What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
This is the second post in my series on “Authority among the church.” In the “Introduction” post, I simply laid out the series of questions and issues that I plan to cover in this series.
To begin with, when talking about authority, no Christians desire to usurp Jesus’ authority. From those who believe that there is no kind of authority among the church to those who believe that there is one person who wields authority over everyone in the church alive today, all believe that Jesus remains the head of his church.
Thus, the question is not: Is Jesus the head of the church and does he have authority over his church? Instead, the question is this: Does Jesus allow others to have positions of authority under his own authority?
In Scripture, there is an example of two people coming to Jesus and asking for positions of authority. Actually, in Matthew’s account, their mother asked Jesus on their behalf, but Mark makes it clear that the request belonged to James and John. The story is told in Matthew 20:20-21 and Mark 10:35-37.
James and John (through their mother) came to Jesus with this request: “When you come into your kingdom (glory), allow us to sit at your right hand and your left hand.” They were admitting that Jesus was the supreme authority of the kingdom. They were asking for positions of authority under Jesus’ own authority. (Luke cuts out the part about James and John, but tells us that the request was about having a high position within Jesus’ kingdom – i.e., who would be the greatest.)
This is how Jesus responded (with only slight variation in each account):
And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.”
Jesus tells them that leaders among the nations (“Gentiles”) “exercise lordship” and “exercise authority” over others. But, he also says that it should be different “among you,” that is, among his followers. (In Matthew’s and Mark’s version, Jesus adamantly states, “It shall not be so among you.” – Matthew 20:26 and Mark 10:43) Among the church, Jesus says, things are reversed. The leaders are now those who humble themselves as the youngest and those who serves others.
In order to drive his point home, Jesus tells a short parable. He asks them to consider a dinner party. Who is the greater, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves food? Obviously, from a natural and culture perspective, the one who sits at the table is greater than the one who serves the food.
But, Jesus remind them, he came as one who serves others. Thus, Jesus is using is own life of service to others as a lesson for them. If he – the Lord of the kingdom – is a servant, then obviously in his kingdom the one serving is greater than the one reclining at the table.
At the dinner part, the person sitting at the table is in a position of authority over the one serving the food. Yet, to Jesus, the one serving is the leader, and he pointed his following toward being like the one who served. Even though the world might think the one seated at the table was greater, the church should think otherwise.
So, what was Jesus’ answer to a request for positions of authority? In his kingdom, the leaders are not those who seek or who are in positions of authority. The leaders are those who serve others.
———————————————-
“Authority Among the Church” Series
- Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
- What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
- In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?
- Does the existence and recognition of elders indicate that they have positional authority?
- Does shepherding and overseeing suggest exercising authority?
Addendum: The most pervasive argument against positional authority among the church
Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
I started writing this series on authority among the church several weeks ago, and, almost immediately, I began putting off publishing? Why? Because I honestly didn’t want to publish another blog post, much less another series, on the topic of authority.
Unfortunately, whenever I write about the church gathering together, authority pops up. Whenever I write about the Lord’s Supper, the topic of authority is raised. When I write about spiritual gifts, someone brings up authority. When I write about missional living and gathering new believers, authority is brought up.
Authority among the church is a topic that touches every aspect of our understanding of the church. And, if we don’t talk about it, it quickly becomes the “elephant in the room.” It may not be the elephant in the room that no one talks about. Instead, it’s the aspect of the church that everyone assumes and affects everything that it means to be and act as the church as as God’s children.
In the next post, I’m going to examine a passage of Scripture in which two people ask Jesus for a position of authority under his own authority. That’s right, they did not want to usurp Jesus’ authority. Instead, they wanted to exercise authority under Jesus’ authority. I think Jesus’ response is very important to this discussion.
In the third post, given Jesus’ response to authority in the previous post, I’m going to ask the question, “How does someone lead without exercising authority?” In this post, I hope to make a very important distinction between authority and influence.
In the fourth post, I want to answer another question: “Doesn’t the existence of elders indicate that they have some kind of authority?” In Scripture, it’s clear that there were elders among those early churches, and it’s clear that everyone believer was not considered an elder. Does this distinction indicate some type of authority?
In the final post – unless I change my mind – I’m going to look at the relationship between shepherding and overseeing and exercising authority. Elders were instructed to shepherd and to oversee the church. Again, doesn’t this indicate some kind of authority?
I’m assuming that some of my readers will disagree with me. That’s fine. I only ask that you consider what I write, and deal with my arguments. I’m willing to learn from my readers, but I’m also hoping that you would be willing to learn as well.
Finally, this topic needs more discussion… much, much more. So, please feel free to add your own thoughts to these posts.
———————————————-
“Authority Among the Church” Series
- Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
- What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
- In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?
- Does the existence and recognition of elders indicate that they have positional authority?
- Does shepherding and overseeing suggest exercising authority?
Addendum: The most pervasive argument against positional authority among the church
Who is your spiritual covering?
Recently, someone (and I don’t remember who) asked me if I had ever written anything about the concept of church leaders (especially the senior/head pastor) being a “spiritual covering”. (If you asked me that, let me know, so I can give credit where it is due.)
My answer was that I had not written about that topic, but perhaps I should. But, where should I start?
This is a huge question, and it reaches down into the depths of our understanding of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the church. For example, in the way that I understand God and the church, the concept of a “spiritual covering” doesn’t make sense. So, when I read Scripture, it’s hard for me to see any suggestions that one person acts as a “spiritual covering” for another person.
So, I’m throwing this question out to you. Whether you agree with the concept of a “spiritual covering” or not, what arguments or Scripture have you heard/seen to support a “spiritual covering”?
How do you view leadership among the church?
I occasionally write about leadership among the church. While I usually write about other topics, for some reason the leadership posts seem to garner the most attention. Why? Well, because among believers today, much of church life is centered around those who we recognize as our leaders.
If you’ve read any of my posts about leaders among the church, then you know that I don’t hold to modern concepts of leadership in the context of the church, not even to the concept of “servant-leader.” Why? Because I think Jesus redefined what it means to lead among the church.
Keith at “subversive1” seems to have a similar understanding according to his post “This is What Leadership Looks Like According to Jesus.”
The post consists of 4 pictures: 2 pictures that Keith describes as “leadership according to Jesus” and 2 pictures that Keith says represent leadership among the church today, but that is not leading according to Jesus.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on Keith’s post (pictures).
What does it mean to lead among the church?
In Scripture, several terms are used to describe leaders. One term, of course, is “leaders” (or the verb form “leading”). (Luke 22:26, Acts 15:22, 1 Thessalonians 5:13, Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17, Hebrews 13:24). Other terms such as “elders” and “overseers” are also used to refer to those who are leaders among the church. (Acts 14:23, Acts 15:2-6, Acts 15:22-23, Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5-7, 1 Peter 5:1)
There are other terms that are often associated with leaders among the church. (apostles, teachers, pastors/shepherds) However, these terms are generally related to spiritual gifts, and not necessarily with leading. (Although, anyone exercising any spiritual gift for the purpose of serving others could be said to be leading others as well.)
As we consider what it means to lead from the perspective of Scripture, there are a few points that we should start with. First, the writers of the New Testament never use the term for “ruler” when referring to a follower of Jesus Christ, despite some unfortunate translations especially of Hebrews 13:17. Second, the authors of the New Testament never say that one brother or sister is “over” another brother or sister (or a group), again despite some unfortunate translations especially of 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13. Third, in Scripture, leading is never about making decisions for others.
So, what is leading among the church? According to Jesus, there is one overriding trait of any who lead among the church. What trait is that? Service. I’m not talking about “servant-leadership;” I’m talking about service. As Jesus said, “Let the greatest among you be as the youngest and the leader as the servant.” (Luke 22:26) Jesus, as the ultimate leader, said of himself, “Even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve.” (Matthew 20:28). It is perhaps most important that these last two statements were made in the context of two of Jesus’ followers jockeying for position among the others.
Thus, if someone wants to be a leader among the church, they must begin (and end) with serving others. When people begin following your example of serving others, then you are a leader in the way that Jesus defined leadership. Also, when you follow someone because they are serving others, then you are following a leader in the manner that Jesus instructed. For the church, leading = serving. Nothing more, and nothing less.
But, what about the importance of the character of leaders? Yes, Paul lays out several characteristics of those whom the church recognizes as leaders (whether they are called “elders” or “overseers” or even something else). You can find these characteristics in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-8. The characteristics listed in these passages are the same as characteristics listed in other sections of Scripture for all believers. Even the famous “able to teach” description refers to all believers, who are responsible for teaching one another. (For example, see Matthew 28:19-20, Colossians 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:14.)
Thus, the church recognizes (some say “appoint”) leaders when they live in a manner that all followers of Jesus Christ should live. What is the purpose for recognizing these leaders? The church does NOT recognize leaders so that the leaders can do all the work or even all the important work. Instead, the church recognizes the leaders so that the church know whose example to follow.
And, this leads me to the final important aspects of leaders among the church. As Scripture points out (especially through Peter in 1 Peter 5:1-3), leaders do not control people nor do they exercise authority over people. Instead, their influence is their the way they live their lives. The way they follow Jesus and trust God is to be an example for other believers, especially those who are immature in the faith.
The importance of example is also seen in Hebrews where the author says, “Remember your leaders, whoever spoke the message of God to you, carefully examining the outcome of their way of life in order to imitate their faith.” (Hebrews 13:7)
Again, among the church, leading is not making decisions or controlling others. Leading is serving and living as an example of what it means to follow Jesus Christ and trust God.
(By the way, the image attached to this post is my favorite image related to leading among the church. If we are not serving people – getting our hands dirty – then we are not leading.)
How leaders work WITH the church
In response to another blog post, Dave Black commented on leadership among the church. (See Friday, June 3, 2011 at 1:58 p.m.)
When speaking about leaders, he referred to a passage that is often overlooked. I mean, 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 is not as sexy (from a leader’s perspective) as some of the other preferred passages. However, I think this passage is very important if we want to understand how leaders work WITH the church.
Yes, I said WITH the church, not for the church.
First, this is what Dave said:
Some, of course, will ask, “How could a man possibly work fulltime and pastor a church effectively? One or the other will have to suffer!” This is a perfectly reasonable objection. It is obvious to every non-professional minister that the average layperson spends most of his or her time weekly providing for their families. Since they spend an enormous amount of time working for a living, their “church time” can only be a fraction of their ministry. Of course, the solution to this problem is obvious. Simply put, Jesus Christ never entrusted leadership in a local church to a single individual. Leadership in the New Testament was shared. Not surprisingly, therefore, when Paul refers to church leaders (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:12-13) the reference is to a plurality of leadership. In order to be an equipping environment, then, the local church must be structured for shared leadership — what Michael Green wonderfully refers to as a “fellowship of leadership.”
Now, this is the passage he referred to:
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you [lead you] in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ESV – except the part I translated)
Now, you may wonder what this has to do with leaders working WITH the church. You have to read just before and just after that passage to see that part:
Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:11 ESV)
And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. (1 Thessalonians 5:14 ESV)
You see, the work of leaders (“those who lead you”) is simply part of the work of all the “brothers and sisters” to encourage one another, build one another up, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, and be patient with all. All believers are instructed (commanded actually) to do this work. Leaders are doing this also, of course.
But, what if the leaders are doing this work while the church is not doing it also? Big problems… big, big problems.
Jeremy’s thoughts on “leaving the pastorate”
“Leaving the pastorate” is a huge concern at the seminary. The are speeches and sermons and emails and meetings each year designed to help students remain “in the pastorate” for the long haul.
Jeremy at “Till He Comes” presents a different view in his post “Leaving the Pastorate.”
First, Jeremy recalls his experience in his first “pastorate,” and the events that led to him losing his job. He makes a strange (“strange” to the traditional church at least) statement concerning his desire to find another pastorate:
Looking back, I regret that decision. I wish I had stayed. I wish I had pastored without pay.
I would have learned so much working in the community, among the people I wanted to love and serve. I would have lost my fear of losing the big tither in church. I would have gained freedom to teach the Scriptures clearly. I would have gained the liberty to lead the people into the community. I don’t know what would have happened, but looking back now, it is what I wish I had done.
From this point, Jeremy explains what happened next, and how he came to a point where he did finally “leave the pastorate”… and he considers this a good thing. Apparently, this post is the first in a series, so I’m looking forward to reading more of Jeremy’s thoughts about this.
What do you think?
When a leader is just one person among the church
Besides the focus on Sunday, there’s another dangerous practice that I think is hindering the church (in general) from growing and maturing in Christ.
What practice is that? The reliance on one person’s service. Or, in the case of a team of leaders, the reliance on only a few people’s service.
Among most churches, meetings (i.e., “worship services”) could not happen, programs could not be planned, teaching would not occur, discipleship would falter, the church would not be the church if the leader(s) were not present. This is a problem.
Instead, as we read in the New Testament, leaders are simply more mature believers among the church. They are not the basis of all service, teaching, etc. among the church. Are they important? Yes! Would the church “shut down” without them? Absolutely not!
And, the church would not have to find a “supply” preacher if one of the leaders became sick or was out of town. How strange that would seem to the church in the New Testament!
In order for this to change in the church today, two things would have to occur almost simultaneously: 1) Leaders would have to give up their control over everything that happens among the church, and 2) Others (non-leaders) would have to get out of the pews (or chairs) and begin serving one another.
Just for fun he says, “Get a job!”
So, the title of this post comes from the lyrics of the Bruce Hornsby song “The Way It Is.”
Someone else is saying, “Get a job,” but he’s not saying it “just for fun.”
The instigator is David Fitch in his post “5 Excuses Seminarians make for NOT Getting a (“Real”) Job.” Now, before you jump to some conclusions, you should know that Fitch is not against churches paying pastors. In fact, he’s for it.
However, he also sees the benefit of seminarians working a “Real” job (to use his terms). For example, here is one of his excuses:
3.) EXCUSE NO. 3 – I WILL BE SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON A JOB THAT IS NOT GERMANE TO MINISTRY. Seminarians think that spending many years in something not ministry related will stunt development of ministry skills. This is mind blowing to me. I suggest that working in the marketplace in whatever capacity is transforming and every pastor should do it in some way. It is also incredible how having a well-honed skill in your back pocket gives enormous freedom in ministry even when more full time ministry is forced upon you. You are no longer locked into the insecurity of having to keep a church going (because you know you can get a job) that can constrain you from acting prophetically.
I think it would have been good to mention that working that “real” job can be just as much ministry as working in a church paid position.
You should read the other excuses. I think Fitch makes a good point.
Now, he is primarily writing this to seminarians, but why would it not apply to elders/pastors also?
Can the example of elders hinder others from serving?
My friend Jason at “Second and Content” is currently in South Africa for a year working in tribal villages. He wrote a very good post called “Some Thoughts on Elders” in response to an older post that I linked to on twitter and Facebook.
His post is long, but well worth reading. He discusses elders from both a scriptural perspective and from his experience in both traditional and less-traditional church structures.
In this post, I want to highlight one thing that Jason talks about. The way the elders serve can affect how (or if) others in the church also serve.
Here is part of what Jason writes:
I’ve always been a firm believer that every Christian is responsible for doing ministry. Sometimes I feel like there is such a distinction between clergy and laymen today that ministry has been localized only in the hands of pastors. Or if the body does do some sort of ministry, its once a year, on one gigantic day of lets-help-people-and-wear-t-shirts! Often times the response I’ve gotten from people when asked whether we should pay ministers or not was that the church paid pastors so they could do ministry more effectively. Yes, this motive has great intentions, but unfortunately it creates a mindset that further widens the gap between the two fictional distinctions of clergy and laymen. The biggest influence on my life in regard to ministry was a particular Dr. who showed me that it was possible to do ministry and carry on a job at the same time. His particular gift was teaching, and he utilized that. When an elder (and when I say elder, read your conventional definition for pastor, one who teaches and guides the flock) displays the example that it is possible to do ministry and work a full time job (i.e. work just like you do) it shows people that they can be doing ministry as well.
What do you think? Does Jason have a point? Can elders serving and working a job be more of an encouragement and example to others than elders who serve and are paid by the church?
(And, yes, I’m sure my readers will have differing opinions on this. I would love to hear your opinion, otherwise I would not have asked.)