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.
Preach? Who? Me?
This morning, thanks to Theron at “Sharing in the Life“, I read a great quote by Roland Allen in Theron’s post called “Quote of the Day“. In The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, Allen writes:
What Christ asks of His disciples is not so much exposition of doctrine about Him as witness to His power. Now witness to His power can be given by the most illiterate if he has had experience of it. It does not require long training for a man to say: ‘Whereas I was blind now I see’…
I remember a missionary in India telling me that most of the converts in his district were brought in by extremely illiterate men. He said: ‘The villagers look at them and say, “We know what you were, we can see what you are; what has made the difference?” These men cannot preach sermons,’ he said, ‘but they know enough to answer, “Christ”, and the result is men are converted to Christ.’
Could it be that we have changed the meaning of the word “preach” to such an extent that it has now become the responsibility of educated men instead of transformed men? Could it be that when Paul told Timothy to “proclaim the word” he did not mean to study commentaries in order to present a 30-45 minute homily, but that through his life and his words he should proclaim Christ as his Lord? Could it be that the “illiterate men” in Roland Allen’s story know what it means to “proclaim Christ” and have taken responsibility for it, while we have relegated it to a professional service that is no longer the responsibility of every believer?
Anabaptists…
Today, Dave Black began a series on the Anbaptists called “What I Have Learned From the Anabaptists“. At one point, he says:
Like the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, who longed for a restoration both in the structures and the practices of the church and whose vision differed from the magisterial model, so I believe it is time for an alternative vision of church and society, one that is Christocentric and follows the pattern of Jesus by obedience to His teaching and His example. More than anything we need a return to the pure Word of God as the only guide to Christian conduct and thought. A classic case in point: today we find congregational participation in our gatherings squelched by an unbiblical emphasis on the “clergy” and a corresponding passivity among the “laypeople.” The motivation behind limiting congregational participation is undoubtedly noble (to ensure “quality,” to protect against heresies, to maintain order, etc.). Still, such motivations seem biblically unsustainable.
He later describes why these motivations are “biblically unsustainable”. Read the remainder of the article. And, then, ask yourself, “Do I understand the church and the church meeting through studying Scripture, through tradition that I’ve been taught, through business models, or another method?”
Our impotence or God’s power
Consider this passage from The Message:
Abraham didn’t focus on his own impotence and say, “It’s hopeless. This hundred-year-old body could never father a child.” Nor did he survey Sarah’s decades of infertility and give up. He didn’t tiptoe around God’s promise asking cautiously skeptical questions. He plunged into the promise and came up strong, ready for God, sure that God would make good on what he had said. That’s why it is said, “Abraham was declared fit before God by trusting God to set him right.” But it’s not just Abraham; it’s also us! The same thing gets said about us when we embrace and believe the One who brought Jesus to life when the conditions were equally hopeless. The sacrificed Jesus made us fit for God, set us right with God. (Romans 4:19-25)
Do you focus on your own impotence, or God’s power and ability to use you?
Dave Black writes about God’s ability to use every person in an article called “Handicapped? Serve the Lord anyway!” So what is your excuse today?
The Gospel in message and mission…
When John the Baptist was in prison, he heard about the many works of Jesus Christ. He sent his followers to Jesus to ask an important question:
Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” And Jesus answered them, “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.” (Matthew 11:2-6 ESV)
According to Jesus, John should recognize who Jesus is both by his message and also by his mission. In the gospels, the message of the kingdom is not separate from the mission of the kingdom, and vice versa. Thus Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom through words and through works. A gospel that is presented through words only is not found in Scripture; and, similarly, a gospel that is presented through works only is not found in Scripture. In Scripture, the gospel is proclaimed through message (words) and mission (works), and today the gospel should be proclaimed in both message and mission.
I recognize that in Scripture we do not find a dichotomy between message and mission. Instead, we find that the message includes the mission and the mission includes the message. However, I also recognize that we tend to separate these two today. So, for this blog post, when I mentioned “message”, I’m talking about the words of the gospel, and when I mention “mission”, I’m talking about the loving, merciful, justice-filled work that accompanies the gospel.
A couple of years ago, a good friend introduced me to John M. Perkins; however, I had not read anything that he had written until a few days ago. I had the opportunity to skim through his book Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development. Now, as far as I can tell, this book is not about developing Christian community. Instead, this book is about Christian involvement in developing community. These are different, but both are important.
In one chapter – “The Marks of an Authentic Church” – Mr. Perkins describes how the church’s message and mission should work together to the benefit of the surrounding community. He writes against the various forms of liberation theology and supports a “theology of reconciliation” based on 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. Consider these paragraphs:
We can begin to understand this alternative theology of reconciliation by defining the church. The church, as we all know, is the Body of Christ. It is the assembly of believers called out by God to be his people. These people see themselves as the replacements, the agents, for Jesus of Nazareth here on earth, in their own neighborhoods and communities. They are committed to being those agents in a specific neighborhood, in a return to the parish concept. Christian community development, then, is a return to the function God intended for the church, to be his replacement, his pinch hitter. This is a church that insists through its words and its actions that dehumanization in every form is blasphemy against God. We, the people of God, are called to live out our lives in our parishes in a way that reveals and affirms the dignity of those dehumanized by society.
Instead, we have turned the church into an institution that serves us instead of God. In fact, the church that we are most committed to is the church that will meet most of our personal and family needs. It has become popular for both black and white Christians to shop around for a church just as we shop around for food or clothing, and the join the one that offers the most “stuff.” But our institutions are valuable in God’s eyes only when they put flesh on the gospel. The gospel then becomes the love of God made visible, able to be touched and felt through physical agents of his kingdom. Only then is the gospel the good news to the poor that Jesus proclaimed. Living out the gospel means bringing the good news of God’s love to people who are in need, demonstrating to them the love of Jesus and introducing them to the eternal life found only in him.
When I refer to eternal life I don’t only mean the hereafter, but eternal life that begins here on earth and continues after. Jesus came to bring life, but also a certain quality of life. Jesus said, “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” Our task, then, is to enable people to have the abundant life that God desires for them. Abundant life surely begins with salvation, but it also includes having basic needs met and dignity affirmed.
In short, living the gospel means desiring for your neighbor and your neighbor’s family that which you desire for yourself and your family. Living the gospel means bettering the quality of other people’s lives–spiritually, physically, socially, emotionally–as you better your own. [43-44]
Mr. Perkins writes about a gospel that includes both proclamation by words and proclamation by works. He does not relegate the gospel to social action, nor does he relegate the gospel to verbal affirmation. And, perhaps more importantly, he recognizes that the church – the people of God – are the agents that proclaim (preach) the gospel in both message and also mission.
I am learning what it means to proclaim the gospel in message and mission. I’ve talked about this before in a post called “Justice, Kindness, Mercy…” To be honest, this is sometimes difficult for me. I love the church, and I love to see the church working to build up other believers instead of to tear down other believers. But, even if the church is working together to edify itself – which is important – this is only part of the church’s mission. The church is also supposed to be salt and light in the world through both its words and its works.
God is teaching me first by changing my heart. Margaret and I have talked about and prayed about different ways to influence our community for Christ. We have started with our neighborhood by trying to get involved in the lives of our neighbors in order to learn how we can serve them. But, for the most part, our neighbors are not “the least of these”. We are still praying that God would teach us how and where he wants to use us in this way.
Returning to Perkins, he listed seven attributes that the body of Christ should demonstrate as we carry out our message and mission [45-53]:
- The authentic church absorbs pain.
- The authentic community of believers is also called to proclaim hope in a despairing world.
- An authentic church should point to God’s authority.
- The authentic church brings people together.
- The authentic church spends lavishly on the needy.
- The authentic church reflects God’s character.
- The authentic community of faith protects the vulnerable.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not there yet. I recognize these attributes of believers and the church as described in Scripture, but sometimes I think we are too involved with ourselves and our pet projects and theological positions to be as concerned about others as God is. May God change our hearts.
Perkins said, “The gospel then becomes the love of God made visible, able to be touched and felt through physical agents of his kingdom.” This is the kind of gospel that I want to proclaim in message and in mission.
Ruling or Leading?
Back in March, I began studying “Leadership, Obedience, and Authority” in the context of the church. I’ve posted a few blogs as I’ve continued this study. This is another post in this extended series.
In the last post of this series, called “Exercising Authority…“, I examined several Greek terms that mean “exercise authority”, or “rule over”, or “be the master of” – in other words, terms that mean “to tell someone else what to do”. These terms are not used in a positive sense in the New Testament. This was my conclusion in that post:
So far, in these passages, there is no indication that one person should exercise authority over another person in a spiritual sense. In fact, it seems like just the opposite is indicated. But, if the apostles were not to exercise authority, and Paul did not exercise authority, and Peter told elders not to exercise authority, then I’m not sure where the command for leaders to exercise authority over other people is coming from. However, I’m still searching Scripture. It is possible that I’ve missed something, or that there are other passages of Scripture where leaders are instructed to exercise authority.
In this post, I want to examine two more Greek verbs that are occasionally translated “rule” in various translations. The verbs are:
Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) – (translated “rule/lead” in 1 Tim 5:17; Rom 12:8) According to the standard Greek lexicon (BDAG) this verb can mean 1) to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct, be at the head of, or 2) to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, give aid.
ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) – (translated “ruler/leader” in Luke 22:26; Heb 13:7, 17, 24) Again, according to BDAG, this verb can mean 1) to be in a supervisory capacity, lead, guide, or 2) to engage in an intellectual process, think, consider, regard.
Most importantly, in some cases, ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) is used in a sense to mean the opposite of a servant: “But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 22:26 ESV). From the context of Luke 22:26, it is clear that Jesus is telling his followers to be “leaders” who act as “servants”. Thus, the extreme range of ηγέομαι (hÄ“geomai) that means the opposite of “servant” cannot be in view here. Would Paul or the author of Hebrews or another believer promote a type of leadership that was condemned by Jesus?
Thus, in English, the word “rule” carries the connotation of making a decision for someone else, exercising authority over someone else, displaying dominance through the exercise of power. Meanwhile, the word “lead” can have similar connotations, but it can also carry a different meaning: “travel in front of”, “go in advance of others”, “guide”.
So, while both “rule” and “lead” are possible glosses for the two Greek verbs, and since the idea of “ruling” or “exercising authority” is always cast in a negative in the context of the relationship between one believer and another believer, it would seem that “lead” in the since of “walking ahead of” or “guiding” would be a better English translation. This would also explain Peter’s insistence that elders “shepherd” by being “examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).
There are a few other passages that can help us understand how the New Testament authors used this verbs in the context of the church. For example, in 1 Timothy 3:5, the Greek verb Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) is paralleled with another verb, επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai):
“For if someone does not know how to manage (Ï€Ïοίστημι) his own household, how will he care for (επιμελέομαι) God’s church?” (ESV) In this verse, Paul uses the verb Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) to describe someone’s relationship to their family, while he uses the verb επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai) to describe that person’s relationship to the church. While Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) can carry a range of meanings from “rule” to “lead” (as has already been described), the verb επιμελέομαι (epimeleomai) does not have the same range of meanings. In this case, it seems that Ï€Ïοίστημι (proistÄ“mi) is used with the secondary meaning of “care for” not “rule”.
Thus, when the New Testament is looked at as a whole, and when relationships between believers are examined, it seems that believers are never instructed to “rule” one another, but that one believer may be called on to “lead” another believer or a group of believers. The concept of a Christian “ruler” who makes decisions for other believers, or who directs the lives of other believers, or who tells other believers what to do is not found in the pages of the New Testament. Instead, the New Testament authors call mature believers to lead by being examples to and serving other believers. Followers of Jesus Christ have only one ruler. He is the living, breathing, ready, able, wise, knowing, powerful, present, and authoritative chief shepherd. And, no one can serve two masters.
Selling and distributing…
Luke records this amazing fact about the believers just after Pentecost:
And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:45 ESV)
Has anyone ever experienced something like this, either affecting yourself or someone you know? Is this common or uncommon today? Why?
How "Rich" are you?
Dan at “Cerulean Sanctum” has posted an excellent article called “A Letter to Rich, the Young Ruler“. He wrote the post as a letter to a modern day rich, young ruler. In the letter, he mentions some people (fictional or not?) who use the money that God provides in order to provide for the needs of others, instead of for their own wants. Consider this paragraph:
Let me tell you about some people I know. I know a couple who bought a small home in one of the worst neighborhoods in our city. He has a good job and could afford a much larger home, but he and his wife elected to use their extra money to meet the desperate needs of their poorer neighbors. I know a man who forgoes the expensive medication he needs to feel better so he can help a woman who has no health insurance pay for the even more expensive cancer medication she needs. I know a family who sent $1000 of their hard-earned money to help an unemployed couple they had never met in person make a house payment so they could keep their home. I know a man who gave every cent he owned in the world to fund a missionary couple who would have been recalled. Those missionaries were in the middle of their translation of the Bible into a new language. They would’ve had to come home unless they raised enough money to complete the translation.
I think these people have learned what it truly means to be “rich”.
Do you know how rich you are? Yes, you’re spiritually rich, but based on the riches of this world, you are probably also physically rich. (See “Global Rich List“) Did God provide you with all of those riches to keep, or to share with others in need?