Being Subject To Our Leaders

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your thoughts! (From a few days ago.) It’s always good to see you get in and dig through the Word for understanding in these kinds of issues. Opens up so many different doorways to explore.

For some time, I’ve been trying to figure out the important principles that Paul used in all his church planting endeavors. You mentioned the Galatian churches as an example of Paul waiting a while to appoint elders, while I’m inclined to think of it as an example of him appointing them too soon. It’s during his second missionary journey where we see him waiting to set up local leadership in the church – an apparent change of strategy from his first go-around in Galatia. Seems to me that instead of a quick appointing of local elders, he chose to leave (or send) his mission team members in the new church plants as “apostolic” leadership until such time as elders from within were ready to be appointed. (This change makes me wonder if he didn’t have some deep regrets about how he approached the whole “elder appointing” thing in the Galatian churches … especially since it turned out the way it did.)

That said – it appears that Paul still provided for the appointing of elders in every one of his church plants. (With, as you pointed out, the possible exception of the church in Corinth. But I also agree with you that this might have been due to a lack of qualified candidates at that time, and not because they didn’t need elders. Of all churches, the Corinth church needed good leadership.)

In my opinion, there are churches that have (and should have) appointed leaders, and there are churches that do not have (and do not need) appointed leaders.

Because we don’t have one example (that I can see) of a New Testament church that didn’t have elders because they didn’t need them, I’m a little slow to accept that this reason might apply to any of our churches today. Christopher made a solid observation that believers in the early church didn’t have the same kind of easy access to the Word of God that we have today, and that this makes the New Testament example (in this area) a bit moot in our day and age. I certainly understand this reasoning, but get hung up on its practical outworking in real life.

1. It’s true that we all have easy access to the Word of God nowadays, but that doesn’t mean that we all have discerning eyes or open ears to the truth of the Word. There are many seasons and circumstances in our lives where we walk in weakness in either or both of these two areas. This is especially true for younger believers … and they need approved, trusted leaders they can confidently turn to for help. (A point here – how can new or young believers know who, in the church, to seek out for discipleship or counsel? With their own discernment skills still undeveloped, don’t they need the body to help them out by putting its stamp of approval on – recognizing or appointing – the mature ones in their midst?)

2. Granted, my experience is limited, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen – or can imagine – a healthy church that didn’t need godly leadership. Generally speaking, a healthy church is a growing church (Acts 2:47), and a growing church is continually seeing new or young believers come into its midst. That’s prime territory (as I mentioned in the previous point) for needing good, godly, recognized leadership in the church.

One last little related thought:

When I write about “appointed leadership”, I’m not referring to a self-appointment, tradition-based appointment, popularity-based appointment, or political appointment. I believe that the New Testament example is an appointment made by godly men (apostles) of those in the church body who have already been recognized by the rest of the body as qualifying for the shepherd role. It’s the apostolic appointment (official stamp of approval) of those who are already recognized by the rest of the church. (As Titus 1:6 says, “… if any man is above reproach.” I presume this applies to both his standing in the church and his standing in the community.)

And finally, all those challenging (and relevant) issues that you brought up about city-churches and present-day apostles still need to be addressed. Putting the New Testament church leadership principles into play today takes some inspired thinking. (Presuming that we still need this appointed leadership in our churches.)

Well, just a few of my scattered thoughts on this issue, Steve. I welcome any further input you might have, as you typically have a much broader and more balanced view in stuff like this. (You see things I’ve never seen before.)

By God’s Grace,

Gregg

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

you wrote:

Since you have shared no specifics, Christopher, it seems that you think they ought to do nothing at all except just be there. Am I right? If not, please specify exactly what actions they should take in their oversight.

It seems that you think they should not attempt to take any active part in correcting wrongdoing or in other aspects of the people's personal lives, except to make suggestions in the way any other brother or sister might. So in what way do they differ in their role from the "laity" (so to speak)?
In other words, why were certain men appointed by the apostles as overseers? If they have no role beyond that of other members of the congregation, why did the apostles bother to appoint overseers at all?

Wow, did I say that? I hope it didn't come out like you presented it. If it did, please show me where so I can correct myself.

I thought I had said that godly leaders were appointed by the apostles to help people walk out their obedience to Christ...our only King. Of course that includes rebuking and correcting wrongdoing. Did I say otherwise? It was a lengthy discussion and if I said something to the contrary, I don't remember it. Perhaps I can trouble you to quote what I said so I can either explain the comment further or retract my statement.

BTW, if I seem elusive about giving a job description of leaders, it's intentional. My belief is that it is situational. What kind of leadership is needed within a particular group? What are the groups' strengths, weaknesses, and threats related to living out the gospel etc. ? Some types of groups probably need appointed leaders, others probably don't IMO.

Do you believe there is more than one valid community expression in the body of Christ?

[Guest]

No, Christopher, you didn't say all that. I inferred all that from what I read of what you did write. That's why I stated, "It seems you think..." rather that "You wrote that...", and why I asked, "Am I right?"

I wasn't accusing you of holding a "false view", but trying to understand what your view is, concerning the role of elders, not being really sure whether or not you hold any view at all concerning their role.

Your response seems to indicate that my inferences do not correspond to the facts concerning what you actually believe. I would still like to know what you basically see as the function of the overseers whom the first apostles appointed, and the overseers succeeding them.

I don't think saying that their "job description is situational" really cuts it.
There are some generalities that can be described which transcends any particular situations.

However, I think you did indicate their function in part, when you wrote, "godly leaders were appointed by the apostles to help people walk out their obedience to Christ...our only King. Of course that includes rebuking and correcting wrongdoing." Yet, I am confused. The Scripture does not say that they appointed "godly leaders." It says that they appointed "overseers" by the laying on of hands. These overseers appointed other overseers by the laying on of hands of the presbytery (council of elders). They didn't necessarily judge that the appointed ones would be "godly leaders." Nor did they appoint elders randomly. They did it by the revelation of the spirit of God. Whether they would become "godly leaders" remained to be seen.

In any case, I would be glad to learn more about your understanding of the function of overseers (or elders).

The answer to your question is , "Yes, I do believe that there is more than one valid community expression in the body of Christ." There are several, but perhaps not as many as some people think.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for clearing that up. I was worried that in all my tired ramblings, I conveyed a message that I didn't intend to.

If the take away from all that I said is that appointed leaders served a specific purpose in helping other (mostly newer) believers walk out their obedience to Christ, then I have communicated my view accurately (although apparently not completely). In other words, leading is a spiritual gift to the body of Christ (Romans 12...I think).

I don't have access to a bible or my bible software right now so you'll have to excuse me if I slaughter some of these scriptural references.

you wrote:

I would still like to know what you basically see as the function of the overseers whom the first apostles appointed, and the overseers succeeding them.

From what I gather from the pastoral epistles, James 5, 1Pet 5, Acts, etc., their function was primarily what their title suggests...overseeing the church. The duties of teaching the true word of God (to a congregation that largely had no access to it), rebuking those in sin, refuting those who contradict the truth, praying over the sick, and being a good example to others are what I think they were generally there for. Did I leave anything out?

you wrote:

I don't think saying that their "job description is situational" really cuts it. There are some generalities that can be described which transcends any particular situations.

Perhaps not. But it would seem that there were at least some situations that caused a reactive appointment of overseers. One example would be in Titus. There apparently wasn't widespread appointment of leaders in Crete until there was a problem with Judaizers perverting the gospel among them. In that case, it was necessary to counter the false doctrine being circulated with teachers (which had apostolic backing) that were able to refute it.

In our day, it may be the case as well in some places. But I wouldn't say that is necessarily universal. I know of many small house churches that don't have any appointed leaders and they're getting on just fine.


you wrote:

The Scripture does not say that they appointed "godly leaders." It says that they appointed "overseers" by the laying on of hands. These overseers appointed other overseers by the laying on of hands of the presbytery (council of elders). They didn't necessarily judge that the appointed ones would be "godly leaders." Nor did they appoint elders randomly. They did it by the revelation of the spirit of God. Whether they would become "godly leaders" remained to be seen.

Sorry for the confusion. I was using the term "godly leaders" synonomously with "overseers" because the qualifications for these appointments simply describe a godly man IMO. It seems to me that it wasn't entirely by the "revelation of the spirit of God" that they were selected. Paul gave both Timothy and Titus some very specific qualifications that they would need to use in order to discern who to appoint as an elder/overseer.

I guess my main point is the same as what Steve suggested. Elders should be appointed when they're 1) needed and 2) available. I think that is sensible approach and helps to avoid many problems.

Just my opinion.

[Guest]

Perhaps not. But it would seem that there were at least some situations that caused a reactive appointment of overseers. One example would be in Titus. There apparently wasn't widespread appointment of leaders in Crete until there was a problem with Judaizers perverting the gospel among them.

While this might be one plausable explanation of why Paul wanted Titus to set up elders in these Churches, it's not stated explicitly in the text.

I personally don't see it that way. Though false teaching is given as the reason that the elders must "hold firmly to the trustworthy message", Paul gives his reason for installing elders up front in verse 5:

5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

It's apparent that when they went through Crete the first time they knew then that that were leaving things unfinished, and a pretty reasonable assumption that part of the unfinished (but intended from the beginning) business was setting up elders. In fact, Paul even says that he had already given that instruction before he wrote this letter which addresses the Judaizer crisis.

Waiting to set up elders makes a lot of sense. Those Churches were in their infancy- it would take time for responsible and godly leaders to become known by those congregations. The very worst would have been to just set up any old joe blow new christian and arbitrarily or rashly "lay hands on them"/ appoint them. This is in agreement with your statement about not feeling the need to install someone in a position just because it's vacant.

While I do think that in some circumstances churches in that time period may have existed healthily without defined leadership, it also seems to me that the New Testament assumes that godly leadership (at least elders) is part of the normative expectation for the Churches.

[Guest]

appointed leaders served a specific purpose in helping other (mostly newer) believers walk out their obedience to Christ

Of course, I'm a bit biased here , but I don't think the role of church leadership can be summed up by this statement. Church leaders serve mature believers just as much as new believers, imo.

One of the many other roles of overseers and elders is creating opportunities and contexts for the members of a church community (all maturity levels) to use their giftings in an organized, regular fashion (as opposed to haphazard and inconsistant).

Of course, individual believers find their own opportunites to live out their giftings (at least ideally). But I believe there is something unique about christians gathering together as a church body and ministering to each other in the context of a organized, well-thought unit that is made possible by capable and godly leadership-- that wouldn't normally happen without their presence.

On top of all that, I must stress that although Christians borrowed a lot of their ideas about Church from the synagogue, the real innovation they made was in following christ's injunction that those who would lead his church would not be masters, but servants. Unfortunately, often that powerful truth has been missed or ignored.

[Guest]

Hi Josh,

Well, you might be right also. But I think verse 5 might stop just a bit short of Paul’s expressed purpose for the need to appoint leaders who are able “by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict”. Notice what he says after his run on sentence about leadership qualifications:

Titus 1:10-16
10 For [because] there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.
NKJV

So apparently, (at least it appears to me) that there was a real need for learned men who had apostolic endorsement to counter the deceptive Judaizers from turning others from the truth for "dishonest gain" (wolves in sheeps clothing). I’ve always got the impression that the order to appoint leaders here was in response to the problem of the Jewish believers trying to Judaize everyone. A later statement he makes even further strengthens my suspicion.

Titus 3:9-11
9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.
NKJV

I think he could only be referring to Judaizers here.

It’s really not something I would want to debate to much on because whether or not it was reactive to that situation, it really doesn’t change my view at all because it was still in a very different context than we have today.

While I do think that in some circumstances churches in that time period may have existed healthily without defined leadership, it also seems to me that the New Testament assumes that godly leadership (at least elders) is part of the normative expectation for the Churches.

I don’t disagree with that. No doubt many of the churches did have elders. But obviously it wasn’t all of them. And I think that there are clear cases where the exhortation to submit to others was given in a more general way, and not necessarily specific to those who held the office of overseer. Take this passage for instance:

1 Cor 16:13-18
13 Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done with love. 15 I urge you, brethren--you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints-- 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us. 17 I am glad about the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for what was lacking on your part they supplied. 18 For they refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men.
NKJV

The word “such” suggests to me that Paul was exhorting the Corinthians to spot godly men who devote themselves to the ministry and submit themselves to these types of men. He could have just as easily said “submit to your appointed elders because they’re in charge” but he didn’t. In fact, off the top of my head, I can’t remember any references to Paul specifically appointing leaders in Corinth (don’t hold me to that, I know someone will surely find one even as I speak ).

Of course, I'm a bit biased here , but I don't think the role of church leadership can be summed up by this statement. Church leaders serve mature believers just as much as new believers, imo.

One of the many other roles of overseers and elders is creating opportunities and contexts for the members of a church community (all maturity levels) to use their giftings in an organized, regular fashion (as opposed to haphazard and inconsistant).

Again, I don’t disagree with that either and I certainly didn’t intend my statement to be an exhaustive list of the role of leaders. Even what you added fits quite nicely into my general statement of “helping people walk in obedience to their King”. I don’t think my statement excludes anyone from benefiting from that service, it merely emphasizes the greater need is with those who need a little more guidance. I’m very thankful to those who gave me extra attention when I was a brand new Christian.

Of course, individual believers find their own opportunites to live out their giftings (at least ideally). But I believe there is something unique about christians gathering together as a church body and ministering to each other in the context of a organized, well-thought unit that is made possible by capable and godly leadership-- that wouldn't normally happen without their presence.

On top of all that, I must stress that although Christians borrowed a lot of their ideas about Church from the synagogue, the real innovation they made was in following christ's injunction that those who would lead his church would not be masters, but servants. Unfortunately, often that powerful truth has been missed or ignored.

I think if there were more church leaders with this attitude, there would be far fewer problems. You have my “Amen” brother.

I really hope I’m not giving the impression here that I think there is no good purpose for leaders. The fact is that I think it is a gift that is alive and well, and I’m glad for it. I simply don’t think appointed leaders are always necessary in every Christian community, nor do I think it is supposed to resemble the hierarchical corporate-like structure that is prevalent today. I’ve found that most people intuitively know who has the gift of leadeship, with or without the titles. I’ve also found that the roles are not static, but often shift. Sometimes it’s the appointed elders that need some guidance and counsel and there’s no reason I can see that another brother without the title can’t give him that guidance. But it really doesn’t bother me if there are titles, as long as it doesn’t go to someone’s head.

I have to say at this point that I feel like there is a lot that is being repeated here, so I'm not sure how much farther to go on this. I don't mind continuing to respond, but I'm not sure there's much else to say that hasn't already been said.

Anyway, thanks for the dialog.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Christopher wrote:

I simply don’t think appointed leaders are always necessary in every Christian community, nor do I think it is supposed to resemble the hierarchical corporate-like structure that is prevalent today. I’ve found that most people intuitively know who has the gift of leadeship, with or without the titles.

And:

I guess my main point is the same as what Steve suggested. Elders should be appointed when they're 1) needed and 2) available. I think that is sensible approach and helps to avoid many problems.

I haven't been part of this discussion, but thought I might add a comment or two (or three):

After many years in leadership positions, both secular and in the church, I have long realized that in a functioning body of people, if there are no properly selected leaders, leaders will arise to fill the void and when they do they may not be desirable leaders. They often will likely be merely assertive and/ or aggressive people who think highly of their own opinions and not much of the opinions of others. Leaders ought to be spiritual people first and foremost.

While waiting for leaders to arise there is opportunity for much damage to be done. A wise man once commented that people are not dogs. A group of dogs will know in about two minutes who the leader is; with people it may take a long time

While I readily agree that leaders should not be placed in a position before they are ready, if you wait until they are needed it may well be too late.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Welcome to the discussion! Your thoughts are always appreciated and carry much weight IMO.

you wrote:

After many years in leadership positions, both secular and in the church, I have long realized that in a functioning body of people, if there are no properly selected leaders, leaders will arise to fill the void and when they do they may not be desirable leaders. They often will likely be merely assertive and/ or aggressive people who think highly of their own opinions and not much of the opinions of others.

1. In your opinion, how are these leaders "chosen" or "appointed"?

2. What prevents those "appointed" leaders from being the very thing you are warning against? What guarantees that the selected leaders won't be the undesirable ones?

It seems to me that Paul was telling the selected elders in Ephesus...

Acts 20:28-30
29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
NKJV

...that the savage wolves would rise up from among their own ranks.



I wonder if Diotrophes was an appointed leader..

3 John 9-11
9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
NKJV

If not, how is it that he was putting people out of the church?

I don't know about you, but I know many an "appointed" leader that are "not desirable".

[Guest]

Homer, I really appreciate your position concerning the appointment of leaders, that being a way to avoid assertive, agressive self-absorbed persons from taking over, and hence moving into error. I tend to agree.

Christopher, I also appreciate your challenge to this position. It is necessary lest a church become too settled in its stance, so much so that it can become rigid, believing it has arrived, if not at all truth, at least most of it. It may become closed to any insights or understandings that its members may have.