Another resulting problem is the ever-present confusion in the roles of preachers and elders. Local preachers in the organization often supplant the elders and their role! This is not an indictment of intent as only God can measure personal motivation. The point is that we can predict problems where God has not authored an arrangement.
First, it is argued that the majority of elders are not pulpit preachers. The conditioning of the majority requires that the teaching comes from pulpit preaching. So, since they have chosen the method of teaching to be pulpit preaching for which many shepherds are not qualified, they must hire a professional man to do this specialized work of preaching the Word. In other words, they can relinquish the work for which they should be qualified by contracting the work to others. This supports the new job description of maintaining control of the organization’s work, rate the hirelings’ performance, and the morale of the congregation.
Among Protestant churches, more time is allotted to the sermon than any other element of the “worship service”. The importance given to it in word and deed sounds like the sermon is the most important source of spiritual teaching. While preaching the Word is unquestionably the work of God’s people, there is nothing in the Word that requires a formal speech (sermon). Something is wrong when men of experience and learning are squelched because they are boring speakers. For this reason, professional speakers/preachers are hired to deliver such public addresses as a part of public worship services. He is the performer, whose task is to hold the attention of his audience. Such an arrangement naturally excludes many shepherds who lack the gift of rhetoric and speech. The local church arrangement produces a great disconnect between the shepherd and the sheep. The hireling usurps the teaching, gains the confidence of the sheep. The sheep seek his favor and guidance.
The system is flawed because the preacher is placed before the congregation as a spiritual teacher/leader and initiates much of the work but is not an “appointed” shepherd. In theory, they are not our shepherds but in practice, they are expected to be our spiritual leaders. He is more often before the congregation as a public teacher and the “go-to” man for Bible answers, yet he knows he’s not supposed to be the “go-to” man. This leaves many congregations without proper leadership because the elders, who should be taking the oversight, remain powerless. They are powerless because they are either unqualified and/or indifferent to their responsibilities or the preacher, the spiritual teacher, is kept in check. This is especially a problem for young men who are placed in a position for which he is unqualified, only to have much of his teaching disregarded or taken lightly.
Also, the preachers of the organizations do not know the members and problems of the past or present. The members are accustomed to lessons with the general application until such a time the preacher learns of things concerning which he cannot remain silent. All of a sudden, he’s no longer the nice guy and can’t do much right or preach a sermon without others finding fault with it. This is unfair to him and results in collective unrest and the toleration of sinful attitudes. Generally, a preacher boldly preaches his convictions that cost him his friends, support of the members, and perhaps his job or he remains silent where there is unrepentant sin, avoids any subject that is known to carry potential differences of opinion, and chooses the path of least resistance. Compromise is very attractive as it promotes future popularity among fellow peers and ensures job security.
In other cases, elders have completely delegated their role to a very qualified leader/preacher. Here, the preachers are doing the work of shepherds and the membership has all the confidence in him. The prudent pacify the eldership with words of public commendation and respectful gestures because they need their support. But, they have become “yes” men and follow his lead. One solution that has been in practice among some brethren in recent years is to choose men as “elders” among those who have preached for years and have remained in the same area for years. After all, why not recognize those who preach as elders rather than as preachers in order to teach the membership that the primary role of all elders is teaching? This recognizes the confusion of roles between the preachers and the elders of the organization and seeks to fix it.