Applying the leadership of these shepherds to our time would be the same as applying apostles or prophets to our time. Neither were intended to be applied past that age. Their work was primarily to teach, protect, and care for the flock. These shepherds did not fulfill their role as shepherds only once or twice a week. Their work was very demanding and is described as rigorous and toilsome. Their “full-time” work and labor of love was so demanding and laborious that they would forgo working for a living. As agents of free will, they could choose to grieve the Spirit. But if they chose to be faithful stewards in teaching what the Holy Spirit guided them to teach, they lived among sheep. In this case of a divine charge and a commitment to hard work, they were worthy of double honor and their physical needs were met. These men had the full support and confidence of brethren around him and were “esteemed very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13; cf. Galatians 6:6, 1 Timothy 5:17). These men were supported not because they had rendered the organization service, but because they had committed themselves to the spiritual oversight of souls. If we had such men among us, directly aided by the Holy Spirit, and committed to a labor of love that demanded the bulk of his time, would there be any hesitation to invite him at our table, give him transportation, and provide for his physical needs? It is in this context that we read of Christians of that era being told to obey, and submit to their elders because they watched over them, spiritually.
Today, we have people claiming to have modern-day apostles, prophets, and shepherds. However, the context and rules of engagement are very different. Obedience and submission are replaced from the context of the personal oversight of souls to the administrative oversight of churches. Without some measure of the Spirit or the guided selection of men by the Spirit, a Shepherd’s care would be resisted. If not for their divine charge and guidance, they would be just natural men like us. If such men were to attempt to do anything akin to the task first century elders did, they would not only have failed, but no one would submit to their oversight or support them economically. They would be “meddling (overseeing) other men’s affairs” (cf. 1 Peter 4:15).
None of the above could be applied today. It just wouldn’t work. Instead of accepting their role in that age and their work being fulfilled, we have inherited the supposition that this New Testament work is a perpetual task supported by the Lord, today. However, it is not only a new role, but the subject and nature of the oversight have changed. Today, this task has been merged and thus confused with an office of the church which views the role as an administrator of an organization like a superintendent of schools. His basic job is to make administrative decisions for the group that includes the use of the money, and who receives financial support and a salaried check, as well as the services and maintenance of the church building.
Consider the differences between the two roles and the logical reasons for the development of the new role. First, today’s church bishops/overseers cannot match the teaching skills of first-century shepherds. If church members could be confident in the selection of these men chosen and guided by the Holy Spirit, they would not only receive them as a welcome guest at their dinner table, they would submit to their being overseen, and follow their lead. Today, the elder’s selection is the result of the people’s choice and he does not have the Holy Spirit. Why would we expect anything other than members questioning and ignoring the knowledge and judgment of these so-called “elders”? This is to be expected because good men, who may know the Scriptures, may misunderstand or misapply them. The membership recognizes this human element and will not give heed to their words as being Spirit guided. When an elder’s choice is not followed, the matter is complicated when he insists on their submission. Here again, we are trying to apply the first-century condition to another time. We readily accept the need to submit and obey one chosen by God and endowed with the gift to lead His people. But, why would we blindly obey and submit to a so-called “elder” today without such divine guidance? Can we not see why such men would be considered an ignorant meddler and/or ignore his position?
Second, today’s elders are not overseers of individual souls. They are overseers of local churches. In this case, the organization has become a humanly devised system in which we can fit shepherds as long as we can alter their role from soul watchers to business administrators and decision-makers. Is it any wonder we have difficulty applying the task of obedience and submission to modern church elders? I have repeatedly, described this mindset as an “institutional mindset” because we have replaced the called out body of Christ with an institution that is fashioned to corporate America as a 501(c). The focus is on numerical growth and the size of the facility. The more members, the more money can be raised to do good work. The mindset is similar to the TV movie, “Field of Dreams.” The advice was, “Build it and they will come.” Even though those on the inside recognize the daunting task of adding new members and maintaining present members, the measuring stick for faithfulness is the member’s record of attendance. Leaders of the organizations are trying to coax people to the feed-lot by making their offers as attractive as possible. I recall a preacher who held lectures in local churches to train brethren to think about our changing world and prepare to make the best first impression for visiting guests. While being shocked at what I was hearing, I overhead another preacher boast about the growth of every church wherever he was hired to peach. Meanwhile, an elder explains that the three biggest pillars to “grow a church” is to build a nice building, hire an exciting speaker, and develop fine classrooms and materials. “Build this and they will come,” were his words. I can’t read anything remotely kin to anything we have described, here. I have never read of any saints building a church building, hiring a preacher, or having exciting classes for the children. Of course, I’m not surprised because I can’t even find the work of a local church organization. I only find work in which saints were very much involved and jointly with other saints, in many cases. I can not read of anyone “establishing a church,” “planting” a church, or “growing a church,” either. But, it is arguably what the people want and it is thought to be the best option available to shepherd souls who resist any personal transformation.
Third, this new human arrangement makes better sense, culturally. Even though it does not fit the same biblical profile, American culture encourages independence and privacy, only to be interrupted by a formal invitation or a call to be permitted access. With busy and private lives and tight schedules, modern church shepherds are left with only one recourse. Form a local church and build a building and the members will voluntarily submit to that time for public teaching. People are more likely to accept this shot-gun approach to admonition and correction. At least, we can have some amount of time and effort given to teaching.
Church members divide their lives into “secular affairs” and “church affairs.” Even though a sheep is a sheep whether it’s in the pen or the pasture, church members are much more hesitant to engage others outside the time that’s allotted for it. In the institutional view, the majority of the membership perceive themselves as sheep only when they walk into the front door of a church building or come together to form a physical gathering. Therefore, an elder is thought to be meddler if any disciplinary effort, warning, or admonition is offered because it is an invasion of privacy if done outside the sheep pen or coral. Some may tolerate targeted applications but sparingly and under certain settings. The membership is used to hearing and singing spiritual songs, the reading of Scripture, giving, or the submission of women when attending one of those public worship services, but rarely expects these things at any other time or place. Similarly, if it is only in the “worship services” that members of the organization see their leaders and their example, are they likely to expect it any other time and place? As long as these conditions exist, is it any wonder that we have so much difficulty persuading people in this membership to commit their lives as living sacrifices?