Tonight the shepherd is meeting with the elders, who have already been meeting for two hours. The elders are not courteous enough to tell why they need to meet for two hours without the Shepherd. They just do it.
It angers me when I think on it too long. How can elders (the wisest and godliest among us?) think the shepherd has a lesser role in directing the church than they? Why would they want the voice of the church to not be fully a part of the decisions? How could they believe that there can be such separation of roles/functions and unity in the Body? Why would they think the shepherd could support their decisions when they exclude him from the decision making process?
The shepherd will support their decisions – because he is a righteous man. Knowing that, wouldn’t it make sense to include him in the decision making process?
Twenty hears ago, I understood the shepherd not being an elder. At that time, he was young and idealistic. Today, he is mature, wise, godly, and the most learned of the group. Why minimize his influence, skills, and passion by leaving him out of the decision making? Just another example of why these elders are fools and why I do not respect them. (I am still optimistic about Rob.)