Should teachers be deacons?

I know of at least one church that requires all teachers and even small group leaders to be deacons. It does this because subjecting teachers — those responsible for the front-line duty of teaching the faith to believers and unbelievers — to the general character qualifications for deacons (primarily 1 Timothy 3:8-13) enables the church some measure of oversight to what teachers do.

Typically churches use the Desire Test for recruiting teachers: if someone wants to teach in the church, then obviously he is qualified to do so. But having set desire as the criteria for judging teachers, the church is in a tough position to then determine that despite his ardent desire and best intentions, that man cannot teach. A very real result is that a teacher who expresses in class that “we don’t need to listen to Paul — he’s a man, after all” cannot be removed from teaching responsibility because to do so would hurt her feelings and crush her spirit.

One of the most important aspects of teacher qualification is character. There is, obviously, much to be said for preparation skill and classroom ability, but the best teacher will still sabotage the mission and unity of the church if his character is not in order.

This is so because everything that the teacher does teaches. If he openly disagrees with church docrine in class, if he expresses disdain for church leadership or their ministry philosophy, if he calls into question teaching material that the elders approved, he is teaching much more than the missionary journeys of Paul.

And this also applies to those we wouldn’t consider “teachers” and situations we wouldn’t classify “teaching.”

All people who occupy positions of influence in the congregation wield considerable ability to sway the opinions of others. Committee chairmen, group leaders, discussion “facilitators”, department leaders…all can exert tremendous influence over other members of the congregation.

And when those influencers bristle at the teaching of the spiritual leaders, when they resist training required by the elders, when they show open disdain for those things, that rebellious and non-submissive attitude will infect the rest of the congregation.

At that point, the spiritual leader of the congregation should not care one whit how good a “teacher” that influencer is; he should have no official platform for that negative influence.

Should churches then, like the congregation I know, require all teachers and less formal influencers to satisfy the requirements of deacon?

Things Leader Teams Should Know

Larry Osborne, in Sticky Teams (Zondervan, 2010), proposes that all church leadership teams should be aware of six principles that are initially counter-intuitive but which should become axiomatic.

1. Ignore Your Weaknesses

Conventional wisdom is that teams (or churches) identify weaknesses and improve them to reduce vulnerability in that area. Osborne rejects this, and proposes instead that teams focus on their strengths. This certainly has appeal in that it frees a congregation and its leader team to focus on gifts God has provided the group. But what if a group’s strength is worship, but its weakness is disciple-making? Or what if the strength is teaching, but its weakness is worship?

2. Surveys are a Waste of Time

I’ve come to agree — mostly — with this. Surveys and polls and similar assessments are a spillover from the prevalence of their ubiquitous cousins in politics, and suffer from the same problem: people tend to answer such things as they think they should answer them, rather than how they really think, or how they will ultimately act. Yet preachers and teachers are encouraged to “exegete” the learners, and shepherds must know the sheep. Is there a role for the survey?

3. Seek Permission, Not Buy-In

Osborne means that many leaders tend to want everyone in the church to become zealous for, and an advocate of, any plan proposed by the leaders. People rarely do that before they see the program in action. Consequently, leaders seeking “buy-in” don’t get it, and opt out of many good new proposals. Osborne suggests the better approach is to simply seek the group’s permission to give it a try.

4. Let Squeaky Wheels Squeak

Proverbially the “squeaky wheel gets the grease.” In the case of churches, the squeaky wheel brings the wagon to a complete stop. Osborne points out that when leadership teams attempt to satisfy the “squeaky wheel” — the member who is constantly critical, perpetually pampered, and seldom satisfied — there is little energy or desire left to actually shepherd the rest of the flock. He proposes to “let them squeak.”

In decision-making, Osborne is mostly right. But what of the need to shepherd that “squeaky” member, with exhortation, reproval, admonishment, encouragement? I would be interested in what Osborne does — from a disciple-making perspective — with the squeaky wheel.

5. Let Dying Programs Die

And, of course, the corollary: “Let Dead Programs Stay Dead.” Churches frequently sustain ministries and programs simply because it is deemed “un-Christian” or “not loving” to that program’s participants and advocates to end them. But a healthy church is constantly reviewing whether what it does is actually accomplishing the church’s mission and that program’s intended place in mission.

6. Plan in Pencil

No real doubt about this one.

Conclusion: Osborne offers much good, practical advice to help leader teams shepherd their congregations. One concern, however, is that he seems resigned for leader teams to delegate more and more of the shepherding responsibility as a church grows larger. In that case, the shepherding is not being done by the shepherds.

Even so, a leader team that balances their continuing responsibility to shepherd with Osborne’s practical advice will find useful material here.

Questions to ask wives and husbands

Brian Croft has a good post regarding the relationship of husband and wife, and the constant tending it requires. See the whole article here.

In essence, husbands should ask their wives “What are some things I do (can do) that make you feel loved, cherished and spiritually nourished by me?”

Wives should ask their husbands “What are some things I do (can do) that encourage you, make you feel respected and honored as the head of the family?”

Honestly asking each other these things should stimulate good discussion about the male/female, husband/wife relationship in light of biblical teaching.

“Pressure Washing”

At a busy intersection leading into a small town appear two signs. The first is plain, no-nonsense, unassuming. It suggests, simply, “Welcome to Troy. Worship with First Baptist Church.”

Right beside it, on an adjacent telephone pole, and appearing at the same eye-level, is the second sign.

It is an advertisement for a local business, also plain, simple and with a telephone number: “Pressure Washing.”

Think:  “Worship at First Baptist Church” … “Pressure Washing.”

Worship…pressure washing.

God is indeed providential, even over signs.

God is not egalitarian

…there are many areas of life in which God has no intention of levelling out the distinctions between us. Consider the obvious: God does not value intellectual or aesthetic equality among people. He does not value equality in finances, talents, and opportunity. It is God who deliberately ordains inequalities in many aspects of our lives.

One measure of our wisdom as God’s image-bearers is whether we share this perspective with God. One measure of our reconciliation with God is whether His sovereign decrees draw from us a response of worship or resentment.

Raymond Ortlund, in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.

Male Headship defined

In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.

Raymond Ortlund’s definition of male headship, in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Ortlund continues:

It is God who wants men to be men and women to be women; and He can teach us the meaning of each, if we want to be taught.

To fix our gaze on Christ

In Mark 8:22-26, Jesus heals a blind man. Mark uses several different words for sight or seeing, and the implied progression is from simple biological ability, to an ability to perceive dimly, to the ability to focus and fix his gaze.

When Jesus restores our spiritual sight, he also give the ability for us to keep our gaze focused on him.

Many things can distract us from looking only to Christ, among them the idea that we have become good enough to stop repenting, we’ve become straight enough to quit reforming, or that we’ve become mature enough to cease learning.

Would you fix your eyes on Christ? Be constantly repenting, constantly reforming, constantly learning.