder is not a position to be taken lightly.

First Peter 5:3 contains a wonderful description of a balanced pastoral ministry: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock.” The pastor’s authority is not something to be “lorded over” the church; rather, a pastor is to be an example of truth, love, and godliness for God's flock to follow. (See also 1 Timothy 4:12.) A pastor is “the steward of God” (Titus 1:7), and he is answerable to God for his leadership in the church.

1 Peter 5:1-3 (The Message)
He'll Promote You at the Right Time

1-3 I have a special concern for you church leaders. I know what it's like to be a leader, in on Christ's sufferings as well as the coming glory. Here's my concern: that you care for God's flock with all the diligence of a shepherd. Not because you have to, but because you want to please God. Not calculating what you can get out of it, but acting spontaneously. Not bossily telling others what to do, but tenderly showing them the way.


Titus 1:7 (The Message)
A Good Grip on the Message

5-9 I left you in charge in Crete so you could complete what I left half-done. Appoint leaders in every town according to my instructions. As you select them, ask, "Is this man well-thought-of? Is he committed to his wife? Are his children believers? Do they respect him and stay out of trouble?" It's important that a church leader, responsible for the affairs in God's house, be looked up to—not pushy, not short-tempered, not a drunk, not a bully, not money-hungry. He must welcome people, be helpful, wise, fair, reverent, have a good grip on himself, and have a good grip on the Message, knowing how to use the truth to either spur people on in knowledge or stop them in their tracks if they oppose it.