Church Leadership

[rogue06]

Part of the issue is that the New Testament is not a manual on how to to church; the letters are generally occasional pieces written to deal with a particular situation, and the gospels/Acts are historical/biographical. What we see in the NT is the apostles appointing leaders to various churches, and those leaders appointing others (see, e.g., the pastoral epistles). What we don't see is local churches independently appointing their own leaders.

If the Gospels and Epistles contained such instruction there would have been no need for the Didache

[tabibito]

One of the points Fee makes in at least one of those articles of his that I cited is that the whole notion of a separate "class" of leaders/ministers is an Old Covenant "priests and Levites" concept that is not properly part of the New Covenant, but that "the Church" has drifted back into.

Is there any way to avoid the existence of a hierarchy in the New Testament churches? True, primary obedience is given to God and the gospel, but authority is also vested in those who are charged with maintaining proper order in the churches (and it would be rather difficult that argue that responsibility can be conferred without the authority to undertake the task). Hebrews 13:24 acknowledges the existence of leaders, 1 Corinthians 4:19-21 shows somewhat that authority is vested in Paul, as also Acts 17:15 likewise, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Titus 2:15. 2. See also 1 Tim 4:11. Corinthians 10:8 shows that the direction that authority should take. "Lording it over others" is not properly within the authority of church leaders, but there are times when exercising authority is necessary, and the separate class is inherent in the responsibility and authority conferred by those roles (Eph 4:11-12).

[KingsGambit]

Put another way, this shows the dangers of letting a church become a business instead of a ministry.

Liberty wasn't a church. But he did flout the university's rules with his social media posts about partying. So that suggests a lack of accountability.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Falwell Jr. came out recently and said that he never wanted to be a Christian leader in the first place, and that he wasn't even the churchgoing type. So the lesson in his place is that we need to avoid structures that lend themselves to nepotism. Which isn't to say that all sons who follow their fathers into ministry are automatically suspect, but that if it ends up becoming an expectation, we're at risk of subverting the notion that ministry should be a calling.

Put another way, this shows the dangers of letting a church become a business instead of a ministry.

[Cow Poke]

It's always a head-scratcher when you say that. I enjoyed listening to him back in the late '80s when he was a tongues-speaking Word-Faith preacher.

Yeah, that came later.

[NorrinRadd]

Joel Osteen is NOTHING like his dad -- I went to numerous "pastors conferences" with John Osteen, and he was rock solid.

It's always a head-scratcher when you say that. I enjoyed listening to him back in the late '80s when he was a tongues-speaking Word-Faith preacher.

[Cow Poke]

Falwell Jr. came out recently and said that he never wanted to be a Christian leader in the first place, and that he wasn't even the churchgoing type. So the lesson in his place is that we need to avoid structures that lend themselves to nepotism. Which isn't to say that all sons who follow their fathers into ministry are automatically suspect, but that if it ends up becoming an expectation, we're at risk of subverting the notion that ministry should be a calling.

Joel Osteen is NOTHING like his dad -- I went to numerous "pastors conferences" with John Osteen, and he was rock solid.

[KingsGambit]

I think we're actually talking about the same issue from different perspectives. I think we're both concerned with the rise of "elite" leadership and putting the organization ahead of the people. While these are probably not necessarily bad, we have too many examples of them failing in the past few years.

For leadership failures, the names Jerry Falwell, Jr., Rob Bell (not morally but going apostate), Mark Driscoll come to mind. Organizationally, we've watched the RCC deal with how they protected priests for years blow-up in their face and now we find the similar practices in SBC and the Mormon church. On a different level, we've watched other denominations like PC(USA) fall away from faithfulness or have messy splits like United Methodist Church.

I'm sure issues like this occur in local churches as well. A local mega-church and a para-church ministry both recently made the news for concealing sexual abuse. I guess the difference is, the local groups faded out of the news pretty quickly, but the denominational scandals persist.

I guess it's no wonder people are distrusting organized religion. It's not necessarily that they are falling away from Christ, but they are falling away from organizations that don't have their best interests in mind. In other words, they are rejecting leadership that serves the organization instead of the members.

Falwell Jr. came out recently and said that he never wanted to be a Christian leader in the first place, and that he wasn't even the churchgoing type. So the lesson in his place is that we need to avoid structures that lend themselves to nepotism. Which isn't to say that all sons who follow their fathers into ministry are automatically suspect, but that if it ends up becoming an expectation, we're at risk of subverting the notion that ministry should be a calling.

[Thoughtful Monk]

One of the points Fee makes in at least one of those articles of his that I cited is that the whole notion of a separate "class" of leaders/ministers is an Old Covenant "priests and Levites" concept that is not properly part of the New Covenant, but that "the Church" has drifted back into.

I think we're actually talking about the same issue from different perspectives. I think we're both concerned with the rise of "elite" leadership and putting the organization ahead of the people. While these are probably not necessarily bad, we have too many examples of them failing in the past few years.

For leadership failures, the names Jerry Falwell, Jr., Rob Bell (not morally but going apostate), Mark Driscoll come to mind. Organizationally, we've watched the RCC deal with how they protected priests for years blow-up in their face and now we find the similar practices in SBC and the Mormon church. On a different level, we've watched other denominations like PC(USA) fall away from faithfulness or have messy splits like United Methodist Church.

I'm sure issues like this occur in local churches as well. A local mega-church and a para-church ministry both recently made the news for concealing sexual abuse. I guess the difference is, the local groups faded out of the news pretty quickly, but the denominational scandals persist.

I guess it's no wonder people are distrusting organized religion. It's not necessarily that they are falling away from Christ, but they are falling away from organizations that don't have their best interests in mind. In other words, they are rejecting leadership that serves the organization instead of the members.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm fine with the first link. Since I've seen arguments from the Bible justifying the structure of the Roman Catholic church and denominations to others that say only an independent church is Biblical, I have to agree that the Bible is ambiguous about how a church should be organized. It probably was very diverse back in Biblical times. It does also seem to indicate there are leaders in the church.

My take is the articles are more advocating that qualified people be put into leadership. I've seen too many people in leadership because they helped found the church or are a big donor rather than being actually qualified to do anything. I agree with an article I read recently that the person who wants a leadership position isn't qualified to have it.

Personally, I think John 13:1-17 has been pushed out of proportion. It's not about the leader being the servant of the community. Jesus affirms He is still Load and Teacher. I think the more correct message in the passage is no task is below the dignity of the leader to perform.

Part of the issue is that the New Testament is not a manual on how to to church; the letters are generally occasional pieces written to deal with a particular situation, and the gospels/Acts are historical/biographical. What we see in the NT is the apostles appointing leaders to various churches, and those leaders appointing others (see, e.g., the pastoral epistles). What we don't see is local churches independently appointing their own leaders.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm fine with the first link. Since I've seen arguments from the Bible justifying the structure of the Roman Catholic church and denominations to others that say only an independent church is Biblical, I have to agree that the Bible is ambiguous about how a church should be organized. It probably was very diverse back in Biblical times. It does also seem to indicate there are leaders in the church.

My take is the articles are more advocating that qualified people be put into leadership. I've seen too many people in leadership because they helped found the church or are a big donor rather than being actually qualified to do anything. I agree with an article I read recently that the person who wants a leadership position isn't qualified to have it.

Personally, I think John 13:1-17 has been pushed out of proportion. It's not about the leader being the servant of the community. Jesus affirms He is still Load and Teacher. I think the more correct message in the passage is no task is below the dignity of the leader to perform.

One of the points Fee makes in at least one of those articles of his that I cited is that the whole notion of a separate "class" of leaders/ministers is an Old Covenant "priests and Levites" concept that is not properly part of the New Covenant, but that "the Church" has drifted back into.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Fee covered some related material in one of his chapters that appear in all editions of Discovering Biblical Equality, "The Priority of Spirit-Gifting for Church Ministry."

Here is a summary of the chapter with several quotes from the chapter, and a few opinions by the "summarizer."

Here appears to be a summary of a lecture or seminar by the same title.

Two big takeaways for me:

-- It is striking how little we actually know about "how they did church" in the Early Church, or about how much uniformity vs. diversity there was.

-- It was much less about "Who's in charge here," and much more about "How can we all best serve each other?"

I'm fine with the first link. Since I've seen arguments from the Bible justifying the structure of the Roman Catholic church and denominations to others that say only an independent church is Biblical, I have to agree that the Bible is ambiguous about how a church should be organized. It probably was very diverse back in Biblical times. It does also seem to indicate there are leaders in the church.

My take is the articles are more advocating that qualified people be put into leadership. I've seen too many people in leadership because they helped found the church or are a big donor rather than being actually qualified to do anything. I agree with an article I read recently that the person who wants a leadership position isn't qualified to have it.

Personally, I think John 13:1-17 has been pushed out of proportion. It's not about the leader being the servant of the community. Jesus affirms He is still Load and Teacher. I think the more correct message in the passage is no task is below the dignity of the leader to perform.

[NorrinRadd]

I have a lot of thoughts on the topic of "what church should look like," but I'm having a lot of trouble concentrating.

Marg Mowczko posted this article by a young-looking pastor to her Facebook page. It at least touches on a lot of things on my mind.

Gordon Fee has a couple of good essays from a while back -- "Laos and Leadership Under the New Covenant" and "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles." I think they're only available in his books.

Fee covered some related material in one of his chapters that appear in all editions of Discovering Biblical Equality, "The Priority of Spirit-Gifting for Church Ministry."

Here is a summary of the chapter with several quotes from the chapter, and a few opinions by the "summarizer."

Here appears to be a summary of a lecture or seminar by the same title.

Two big takeaways for me:

-- It is striking how little we actually know about "how they did church" in the Early Church, or about how much uniformity vs. diversity there was.

-- It was much less about "Who's in charge here," and much more about "How can we all best serve each other?"

[Thoughtful Monk]

IMO it would be rather more profitable to reconsider whether the church has indeed failed for 2,000 years.

The problem is the answer is yes and no. Yes, there have been failures and some pretty spectacular. Yet there have also been successes. Not sure how a look at over 2,000 years of failure will make things better now.

[One Bad Pig]

Maybe. However, it should not be used as an excuse to not try.

IMO it would be rather more profitable to reconsider whether the church has indeed failed for 2,000 years.