Advantages of non-hired, local leaders
Dave Black posted this on his blog today at 6:27 AM:
Three of the four closest Baptist churches to our farm are currently without pastors. Again. In our area most pastors last about 2 years. Then the cycle begins all over again: a pulpit committee starts looking for the ideal new “preacher.” Even though the Bible makes no distinction between “layman” and “minister,” most Baptists do. Thus most of them would never consider choosing more permanent, stable leaders from among their own congregations. But the advantages of non-hired, local leaders are numerous:
- the fact that the pastor/elder is one of the brethren magnifies the sense of brotherhood
- his lack of financial dependence on the group issues in independence of thought and judgment
- it preserves the priesthood of all believers
- the supported minister is subjected to enervating competition bidding for his services
- a professional ministry causes a loss of identification with the people (the pastor is considered a “hireling”)
- the congregation feels tremendous instability due to a frequent change in pastors
- the non-hired pastor is not considered a member of a class separate from the rest of the fellowship
I wonder if rural churches caught up in the viscous cycle of revolving pastors are not just shooting themselves in the foot.
I have learned first-hand that Dave’s “advantages” are real. Are there “disadvantages” as well?
Which group do you want to imitate?
In response to my post “Anabaptist politics and pastoral authority“, Jeff left a very thought-provoking comment. I have been greatly challenged by many of Jeff’s comments. I hope you think carefully about this comment and see which group best describes you.
This is what Jeff said:
I think there are many prideful leaders who follow in the footsteps of Diotrephes. Those who want to be in control of the people and prefering them to be in bondage and hearers only.
There are also many who follow in the footsteps of Moses. He didn’t want the responsibility of leading people. He was the most humble man to walk the earth, but because he had a personal relationship with God and was led by the Spirit he encouraged the people to follow and listen to God. But the irresponsible people put him in bondage by electing him to deal with God and then speaking to them. It was not necessarily Moses’ fault the people didn’t want to take the time to have a personal relationship with the Father and they looked to him instead of to God to lead them. But because of this Moses became pre-occupied with the people and he himself, though being extremely humble, for a moment lost site of his role as a leader, and as a consequence he himself was never allowed to enter into the rest that God prepared.
Then there are those leaders who want to follow in the footsteps of John the baptist who was, as Jesus said, “the greatest man born of a woman.” Someone who simply shows people they need to repent, they stink, they need to take a bath and cleanse themselves of this baggage they’re carrying, and then go seek out, follow, and listen to Jesus.(This is not meant to be a plug for the “Baptist Denomination”)
The conclusion I’ve come to is this…
There are Spirit led people put into bondage by irresponsible “leaders” of the churches.
There are Spirit led leaders who are put into bondage by irresponsible people in the churches.
Then there are those in the wilderness who simply walk with God and point to Christ and say, “seek only Him, follow only Him, and Listen to Him.”
I know, personally, which one I want to imitate.
I think Jeff has astutely recognized three groups within the church. It would be beneficial for all of us to consider where we would fit within Jeff’s three groups. Which group best describes you? Are there other groups?
Dr. Anabaptist
Dave Black has published his fifth essay about Anabaptists in an article called “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 5)“. I think my favorite thing about this article is the introduction from his blog where he says, “Because of your enthusiastic response, I’ve decided to continue it for a few more entries.” I am enjoying this articles and looking forward to more.
In this article, Dr. Black (yes, that was intentional) tackles the question about Christian “titles”. He introduces the topic like this:
If we were to read Matthew 23 and take Jesus’ words at face value, we should come away with the notion that He was not very impressed with all the titles we make so much of today. We should feel that all this talk about “Doctor†and “Reverend†and “Senior Pastor†is somewhat superficial, that titles are merely manmade epithets and quite contrary to the idea of a brotherhood church.
I mentioned this passage and asked a question about titles last December in a blog post called “Do titles matter“. Jesus seemed to think that titles are inappropriate among brothers and sisters. What did the Anabaptists say? Well, Dr. Black says:
When Jesus says, “Do not be called Rabbi,†He means (so I take the Greek), “Do not make people call you Rabbi.†All of this would have been quite acceptable to the Anabaptists. For them, the essence of Christianity was discipleship. All else was subordinated to that. And what is a disciple? A disciple is one who follows Christ (Nachfolge Christi) and not any man, no matter how important or eminent or exalted that man may be in the world’s eyes, or in the church’s. Discipleship for the Anabaptists refers not simply to a life that is spiritually motivated but one that is externally patterned after Christ’s own person and work. It was assumed by the Anabaptists that the life and teaching of Jesus were to be replicated both in principle and in form by His followers. The Lord’s rejection of social strictures, His freedom from cultural entanglements, His humility and lowliness of mind – all these were accepted as normal for all true disciples.
Such beliefs contradicted, of course, the fundamental convictions of more than a thousand years of ecclesiastical history. The Anabaptist faith was a radical departure from that history not least because it clashed with culturally entrenched traditions of the Reformation such as the clergy-laity division. The Anabaptists were content to call each other Brethren, in keeping with Jesus’ teaching. It seems to me, therefore, that if we are to be true to the Scriptures we must abandon the idea that there is any positive value in referring to each other by manmade titles instead of by the term of endearment enjoined upon us by our Lord.
Well, this sounds good, but does the good doctor practice what he preaches? He says:
I do not want people to call me “Doctor Black†because they think I prefer the title or place any weight on academic credentials per se. I don’t. If people choose to use the title “Doctor†because they cannot break with tradition or because they cannot conceive of me as their brother, I understand. But my preference is to be called “Brother Dave†or “Brother Black†(if you feel you must use the last name) or simply “Dave.†Please do not think that this is a mark of modesty on my part. I actually believe, am completely persuaded in fact, that the term “Brother†(or “Sisterâ€) is the highest, most honorable, most glorious title that a follower of Jesus can be given by a fellow Christian (Heb. 2:11-12). It marks the relationship we will all enjoy in eternity when every earthly title will disappear for good.
Okay. I have heard Dr. Black say, “You do not have to call me Dr. Black. Brother Dave or simply Dave is fine with me.” I’ve heard him say this several times. But, I still call him “Dr. Black”. (In fact, counting this sentence, I’ve called him “Dr. Black” six times in this post already. I’ll try to do better, I promise.)
So, why do I prefer to call Brother Dave by his academic title? Is this because I want to be called “Dr. Knox” when (if) I receive my Ph.D.? No. As a matter of fact, whenever someone jokes about calling me “Dr. Knox”, I say, “I prefer ‘Alan’.” If I want to called by my first name, why no do the same for Brother Dave?
I think he pegged me in this post. Tradition. That’s it. I was taught (brought up) to use titles. Every man was a “Mr.” and every woman was a “Mrs.” or “Ms.”
I am going to talk to Bro. Dave (I’m practicing) about this. I am unlearning some of my tradition. It will not be easy for me. By the way, I do not think this is an issue for Dave Black at all. He has never said anything to me after I’ve called him “Dr. Black”.
But, honestly, this was not the point of Dave’s article (see, I’m still practicing). His point is that we should not ask people, encourage people, nor expect people to call us by any title other than “Brother” or “Sister”. As he pointed out, Hebrews 2:11-12 tells us that Jesus is not ashamed to call us “Brother” (or “Sister”). Why would we want any other title? If an academic institution imparts the title of “Doctor” upon you, how can that ever compare to being called a child of God and a brother to Jesus Christ?
Brother Dave (it’s getting easier, and more natural) ends his article with these lines:
I am well aware that some readers will think this is simplistic, even comical. But I must repeatedly insist that this is the biblical pattern, and it is plain. But it is a Rubicon. You will either cross it or you won’t.
Hopefully, if someone desires to follow Jesus Christ as his disciple, they will consider this to be a very important issue. Jesus did speak to it. So, what are you going to do about this? If someone calls you by a title (“Doctor”, “Pastor”, “Reverend”), are you willing to ask them not to, and gently explain why? They may not think it is important, but Jesus did.
Seven Chosen to Serve
The title for this post comes from the ESV section heading for Acts 6:1-7 which reads:
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:1-7)
This passage is usually recognized as the installment of the first “deacons”. However, before we decide what is actually being described here, let’s recognize that most of what is taught from this passage is based on assumption and speculation.
For example, the title “deacon” is not used of the seven men chosen here. Instead, the noun διακονία (diakonia) is used to describe the “daily distribution” or “daily service” (Acts 6:1) and the “service of the word” (Acts 6:4), and the verb διακονέω (diakoneo) is used in the phrase “to serve tables” (or “to serve food”).
Also, we are not told how the Hebrew widows received their daily food, nor are we told why the Hellenist widows were not getting their daily food. In fact, we are told very little about the details or organization involved in this distribution of food. We can assume or speculate as to how this was being done, but apparently this was not important enough for Luke to include. Perhaps, that means that what Luke was trying to communicate is not related to these details.
Neither does Luke tell us how “the full number of the disciples” chose the seven men who were going to take care of this problem. Again, we can make various assumptions and speculations, but it appears that Luke is more concerned with the character of the men chosen than the method used to choose them.
Finally, and this is one of the most interesting parts of this story to me, Luke does not tell us how, when, or even if these seven men actually supplied food to the Hellenist widows. Instead, the only subsequent times that any of these men are mentioned, they are mentioned in the context of evangelism. In fact, if it is the same Phillip, one of the men is called “Phillip the Evangelist” in Acts 21:8. Apparently, these men did not find their identity or their “job” in being a “deacon”.
So, what does Luke tell us in this episode from the early life of the church? First, Luke tells us that there was a problem. The Hellenist widows were not receiving their daily amount of food. This problem reached the ears of the apostles.
Second, we see that the apostles told “the full number of the congregation” to take care of the problem themselves. The apostles told the people to choose spiritually wise men with a good reputation. Again, the apostles did not tell the people who to pick or even how to pick these men.
Finally, we see that “the full number of the congregation” picked the men and presented them to the apostles. In Acts 6:6, Luke does not specify exactly who “laid their hands own” these seven men. It could have been the apostles – which is usually assumed – but it also could have been the people who chose them, presented them to the apostles, and also laid hands on them.
What is Luke communicating in this passage? It looks to me as if Luke is showing that the apostles expected all believers to take part in service. The apostles did not run things or control how problems were met. Instead, when a problem presented itself, the apostles expected the people who knew about the problem to take care of it.
Anabaptist politics and pastoral authority…
Dave Black has published his fourth aritcle about the Anabaptists: “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 4)” In this article, Dave discusses the Anabaptists response to politics and governments. He says:
They [the Anabaptists] taught that the church is not only apolitical but antipolitical in the sense that it regards political power as inevitably idolatrous. The church is to seek the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness. It therefore refuses to confer any value on political power but instead radically questions it. With Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge, however, the church became invested with political power, and it has sought political power ever since. It acquiesced where Jesus resisted: the church accepts all the kingdoms of the earth from Satan. It forges an alliance with the state, which it now seeks to Christianize.
On a different topic, Emily Hunter McGowan has written a guest article for SBCOutpost called “Who Should ‘Have Authority Over a Man’?” She begins by discussing 1 Timothy 2:12, but concludes the article by discussing authority in general. She says:
“Pastoral authority” is invoked in support of all kinds of actions, events, and propositions. In more mundane uses, “pastoral authority” becomes a catchphrase signaling the need to acquire permission from the pastor to take action or make a public statement. Along these lines, you might hear someone say, “I disagree with Pastor Tom about this issue, but I don’t want to undermine his pastoral authority.” More extreme applications, of course, include the forceful silencing of dissent and the legitimization of unfortunate personality worship. In this vein, something like this is more likely: “Don’t you know our pastor has authority over you?”
To be clear, in my criticism I do not take away from the responsibility of our local church pastors to shepherd our congregations. The apostles left us careful instructions regarding the need for us to recognize, honor, imitate, and submit to our leaders (1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:7, 17), as well as details regarding the characteristics that qualify and disqualify leaders from service (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
Yet, if you survey the teaching of the NT epistles on the matter of elders, overseers, leaders, or shepherds, you will find no mention of “authority” or “exercising authority over” anyone. In fact, 1 Peter 5:3 contains explicit instruction for shepherds to oversee the people “not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.”
These are the same conclusions that I’ve reached, as discussed in my posts “Exercising Authority“, “Ruling or Leading?“, and “Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)“.
A comment on leadership…
Once again, I’m going to base a post on a comment by Jeff. (No, Jeff, you do not get royalties.) As far as I’m concerned, this comment that Jeff left on my post called “Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)” was too good to leave in the comments:
I absolutely think that every denomination, church function, potluck or whatever organized by us needs to have someone in a position of authority controlling it or it will not function properly. It would be chaotic.
Every ship needs a captain to steer it. Every plane needs a pilot to fly it. Every machine needs someone to run, service, and maintain it. Every play needs a writer and director to produce it. Etc., Etc., Etc..
Everything we’ve created with our awesome abilities needs us, to a certain extent, to manipulate it or it wont function as it was supposed to. Everything we’ve made needs our direction to organize, control, direct and/or guide it or it wont work. Again, it would be utter chaos.
In the same vein, everything not man-made could function just fine without our exercising authority and control over it.
So…what does this say about OUR churches?
Jeff, I appreciate this comment, and I hope you will consider starting your own blog.
A.D. Clarke on Leadership…
A.D. Clarke wrote the article on “Leadership” in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Speaking of NT leaders, he says:
The context of leadership significantly affects the way in which that leadership is rightly exercised. Whilst being described as a labourer (1 Cor. 15:10; 16:15-16), the godly leader is nonetheless to equip (Eph. 4:11-13), care for (1 Thess. 2:7, 1 Tim. 3:5), guide (1 Cor. 4:15), and mobilize God’s people that they in turn may serve. It should be noted that, whereas commanding or ruling is fundamental to the task of the monarch (1 Kgs. 3:9), the military leader (Matt. 8:9), and the secular leader (Rom. 13:1-7), it has a comparatively small place in the role of the church leader. Consequently, whilst believers are to obey and be subject to their church leaders (1 Cor. 16:16; Heb. 13:17), the NT says little about church leaders demanding or exacting obedience from believers.
It is interesting that Clarke includes many Scripture references in this paragraph. However, when describing the leaders role to “mobilize” other believers, he does not include a reference. Similarly, he does not include any references to the “little” that Scripture says about “church leaders demanding or exacting obedience from believers”.
On the other hand, Clarke includes at least one of many scriptural references to leaders among believers who are laborers, who care for the people, and who guide the people. This is very similar to what I am learning about leaders as I study Scripture.
Leaders in Scripture are not those who direct the activities of a group of people. Instead, leaders in Scripture are those who serve others and provide a mature example of how to follow Christ. Shepherding, caring for, watching over, etc. are ways that leaders help others grow in maturity toward Christ, not decision making activities.
The Spirit provides all believers with everything necessary to make the decisions that they need to make in life. There is no need for another person to make decisions for them. They do not need a mediator to help them understand God’s will. They have the only mediator they will ever need.
As I was reading through Clarke’s descriptions of leaders in Scripture, I appreciated the fact that he drew a hard line between secular leaders and leaders among the church. Unfortunately, too many times, I see believers blurring those lines. Jesus said that if you want to know who to follow, then look around for those who are serving others and follow them.
Obey and Submit? (Hebrews 13:17)
In my continuing study of the role of leaders among followers of Christ, I’ve come to a verse (Hebrews 13:17) that many use to teach that pastors or elders should exercise authority over a church. (For more posts in this series, see “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority…“, “Leaders and Servants…“, “What does a bishop oversee?“, “What does a non-bishop oversee?“, “Exercising Authority…“, and “Ruling or Leading?“)
To summarize what I have found so far, Jesus begins by teaching that those who follow him will not lead in the same way the world leads. In particular, they will not lead by exercising authority. Instead, they will serve others. Believers will know who to follow – the servants, not those who attempt to exercise authority. Those who lead (pastors/elders for example) should concern themselves with the church – people – and not organizations. The Holy Spirit has given them the responsibility of watching over God’s flock, but he has also given this same responsibility to all believers (Heb 12:14-15). However, “leaders” should be examples to others in how to care for other people.
Now, what about Hebrews 13:17 –
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 ESV)
The structure of this verse is as follows:
Command – (obey… and submit)
Reason (for the command) – (for they are keeping watch…)
Purpose – (Let them do this with joy…)
Reason (for the purpose) – (for that would be of no advantage…)
Let’s begin by examining the two commands: Obey and submit. The Greek verbs translated “obey” and “submit” by the ESV are πείθεσθε (present passive imperative 2nd person plural from πείθω – peithÅ) and ὑπείκετε (present active imperative 2nd person plural from ὑπείκω – hypeikÅ).
In many translations, the verb πείθω (peithÅ) in Heb 13:17 is translated “obey”. According to BDAG, the standard Greek lexicon, in the present tense and passive voice (as in this verse), πείθω (peithÅ) means “to be won over as the result of persuasion” with the following possible groups of glosses: 1) be persuaded, believe, 2) obey, follow, 3) take someone’s advice. In English, it is clear that “obey” is the strongest of these glosses. According to BDAG, there are four instances of this usage in the New Testament (excluding Heb 13:17). Let’s look at each occurrence:
…but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey urighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. (Romans 2:8 ESV)
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? (Galatians 3:1 NKJ – Majority Text only)
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? (Galatians 5:7 ESV)
If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well. (James 3:3 ESV)
According to BDAG, πείθω (peithÅ) can be translated “follow” or “obey” in each of these passages, although the ESV and other translations have chosen to use “obey” as the gloss in each passage. In a couple of the verses, it seems that “follow” would be a much better choice. For example, the Galatians were running, but stopped “following” the truth. Also, the use of the verb “guide” in James 3:3 suggests that “follow” may be a better verb than obey. In fact, in each case “follow” would have the same connotation.
However, when we get to Hebrews 13:17, we now have a completely different context. Believers are now no longer “obeying” the truth or the gospel, they are now “obeying” other people. In this situation, and with the previous understanding that believers are never told to exercise authority over other believers, “follow” seems to be the better translation. Thus, believers are commanded to “follow” those who are leading them.
Next, the verb ὑπείκω (hypeikÅ) – “yeild, give way, submit” – is found only in Heb 13:17 in the New Testament and in 4 Maccabees 6:35 in the Septuagint. However, it seems to be synonymous with ὑποτάσσω (hypotassÅ), so we should not be surprised to find that believers are to “submit” to other believers (Eph 5:21). It is interesting to note that in this verse believers are told to submit, but the “leaders” are not instruct to force or make anyone submit. This is very similar to Eph 5:21-33 in relation to husbands and wives. Submission to others believers is shown as something that is offered to another person, not something that is required by another person.
Hebrews 13:17 gives a reason for believers to follow and to submit to those who are leading them: “for they are keeping watch over your souls”. This is synonymous with instruction for leaders to shepherd the flock (people) of God by watching over them (1 Peter 5:2). Of course, this should be a reminder to both leaders and those who are following that leaders should recognize that their primary responsibility is toward people, not toward organizations and structures. Similarly, just as all believers will give an account before God, Christian “leaders” will give an account for the way they lead people toward maturity in Christ. They will not give an account as to whether or not someone follows. Those following will give an account for this.
Next, this verse gives a purpose of following and submitting: in order that they (the leaders) may do this with joy not by groaning. Apparently, leading should be joyful, not hard work. There is then a reason given for this purpose: “for this is of no advantage to you”. There is advantage to us in following and submitting to those who are leading us toward maturity in Christ. There is no advantage to us when we cause them grief.
The last part of this verse reminds us that as the body of Christ, everyone relies on one another, as we all rely on God. Leaders do not stand outside the body. Instead, the health and maturity of the body depends on both the leaders and those following to submit to the work of the Spirit in each other’s lives. This type of mutual submission leads to joy for leaders and also profits those following.
So, it is possible to translate the beginning of Hebrews 13:17 as “Obey those who rule over you”. But, if this is what the author of Hebrews meant, then he is teaching something that is opposed to the teaching of Jesus. If instead, he meant this phrase in a different – but perfectly valid – way (i.e. “Follow those who lead you”) then his teaching falls into place with Jesus’ command that believers will not exercise authority over one another, but will instead follow those who serve.
Anabaptists and the priesthood of all believers
Dave Black has published the second article in his series on the Anabaptists. It is titled “What I Have Learned from the Anabaptists (Part 2)“. In this article, he discusses the Anabaptist understanding of the priesthood of all believers and compares this with a sacerdotal view of Christianity. The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers does not negate the need for leadership, but it does change the method of leadership. He says:
We can go a step further. In 1 Thess. 5:14 Paul specifically requests the “brothers†– not the church leaders – to admonish those believers who were unruly. Why, if the believers were to defer to their leaders in the case of church discipline, did Paul command the church to expel the unrepentant sinner in 1 Cor. 5:4-5? We have no right to go beyond the clear pattern of the New Testament and insist upon a clergy-laity distinction. It is clear that the New Testament elder was not a proud, prestigious, and powerful ruler but rather a humble, gentle, and deeply spiritual brother (see Matt 23:8) who in the spirit of Jesus was called to serve rather than be served.
To the Anabaptists, then, a clerical ministry seemed out of step with both the spirit and the letter of the New Testament. As Heb. 13:7 shows, the authority of leaders was based not on their position or title but rather on their example (anastrophe) and faithfulness (pistis). The relationship of members to leaders was not one of duty but of love and respect.
We have to recognize that theologians themselves have done much to create this confusion. Jesus’ model of church leadership has nothing to do with status or office. This monumental misunderstanding of the New Testament seems to me to be one of the flagrant proofs that the Anabaptists’ return to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers was both necessary and inevitable for a group so earnestly seeking the truth of the Word of God. I see this same spirit at work today when I see younger leaders eschewing grand titles such as “Reverend†or “Minister†or “Senior Pastor,†preferring instead to be called “Brother So-and-so†or simply by their first names. This kind of thinking is contrary to every manmade system or philosophy. A Christianity that seeks no power, no prestige, no position but instead prefers humiliation, service, even suffering? Unthinkable – except, perhaps, to an Anabaptist.
So, according to Dave, the type of Christian leadership supported by Scripture is different from the normal leadership patterns of this world. Instead of exercising authority, Christian leaders exercise service, humility, and suffering. As far as I can tell, this is the kind of people that Jesus told his disciples to follow. He said to follow those who were servants, not those who attempted to exercise authority.
Who are your heroes?
Travis, at “He Must Increase“, just returned from Ecuador. In a post called “New Heroes“, he describes how the “leaders” of the churches there were functioning. This is what he says:
Jose, Geovanny, Marcos, Marlene, Pedro, Roberto, Fabiola, and Patricia. These are the names of some of my new heroes in the faith that I have met this past week in Ecuador. These men and women are everyday people…painters, taxi cab drivers, a mechanics, and house wives. They are all actively doing the things of Jesus. They have been a part of planting well over 100 churches, but they aren’t counting. They face constant danger from the world and criticism from the “traditional” church, yet they endure and press on focusing on the harvest. They live a lifestyle of proclaiming the gospel, yet they demonstrate the gospel with love. They disciple/teach new believers, yet they don’t lord over. They baptize. They equip. They get very little applause and praise. No one is writing dissertations on their ministries. They aren’t getting paid money for their Kingdom work. They are my new heroes in the faith. I was honored to sit at their feet for 8 days and learn. I pray that some of their life will rub off on me.
Did you catch that last sentence? “I pray that some of their life will rub off on me.” The mark of a leader is not found in the way that they exert authority. The mark of a leader is found the way that others desire to follow their example.
Could you follow the example of these believers? (HT: Guy Muse)