Reflections on Our Transition Toward an Elder–Deacon Model

1. Why I Wanted to Have This Conversation

I have been very encouraged by what I have seen in the church these first several months. There is a real receptiveness to the Word and a sincere desire to hear Scripture taught faithfully and to respond to it. There is also a meaningful legacy here. Many people have loved this church for years, invested deeply in its life, and care sincerely about its testimony and future. I have also been struck by the warmth of the community and by the many brothers and sisters who serve quietly and sacrificially simply because they love the church. I have also sensed among both the congregation and the deacons a sincere desire to obey God, honor His will, and do what is right before Him. These are not small things. They are significant gifts from God, and they give me much encouragement as I consider how the church can continue building on what He has already given us and grow together in greater faithfulness to Scripture.

Because of these strengths, I approach this season with real hope. The church already has much to build on, and I believe the move toward an elder–deacon model can help us steward these gifts with greater biblical clarity. My hope is to strengthen what is already bearing fruit and bring our shepherding, teaching, discipleship, leadership, and service into closer alignment with Scripture.

That is why I especially value having open and ongoing communication with you. I am grateful for your perspective and knowledge of the church, and as I grow into my pastoral responsibilities, I would like to continue seeking your wisdom, advice, and support. My hope is that we can think through questions together, speak openly when concerns or differences arise, and discern together how I can serve the church faithfully in the responsibilities entrusted to me.

I am not presenting these reflections as settled conclusions that I expect you to agree with. I am trying to put my present thinking on the table clearly enough that you can help me see where I am right, where I may be missing something, and especially how these principles should apply within the actual history, relationships, and present circumstances of our church. I think the biblical principles are important, but I also know that applying them wisely requires understanding how responsibilities have developed here over time, and that is an area where your perspective is particularly important to me.

The main question I am asking is:

As we move toward an elder–deacon model, how should pastoral oversight, diaconal service, delegated ministry responsibility, staff roles, and the congregation’s own responsibilities fit together so that the church is faithfully shepherded, equipped, and built up under Christ?

This is not only an abstract question for me. It has become increasingly practical as I begin to carry pastoral responsibility in areas where existing staff responsibilities, ministry structures, and pastoral leadership naturally intersect. Toward the end of this letter I will suggest two modest places where I think we might begin—Mandarin preaching direction and regular pastoral communication—not as solutions to the larger question, but as practical ways of working through it together.

---

2. The Church’s Biblical Life and Its Legal and Organizational Structure

One distinction that has become increasingly helpful to me is the difference between the church’s ecclesial identity and order and the legal, employment, and organizational structure through which it also functions in society.

Fundamentally, the church has one identity: it is Christ’s church, the people He has redeemed and gathered into His body, living together under His lordship and His Word.

At the same time, a local church in the United States also exists within a civil and legal framework. In order to own property, employ people, enter contracts, maintain insurance, handle finances, satisfy reporting requirements, and bear legal accountability, the church ordinarily organizes these aspects of its life through a nonprofit corporation or comparable legal structure.

That civil and organizational structure is necessary and useful for many practical purposes. But it exists to serve the church; it does not define what the church is.

I think this distinction can be particularly important in churches like ours, especially where ministry structures, staff roles, and congregational life have developed closely alongside one another over many years. We naturally need organizational structures, job descriptions, boards, employees, policies, budgets, and lines of administrative accountability. At the same time, we are trying to order the actual life of the church according to Scripture.

These two dimensions necessarily overlap because they concern the same local church, but they should not be confused.

From the biblical and ecclesial perspective, our basic question is:

How has Christ ordered His church, and what responsibilities has He entrusted to particular people within the life of His body?

From the legal and organizational perspective, the question is different:

What structures, officers, employees, job descriptions, responsibilities, and forms of accountability are necessary for the nonprofit organization to function responsibly and lawfully?

The first question must be answered primarily from Scripture. The second must take account of civil law, organizational wisdom, employment realities, and practical necessity.

This distinction helps me understand several categories that otherwise can easily become blurred:

Biblical office → Who has been recognized by the church to bear an office Christ gives to His church?

Ministry responsibility → What work has a church member been entrusted to carry out in the life and ministry of the church?

Employment role → What work has this person been employed or organizationally assigned to perform, and for what is he or she administratively accountable?

These categories can overlap in the same person, but they are not interchangeable.

Within the elder–deacon understanding toward which we are moving, I understand the New Testament to recognize two ordinary church offices: elder/pastor and deacon. Scripture does not appear to present “staff” as a third order of church office alongside them.

At the same time, this certainly does not mean that only elders and deacons serve or lead. The whole congregation is called to minister. Members may teach, disciple, evangelize, organize ministries, lead projects, provide hospitality, care for people, administer programs, maintain facilities, handle finances, or serve in countless other ways without holding either biblical office.

The nonprofit organization, however, may need positions that Scripture neither commands nor names: secretary, bookkeeper, administrator, facilities manager, communications coordinator, office manager, director, and many others. These positions may be entirely appropriate and necessary organizationally. Some may be paid; others may not be. They may involve substantial responsibility. But they should remain what they are: organizational or employment positions rather than additional offices of the church.

Some of that work may require so much time, continuity, expertise, or availability that the nonprofit organization appropriately employs and compensates someone to perform it.

A secretary provides a simple example. From the organizational perspective, the person may be an employee with a job description, compensation, work expectations, and administrative accountability. From the perspective of the church’s biblical life, however, that same person may simply be a member of the congregation using his or her gifts to serve the body.

Likewise, biblical office does not require employment, and employment does not create biblical office. An elder or deacon may be unpaid, while an employee may hold no biblical office. The same person may also occupy both categories—for example, serving as an elder while also being employed by the organization. In that case, his ecclesial responsibility arises from the office in which the church has recognized him to serve, while his employment defines the work for which he is organizationally accountable.

Compensation may enable someone to devote substantial time to particular work, but it does not by itself confer ecclesial office or spiritual authority.

This is where I think terminology becomes important—not because titles themselves are the central issue, but because they communicate how we understand a person’s place and authority.

Organizational titles such as administrator, director, coordinator, or secretary may be entirely appropriate descriptions of employment responsibility. At the same time, I think it would be helpful for us to avoid allowing organizational titles to function unintentionally as additional ecclesial categories alongside elder/pastor and deacon.

This may be especially worth considering with terms such as “minister,” which, depending on how the congregation hears the term, can sometimes suggest recognized pastoral or spiritual leadership—perhaps especially in a Chinese church context. My concern is whether our terminology helps the congregation understand clearly where a person’s responsibility and authority come from. I would value thinking through that question with you.

The legal and organizational structure should serve the church faithfully. But it should not become the framework that defines the church’s ecclesial order.

I would therefore summarize the principle this way:

The church has one fundamental identity under Christ, while also functioning through a necessary civil and organizational structure. Biblical offices should be defined by Scripture; organizational positions should be defined by legitimate organizational needs. Neither should be allowed to create confusion about the other. We should let biblical categories describe a person’s ecclesial standing in the church, and let organizational categories describe the person’s employment responsibilities within the nonprofit corporation.

The larger principle is:

Our civil and organizational structure should serve the biblical life of the church without allowing organizational authority or employment status, by themselves, to determine ecclesial standing or spiritual authority.

That distinction, I think, helps frame the practical question before us: as we move toward an elder–deacon model, how should responsibilities that developed under our previous structure relate to the responsibilities Scripture particularly associates with elders, deacons, and the congregation?

---

3. How I Understand the Direction of the Transition

Seen from this perspective, I am increasingly inclined to think that our transition toward an elder–deacon model may involve something more substantial than simply replacing the former Senior Pastor with a plurality of elders. I am still learning how the church has actually functioned over the years, so your perspective here would be especially helpful to me.

My present impression is that the church has often functioned, in practice, through an interaction among three significant parts of its leadership structure: the Deacon Board, the Senior Pastor, and staff or ministry leaders. The Deacon Board carried substantial governing and organizational responsibility; the Senior Pastor carried broad responsibility for the spiritual and ministry life of the church; and staff members or ministry leaders often carried significant responsibility for developing, directing, and sustaining particular ministries.

I may not yet understand all the history or the formal distinctions correctly, and I am grateful for the people who faithfully carried these responsibilities, especially during seasons of pastoral transition and during and after the pandemic. Ministries had to continue, and people understandably stepped into responsibilities that needed to be carried.

If this general picture is accurate, some of the ambiguity we experience today may simply reflect the fact that these functional relationships developed under a different pastoral structure and now need to be reconsidered as the church moves toward an elder–deacon model. I would especially value your help in understanding whether I am seeing that history accurately.

With that distinction in mind, one important question in the present transition is how responsibilities presently carried by staff and ministry leaders should relate to the emerging responsibilities of elders, deacons, and the congregation. The issue is not whether staff and ministry leaders should exercise meaningful leadership, but how the different kinds of responsibility should relate to one another under the structure toward which we are moving.

This makes me wonder whether the transition before us involves more than simply:

Senior Pastor → plurality of elders

It may also require us to reconsider how responsibilities that developed under the former structure—among the Deacon Board, Senior Pastor, staff, and ministry leaders—should now relate to the biblical responsibilities of elders, deacons, and the congregation. Otherwise, we could complete the constitutional transition without yet having clarified how pastoral oversight, staff responsibility, delegated ministry leadership, and congregational responsibility should relate to one another in practice.

One question I think we should keep asking is whether some functional relationships that developed under the previous structure may also need clarification as the elder structure takes shape. Otherwise, we could make the constitutional transition before we have fully worked out how pastoral oversight, staff responsibility, delegated ministry leadership, and congregational responsibility should relate to one another in practice.

That would not necessarily mean anyone is doing something wrong. It may simply mean that we are still developing a shared understanding of how the new structure should function in practice, even as the formal transition is already underway.

As we work through that transition, I think it would be helpful for us to ask afresh how Scripture describes the ordinary life and responsibilities of the church.

Elders/pastors bear particular responsibility for teaching, shepherding, guarding, and overseeing the flock.

Deacons bear particular responsibilities of service that support the life and ministry of the church.

The congregation as a whole also bears real biblical responsibility in the life and order of the church, and all its members are called to participate actively in the ministry and building up of the body. And all the members of the congregation are called to carry out the work of ministry, using the gifts Christ has given them for the building up of the body.

In that sense, moving toward an elder–deacon model should not simply mean transferring governing authority from the Deacon Board to an Elder Board. My hope would be for a healthier biblical relationship among elders, deacons, and the congregation, in which elders genuinely shepherd and lead, deacons faithfully serve, and the congregation actively carries its own responsibilities as the body of Christ.

Within that life, particular ministries can be entrusted to particular people without creating permanent ecclesiastical positions for every ministry.

A ministry may need someone to lead a project, coordinate a program, teach a class, organize an event, oversee a particular initiative, or develop a particular area of service. Depending on the need, the church might entrust that work to a deacon, an individual member, a ministry team, a task force, or a temporary committee. An employee of the nonprofit organization might also be especially well suited to lead or participate in that work.

But the ministry assignment itself does not necessarily require the creation of another permanent church office or ecclesiastical title.

This allows ministry to remain flexible while biblical office remains clear.

In this sense, I would hope that the church of the future would not think primarily in terms of:

pastors + deacons + ministers/staff + “laypeople”

as though these were four different classes of people within the church.

Rather, ecclesially, we would think in terms of elders/pastors, deacons, and members of the congregation, while recognizing that people in any of these categories may also be employed by the organization.

I find it helpful to understand “staff” primarily as an organizational or employment category rather than as a third ecclesial category alongside elders and deacons. Staff members may also be elders/pastors, deacons, or members who hold neither office. In any of those cases, they may carry substantial ministry responsibility, but the source and nature of that responsibility should remain clear.

Indeed, I think recovering this distinction could strengthen congregational ministry. The work of ministry does not belong primarily to professional staff as a distinct class; rather, the saints are to be equipped for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:11–16).

Elders shepherd and equip; deacons serve according to their office; and the whole body ministers. Employment is one organizational means by which the church can support and hold accountable those whose responsibilities require sustained time, expertise, continuity, or availability. Keeping these categories distinct while allowing them to overlap seems to me an important part of completing the transition.

If I were to picture the direction I hope we are moving toward, it would look something like this. This is not intended as a finished organizational chart, but as a simple picture of how I presently understand the biblical relationships we are trying to clarify.

Biblical office — who a person is recognized to be in the ordered life of the church
Delegated ministry responsibility — what ministry a person has been entrusted to carry out
Employment role — what work a person is employed or organizationally assigned to perform

Biblical office, delegated ministry responsibility, and employment role may overlap in one person, but they should not be confused.

---

4. Clarifying Responsibilities During the Transition

This distinction becomes particularly important during our present transition. We have moved away from the former Senior Pastor model, but we do not yet have the functioning plurality of elders that is intended eventually to replace it. In the meantime, staff members and existing ministry leaders have necessarily continued carrying significant responsibilities.

The question, then, is not whether those responsibilities should have been carried, but how they should relate to pastoral oversight, diaconal service, congregational responsibility, and delegated ministry leadership as the elder–deacon structure becomes more fully developed. Completing the transition may therefore require more than establishing an Elder Board; it may also require clarifying how responsibilities inherited from the previous structure should fit within the emerging one.

Some responsibilities are primarily organizational and can appropriately be assigned to staff.

Payroll, bookkeeping, facilities, scheduling, records, communications, purchasing, office administration, and many other responsibilities require clear organizational ownership and accountability. The church should structure these responsibilities wisely and employ people where appropriate.

Other responsibilities are ministry responsibilities that can appropriately be delegated widely among members, deacons, staff, ministry teams, or temporary leaders.

But some responsibilities have a distinctly pastoral and theological dimension because they shape the spiritual direction of the church itself.

Questions such as:

• What should the church teach, and how should Scripture be handled?
• What philosophy of discipleship and spiritual formation should guide our ministries?
• What should shape preaching, small groups, teaching, and shepherding?
• Who should be entrusted with significant teaching or shepherding responsibility, and how should those people be qualified, equipped, and supported?

These are not merely program-management questions. They carry a distinctly pastoral and theological dimension because they directly shape the spiritual formation and shepherding of the church.

People other than elders may contribute enormously to answering and implementing them. Elders should listen to gifted staff members, deacons, teachers, ministry leaders, and members. They should delegate broadly and resist micromanagement.

At the same time, if elders are particularly responsible for shepherding, teaching, guarding, and overseeing the flock, then the spiritual and theological direction of the church should remain meaningfully connected to their oversight.

During this transitional period, however, I do not assume that an individual pastor should simply exercise on his own the authority or oversight that would eventually belong to a functioning plurality of elders. That is one reason I especially value thinking through these questions with you rather than simply acting on my own understanding of them. That is precisely why I think we need to clarify together what pastoral responsibilities should appropriately be carried now, what accountability should accompany them, and how we can move gradually toward the structure we ultimately hope to establish.

This is why I think one of the most practically important distinctions for us during the transition is the distinction between pastoral oversight and ministry implementation.

Pastoral oversight concerns the spiritual and theological direction of the church:

• What are we trying to accomplish spiritually?
• What biblical and theological convictions should govern this ministry?
• How does this ministry contribute to the discipleship and shepherding of the congregation?
• Who should be entrusted to teach or shepherd others?
• How does this ministry fit within the overall spiritual direction of the church?

These are the kinds of questions that should remain primarily under the oversight of the elders/pastors, who bear responsibility for shepherding the flock.

Ministry implementation is different. Ministry implementation concerns the many ways that pastoral direction is actually carried out by deacons, staff members, ministry leaders, teams, and members of the congregation.

Once the biblical purpose and pastoral direction of a ministry are clearly established and understood, substantial responsibility for developing and carrying out that ministry can be entrusted broadly to deacons, staff members, ministry leaders, teams, and other gifted members, provided that their work remains consistent with that direction.

For example, if the church needs to develop a particular ministry, the elders may help establish its biblical purpose and direction and then entrust substantial responsibility for its implementation to a deacon, a staff member, another gifted member, or a temporary ministry team. That person does not need an additional ecclesiastical title in order to exercise real leadership, creativity, initiative, and responsibility. The ministry assignment itself need not create another standing office or category within the church.

Some responsibilities may be long-term; others may be temporary. Some may be carried by paid employees; others by volunteers. Some may be led by elders or deacons; others by gifted members who hold neither office.

The important question is not whether someone has a title, but what kind of responsibility has been entrusted to that person, from where that responsibility comes, and under what biblical accountability it is exercised.

In fact, I think keeping those categories clear could give everyone greater freedom.

An elder does not need to control every operational decision simply because he bears pastoral oversight.

A staff member does not need an ecclesiastical title in order to carry significant organizational or delegated ministry responsibility.

A member does not need either employment or office in order to exercise meaningful ministry.

A deacon’s service can be significant and essential to the life of the church precisely within the responsibilities entrusted to that office, without needing to take on responsibilities that properly belong to pastoral oversight.

The same person may also occupy more than one category. Someone may be both an elder and an employee, or both a deacon and an employee. In those cases, the distinction still matters because the two responsibilities arise from different sources.

Within the ordinary ecclesial life of the church, I would hope we increasingly think of ourselves first as members of one body, among whom some are recognized to serve as elders/pastors and some as deacons. Employment may overlap with any of these categories, but it should not itself determine a person’s ecclesial standing or spiritual authority.

This does not diminish staff responsibility. Rather, it helps us locate staff responsibility within a clearer ecclesiological framework and ask how particular organizational and ministry responsibilities relate to elders, deacons, and the congregation.

The goal, then, is not merely to change the organizational chart, but to bring the way pastoral oversight, delegated ministry responsibility, employment, and service actually function into clearer alignment with Scripture. If we can clarify those relationships, I think many of the ambiguities we are presently experiencing will become easier to resolve.

---

5. What Responsibilities Belong Particularly to Pastors or Elders?

As I understand Scripture, certain responsibilities have a distinctly pastoral character because they directly shape the spiritual life of the congregation (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1–2).

As a working principle, if something substantially shapes what the church believes and teaches, how people are shepherded and discipled, who is entrusted with significant teaching or shepherding responsibility, or how the spiritual health of the congregation is guarded, then I believe its overall direction should remain meaningfully connected to pastoral oversight.

Within our church context, this would include areas such as preaching and teaching; discipleship philosophy, content, and approach; the spiritual purpose and biblical character of small groups; the qualification, theological preparation, and appropriate oversight of those entrusted with significant teaching or shepherding responsibility; pastoral care; pastoral leadership and oversight in matters of membership, discipline, and the ordinances, in proper relationship to the congregation’s own biblical responsibilities; and the overall spiritual and theological direction of the congregation.

Discipleship and small groups are good examples. Staff members, deacons, teachers, and other members may carry substantial responsibility for organizing, leading, teaching, communicating, and caring for people within these ministries. But questions about their biblical purpose, theological direction, the handling of Scripture, the qualifications of those entrusted to teach or shepherd others, and their relationship to the broader shepherding of the congregation have a distinctly pastoral dimension.

This does not mean that elders must personally carry out every aspect of these ministries. The distinction I am trying to make is between carrying out ministry and bearing pastoral oversight for its overall spiritual and theological foundation and direction. Elders should be able to delegate broadly while remaining meaningfully engaged in the teaching, shepherding, and spiritual direction for which they bear particular responsibility.

---

6. Responsibility, Authority, and Accountability

I also find it helpful to keep three things together:

responsibility, authority, and accountability.

Ideally, these three should support one another. When someone is entrusted with responsibility for an area, that person needs appropriate authority and sufficient freedom within that sphere to carry that responsibility faithfully. At the same time, that freedom should remain connected to a clearly understood responsibility and exercised within healthy accountability.

This seems especially important during a season of transition like ours, when responsibilities have developed over time among pastors, deacons, staff, and ministry leaders and the lines between them are not always easy to define. That does not necessarily mean anything has gone wrong; it may simply give us a good opportunity to ask whether responsibility, authority, and accountability are aligned as clearly as they could be.

This seems especially important in pastoral ministry. As a general principle, genuine pastoral responsibility should be accompanied by the appropriate authority and freedom necessary to carry it faithfully (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17). At the same time, pastoral authority should never become autonomous or self-serving. It is authority entrusted for the good of the flock and should be exercised under Scripture, within a plurality of elders, and with genuine accountability to one another and appropriate accountability to the congregation in those matters Scripture entrusts to the congregation.

During our present transition, of course, this principle does not mean that an individual pastor should simply assume authority that would properly belong to a functioning plurality of elders. Rather, it is one reason I think we need to clarify together how present pastoral responsibilities, appropriate freedom to carry them out, and existing accountability should relate to one another while the elder structure is still developing.

So for me, the main question is not, “How much authority should pastors/elders have?” I think a more helpful question for us to consider together is:

How can we align responsibility, authority, and accountability in a way that enables faithful pastoral shepherding while also preserving the plurality, humility, and accountability that keep leadership healthy?

My hope is that we can think through these relationships together so that responsibilities become clearer, those entrusted with them have sufficient freedom to serve faithfully, and accountability remains strong as the church continues to grow toward a healthy elder–deacon model.

---

7. Why This Has Become a Practical Question for Me

This has become increasingly practical for me because, as I begin to carry more pastoral responsibility within the Mandarin congregation, I am finding that many of the areas I naturally need to engage are also areas in which existing staff members or ministry leaders already carry significant responsibility. The question for me is not simply what falls within my role, but how I can faithfully carry the pastoral responsibilities entrusted to me without disregarding responsibilities that have already been entrusted to others.

I think about:

• Preaching direction and planning;
• discipleship;
• small groups;
• leader development;
• helping people understand and apply Scripture faithfully.

Many of these already have established programs, philosophies, methods, and people responsible for them.

Without clear lines of responsibility, pastoral engagement in these areas can unintentionally be experienced as interference with work already entrusted to others, while pastoral non-involvement can create uncertainty about how pastoral oversight should relate to ministries that are essential to the life of the church and already have established leadership, philosophy, and practices.

I can understand why pastoral involvement may sometimes feel, from the perspective of an existing ministry leader, like entering an area that has already been entrusted to someone else. At the same time, from the pastoral side, staying out of such areas entirely can make it difficult to understand how I am supposed to carry the pastoral responsibility I am being asked to bear for their spiritual and theological direction.

Without greater clarity, questions that are fundamentally structural and ecclesiological can too easily be experienced as personal or relational tensions. That is precisely what I hope this conversation can help us avoid.

I think greater clarity would create more freedom for everyone: pastors/elders would know what they are responsible to shepherd; staff members and other members entrusted with ministry leadership would know where they are genuinely empowered to lead; deacons would have clearer responsibilities; and members could increasingly be equipped to minister to one another. Clarity should reduce tension, not increase it.

---

8. Questions I Would Really Value Your Perspective On

I would genuinely value hearing how you understand these matters, especially given your knowledge of the church and its history.

1. How do you understand the church’s present transition toward an elder–deacon model, and what do you hope it will ultimately accomplish?
2. If you picture the church five years from now with a functioning plurality of elders, what do you think would actually be different from how the church operates today?
3. What responsibilities do you believe belong particularly to elders/pastors, and during this transitional period, how should those responsibilities be exercised before a functioning eldership is fully in place?
4. Where do you think the present lines of responsibility are already clear, and where do you think there is still genuine ambiguity between pastoral responsibility, staff responsibility, and ministry leadership?
5. Does the distinction I have drawn between biblical office, ministry responsibility, and employment role seem helpful to you? Where would you qualify or modify it, and how do you think those distinctions should shape our organizational titles and ministry responsibilities?

---

9. Two Modest Places Where I Would Like to Begin

These are two modest, practical steps I am considering proposing to the Deacon Board. Both are closely connected to the ministry of the Word. I see them not as attempts to settle the larger governance questions, but as limited ways to begin testing and practicing a healthier relationship between pastoral responsibility, collaboration, and accountability while those larger questions continue to be clarified.

A. Mandarin Preaching Direction

The first is the preaching ministry of the Mandarin congregation.

Because preaching is one of the primary ways the church is shepherded through the Word, I believe the long-range direction of the pulpit should receive clear pastoral leadership. The preaching calendar is not merely an administrative schedule; over time it shapes what the congregation hears, how Scripture is understood, and how the church is being formed spiritually.

For the present season, I would like to work with the other brothers who regularly preach to develop a longer-term preaching direction and calendar for the Mandarin congregation, with greater pastoral coordination, shared planning, and mutual input.

This would include:

• deciding which books or portions of Scripture would best serve the congregation;
• determining an appropriate pace through each book;
• developing the preaching calendar;
• coordinating preaching assignments;
• discussing the overall direction with the other preachers before plans are finalized;
• making sure there is sufficient room for careful exposition, biblical theology, doctrine, illustration, and practical application.

One practical adjustment I would like to consider is moving away from the expectation that a biblical book must necessarily be completed within one calendar year. Some books can be handled well within that timeframe; others may deserve more time. I would rather allow the structure and weight of the text, together with the pastoral needs of the congregation, to determine the pace than let the calendar determine how much Scripture must be covered each week.

I am not proposing that I make these decisions independently. I would want the preaching direction to be developed collaboratively with the other preachers, drawing on their wisdom and seeking a process that has greater coherence, continuity, and pastoral intentionality.

As a plurality of elders is eventually established, I would expect this responsibility to fit naturally within the shared work of the elders who bear responsibility for teaching and shepherding the church.

For this present transitional period, I would especially value your judgment on whether it would be appropriate for me to take primary responsibility for coordinating the long-range preaching direction and calendar of the Mandarin congregation, while developing it collaboratively with the other regular preachers and remaining within the church’s existing accountability structure.

B. A Regular Pastoral Letter

The second is to establish regular pastoral communication with the Mandarin congregation, or, with the Deacon Board’s approval, with the church as a whole.

I would like to begin writing a pastoral letter, perhaps once a month initially. Sunday preaching should remain central to the ministry of the Word, but there are many matters of shepherding that do not naturally fit into a sermon and yet are worth addressing pastorally. A regular letter could provide another simple way to teach, encourage, exhort, equip, and care for the congregation between Sundays.

I do not envision this primarily as an announcement newsletter or a channel for communicating administrative decisions. Its purpose would be pastoral and formative: warm, biblical, and personal communication intended to help the congregation grow in faith and Christian maturity.

The content could take different forms. In addition to longer pastoral reflections, it might include:

• short devotional thoughts from Scripture;
• theological clarification or answers to common questions;
• reflections on prayer, Christian living, marriage, family, and discipleship;
• book, article, sermon, or other resource recommendations;
• practical encouragement for family worship and personal spiritual growth;
• reflections on church life, evangelism, suffering, perseverance, and cultural issues Christians are facing;
• occasional thoughts about the spiritual needs and direction of the congregation.

In that sense, it could provide helpful biblical and theological resources shaped specifically around the needs of our own congregation.

I would also like it to create a more accessible channel of communication between the pastor and the congregation. Members could be invited to write to me with questions about Scripture, theology, Christian living, family life, church life, or issues they are wrestling with. Some questions could be answered privately, while others, when appropriate and potentially helpful to the wider congregation, could become the basis for a future pastoral letter or shorter written response.

In this way, the communication would not only give the pastor another means of speaking to the congregation; it could also help me listen more carefully to what people are thinking about, struggling with, or seeking guidance on, and respond pastorally to their actual needs.

If you think this idea is worth pursuing, I would be glad to prepare a short, more concrete proposal for you to review first and then, if you think it would be helpful, bring it to the Deacon Board for discussion.

If we decide to begin this, I would be glad for us to establish some simple expectations about its purpose, scope, and relationship to the church’s leadership. Ordinary pastoral content—biblical teaching, encouragement, theological reflection, practical Christian counsel, and recommended resources—could then become a normal part of pastoral shepherding, while matters involving significant church policy, governance, or particularly sensitive issues would naturally call for appropriate consultation.

My hope is that this, together with the preaching proposal, could give us a modest way to begin practicing a healthier relationship between pastoral responsibility, collaboration, and accountability before addressing more complicated areas such as discipleship, small groups, and broader ministry structure.

---

10. What I Hope We Can Grow Toward

I do not have a finished blueprint in mind, and I am not hoping that everyone’s responsibilities need to be rearranged all at once. What I hope is that, as we move forward, we can keep asking together: What has Christ asked each part of His church to do, and how can we help one another do that faithfully?

My hope is for a church in which Christ is clearly the Head and His Word shapes all of us.

• I hope our pastors and elders can genuinely shepherd the people God entrusts to them—teaching the Word, caring for souls, guarding the church’s spiritual direction, and equipping others to minister—while doing that together, humbly and accountably, rather than concentrating everything in one person (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1–4).
• I hope our deacons can carry meaningful responsibility in service, care, administration, and practical ministry, helping meet real needs and strengthening the life and unity of the church (Acts 6:1–7; 1 Timothy 3:8–13).
• I hope our staff members, ministry leaders, and other members can use their gifts, experience, and creativity with real freedom and meaningful responsibility—whether paid or unpaid, and whether or not they hold a biblical office—while serving within a clear understanding of how their responsibilities relate to the shepherding and accountability of the church.
• And I especially hope all members increasingly see themselves not simply as people who receive ministry, but as brothers and sisters whom Christ has gifted and is equipping to minister to one another and build up the body together (Ephesians 4:11–16; 1 Peter 4:10).

In other words, I would love to see a church where pastors/elders do not feel that they must do everything, deacons are able to serve with clarity and significance, mature staff members and other ministry leaders are trusted and well supported, and the congregation is increasingly equipped to take part in the work of ministry.

That is really the larger hope behind these reflections. I would love for us gradually to develop a shared understanding of how the different parts of the church fit together, so that responsibility is clearer, accountability remains healthy, and people are freer—not less free—to serve faithfully.

If we can grow in that direction patiently and together, I think this transition can become much more than a change in governance. It can help us become a church that is more faithfully shepherded, better equipped, and increasingly able to serve one another as the body of Christ.

And through all of it, I hope the spirit remains:

“He must increase, but I must decrease.”