LEADERSHIP

[marksman]

Having completed a bible study on the nine gifts of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12. I thought long and hard about starting another one on another subject. They say ignorance is bliss, but not in the case of knowing the truth, bearing in mind that the Holy Spirit came to lead us into ALL truth.

So I will present the truth as I see it on another subject that I have done a copious amount of study on which has included reading all sorts of books on the topic from authors around the world to get an in-depth understanding.

Plus in this case, I have been subject to all sorts of leadership models in the church so you might say I have personal experience to draw on. In addition, I have been in leadership of the church and para-church ministries so I have made a lot of mistakes myself.

To start with here is an anecdotal example of how not to lead. I belonged to a church that had a leader who had a Ph.D. and it showed because every week he gave us good solid meat. I got on very well with him and we had many a deep and meaningful over dinner during the week.

When he left, one of the congregation was waiting in the sidelines to grab the reigns of power which he got. Not long into his ministry, he said one Sunday morning "You can do things my way or leave." That was a red rag to a bull because in Australia you don't tell anyone it is my way or the highway.

The end result was 50% of the congregation left. Those who stayed thought he was wonderful and those who left thought he was less than wonderful. As a result, the church has never recovered and from a high of about 150 members, it drags along at about 30 and it has a dysfunctional leadership, no doubt introduced by the my way, highway concept.

The thing to note is that words have consequences as in there is life and death in the power of the tongue. That day, death entered.

Like everything that I study I always start with the scriptures because unless you understand what they say, you are at all sixes and sevens and all you are left with is your own ideas.

The main problem with leadership in the church today is that denominational orders take precedent over the scriptures as I found out when I spoke to denominational leaders. When referring to scripture the response was always "Yes but..." In other words, we have a good reason for ignoring scripture so let me say now "there is no good reason for ignoring scripture and we do so at our peril."

So where do we start for teaching what the scripture says about leadership in the church? There is more than one passage but I cannot go further than Timothy and Titus to give us a clear understanding of what leadership in the church looks like. So lets begin there.

 

[marksman]

First though, I have been studying life in Jesus' times and life in a Jewish context bearing in mind that the New Testament Church (NTC) was a Jewish church known as "The Way" and seen as a branch of Judaism. I have seen that in Ancient Israel, the men were spiritual leaders at home and providers for their families. There was no concept of equality and women going out to forge a career for themselves. Having said that, women did not sit at home twiddling their thumbs. They spent their time very productively, caring for the home, growing vegetables, making garments and most important of all, caring for the children. In all, families were very close-knit and they interacted on a daily basis with each other.

In the religious Jewish community, the father is central to the stability and success of a growing healthy family. From this backdrop, the NTC was formed and ordered and one can see where the instructions in Timothy and Titus came from so let's take a look at them.

We have to understand that the instructions in Timothy and Titus do not speak to the church today for the simple reason that the church in New Testament times was not governed by a paid pastor. There was only one church in each town that was governed by a plurality of Elders. As in the church at Corinth. The church at Ephesus. The church in Rome. The church at Phillipi. The church at Galatia and so on.

There are several verses throughout the NT that make this clear which I will deal with later.

Now back to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 3:1, it is a good thing to desire to be an Elder. The word bishop in this verse in some translations is a bit misleading because it is interpreted in the light of the role of a bishop today but in fact, that is not the case. The best translation is "overseer" which is what an Elder is. They oversee the life of the church.

In verse 2 it says the Elder must be blameless and the husband of one wife. What does that tell us? To be the husband of one wife means that an Elder cannot be female because a female cannot be the husband of one wife. All she can be is the wife of one husband but that is not included in the conditions for the ministry of Elder. If any women say she is an Elder ask her when she became a husband.

I have heard all sorts of explanations why that does not mean the husband of one wife but for now, if that is what it says it is good enough for me. And if anyone gets upset about this just remember that I am the boss in my house because my wife says so.

In addition, in verse 4 it says that an Elder must be master of his house, (note his, not her), and his children must be in submission. Note again his, not her. And in verse 5 it says "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God.

Verse 2 says that they have to be apt at teaching. The word teach in Greek is didaktikos which means teach, not preach. It is the word where we get our didactics from. Didactics is a theory of teaching, and in a wider sense, a theory and practical application of teaching and learning. The present-day church in the main has got stuck on the theory side of things and rarely puts into practice the application side of it. I can't remember too many sermons where the preacher finishes and then says "Now go out and do it."

The Elder teaches and the hearer learns and puts it into practice. The church in the town would meet in homes all over the town and the Elders would visit the homes and give their teaching to the people. There is no indication that they all met on Sunday morning at 10 am. In fact, they could not meet on Sunday as they were Jews and they worked on Sunday. In addition, there is no indication that they stopped meeting on the Sabbath and met on Sunday.

We also need to note that they met daily for meals in each other's homes. We are not sure what else may have transpired when they met in homes for meals, but it would not surprise me if the Elders taught as issues arose during their daily lives. And by the way, the breaking of bread has nothing at all to do with communion. It was a Middle East term used by one person to invite another round for a meal as in if you are not doing anything this evening come round and break bread with us. The meal always started by the head of the house, breaking up a loaf of bread and being passed around to each person at the table. Until that happened the meal did not start.

So the bottom line is leadership was male. It was Elders who led, not pastors. It was Elders who did teaching not preaching. Breaking of bread was eating a meal together. Acts 2:46 And continuing steadfastly with one mind day by day in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food in gladness and simplicity of heart. They did not share a thimbleful of wine and a bit of bread.

 

[marksman]

A word about the choice of Elder. The common practice today is to bring a man into the fellowship from outside the fellowship. When a pastor leaves, the church embarks on a search for a replacement from outside the church. It does not occur to them that the replacement is right there in the midst of them.

If you look at the requirements of an Elder in Timothy, it is clear that they had to be men of exemplary conduct. The sort that you would only know about if they lived amongst you and that is just what happened. Before you could become an Elder, you had to prove yourself as a Husband and Father. In other words, the people knew you through and through so being appointed an Elder was not a game of Russian roulette. And please note that you did not have to prove yourself as a wife and a mother.

Sadly the methodology of appointment from outside the church has produced many casualties as a man's weaknesses can appear once he gets into leadership. Bringing people in from outside does not allow the church to know if the person stands up to the scrutiny of the demands placed on them in scripture. I know of one church that had never appointed anyone from outside, choosing its Eldership from amongst the congregation. They departed from this model and chose to bring in someone from outside who was recommended. He had to resign eventually because he was having illicit sex with his secretary. It was their first casualty in this regard but it went from bad to worse as they appointed two women to run the fellowship.

When it comes to deacons, and please note that the deacons are not elders as the Baptist would have it, they had to be attested and proved the same as the Elders. As it says in 1 Timothy 3:10 they had to be proved first. In verse 11 it says their wives must be honorable or honest. What does that mean? Deacons are male. And in verse 12 it says they must be the husband of one wife. So, deacons are male.

Paul wrote these things to Timothy as he might take a bit of time before he came to visit them, so they would know how to conduct themselves in the house of God. Paul wasn't leaving it to chance and an anything-goes mentality. He had his plans for the running of the church and he was conveying them to Timothy who was meant to put things in order until Paul turned up so that everyone would know how to behave.

This was Pauls's blueprint for the church OR God's blueprint through Paul bearing in mind that 2 Timothy 3:16 says everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live.

 

[Enoch111]

There is more than one passage but I cannot go further than Timothy and Titus to give us a clear understanding of what leadership in the church looks like.

But you just said that the Scriptures will be ignored in favor of denominational practices. So will this be an exercise in futility?

 

[marksman]

A word about women in leadership. Because of the work that I have done in the past researching cultural issues, you get to be very aware of what is going on around you. When the feminist movement sprang up demanding that women be equal to men i.e taking leadership positions, I noticed that the demand for women to be in leadership in the church started as well. A case of anything you can do we can do better. But can we? has the church benefited by its rejection of Gods'model for leadership?

Having been in the church before women were in leadership the answer for me is no as if you ignore God's word, nothing is better. Paul gave the instructions to Timothy so that the church would know how to behave in his absence. What is different today? We need to know how to behave and it is set out there in the scripture, so why ignore it?

As I think back about my time when I was involved in the Brethren and Charismatic Brethren church in the UK, it gave a sense of security to see seven men in the congregation taking responsibility for the people. They were head and shoulders above us spiritually and character-wise and there was not a single accusation that you could make against them, because they had been tried and tested and not been found wanting.

Such a setting makes it easier for the people to find their calling and act upon it as you know the Elders have got your back and are not going to let you make too many mistakes as there is always wise counsel at hand to correct and build your ministry. That is the way it should be rather than today when in so many cases the congregation is there to promote and support the man at the top and what he does. We become pew warmers for one man's ministry which is quite contrary to scripture.

 

[marksman]

But you just said that the Scriptures will be ignored in favor of denominational practices. So will this be an exercise in futility?

No I didn't.

 

[Enoch111]

No I didn't.

Well this is what you said: 'The main problem with leadership in the church today is that denominational orders take precedent over the scriptures as I found out when I spoke to denominational leaders. When referring to scripture the response was always "Yes but..."'

 

[marksman]

Well this is what you said: 'The main problem with leadership in the church today is that denominational orders take precedent over the scriptures as I found out when I spoke to denominational leaders. When referring to scripture the response was always "Yes but..."'

That was not in the post you referred to.

 

[marksman]

Verse two in chapter three poses an interesting question. The Elder must be the husband of one wife. I will tell you what I have seen it means. He only has had one wife. He has not been divorced and is on his second wife. He cannot be in a polygamous relationship. He has to be married. he cannot be single. So which one does it mean?

One wife in Greek means one or first. That suggests he is not on his second wife which suggests that he has not been divorced. That would tie in with ruling his household well as a man who is divorced would not be considered to have done that.

That rules out polygamous marriage as well because you would not fulfill the instruction to have one wife.

As the role of Elder is to rule the church, he cannot rule the church well if he does not rule his own household well so that is why the church demanded he rule his household well so that they could see what kind of ruler he was.

And following on from that he could not be single as he would have no experience ruling a household.

So that leaves only one scenario. An Elder is a man who is on his first marriage, has children and does a good job of ruling his house.

In Jewish terms even if he was married and ruled his household well, he was not considered sufficiently experienced below the age of 40 so a young married man could not be an Elder.

 

[marksman]

I will digress for a moment and talk about women in leadership. As I have said it came about once the feminist movement took hold in society. As that grew, so did women in leadership in the church. I have talked to all sorts of people about this and it seems the main justifications for this are Deborah, Junia/s and Priscilla. These three are used as scriptural evidence that women can lead churches. So let us take a look at them.

First of all, Deborah was not a leader of Israel, she was a prophetess and as we know, there was no barrier for females to be a prophetess, but that did not make her a leader. As expected Deborah prophesied and through her prophecies she gave very explicit instructions to Israel. They were not her instructions. They were Jehovah's instructions.

Look at Judges 4:14. And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him. So Deborah prophesied and Barak did what the prophesy wanted him to do. Go and defeat the enemy. Barak made the decision not Deborah.

Judges 5:7 The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel. I have known people who were "mothers" to the church but they were not church leaders.

So if one says that women can be leaders in the church because of Deborah, sorry, the answer is no.

Next, let us take a look at Junia/s.

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, noted among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

This is the only verse in the New Testament that mentions her/him. Andronicus means a man of victory. Junias is of Latin origin and means Christian. There is nothing in the meaning of her/his name that indicates he/her was a leader in the church. And when it says the person was of note amongst the apostles the meaning of the word is a delegate, an ambassador, a commissioner of Christ. Not once does it say it means he/she is a leader in the church?

And please note that in a literal translation of that verse, Junias was a kinsMAN. If Junias was a woman she would not have been a kinsMAN.

So if you want to base your ideas about women leadership on this person, you are stymied for concrete evidence.

Now Pricilla. Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus who laid down their neck for my soul, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the nations. And greet the assembly at their house, and my beloved Epenetus, who is a firstfruit of Achaia for Christ. Here we find that the church met in the house of Pricilla and Aquilla. Paul calls them his fellow workers, not leaders or apostles.

And if you keep reading this chapter you will see that were all sorts of people that Paul greeted. Were they all church leaders? I don't think so. The other thing that is said to justify female leadership is that Priscilla was named before Aquilla. I can tell you now that my wife and I are often introduced as Anne and Roger. Does that make her head of the house? Of course not. To say otherwise is drawing a very long bow.

A further consideration is that the New Testament was a Jewish church and in Jewish life, both secular and religious, the man was ALWAYS head of the house.

When you look at these three examples and weigh them against the evidence of Timothy and Titus, you are up the creek without a paddle.

So let's take a look at Titus and see what that teaches us.

 

[101G]

first thanks for the topic, second, why not start with the Lord Jesus in showing leadership, read Matthews chapter 6 & 7

there is no set rule in a leadership position, only that's which is generally set by the Lord. just like a marriage, what works for house A may not work for house B. one must learn to LOVE in order to recieve LOVE. but setting rules is a must for each protection. as with raising children, one must learn the person.

my bottom line is this, not everyone is cut out to be a leader. plain and simple. just as not everyone is called to preach teach or pray. but by working together then leadership works. keep people busy, and they want be in others business.

PICJAG.

 

[marksman]

Why did Paul write to Titus regarding leadership in the church if he had already written to Timothy along the same vein? The main reason was a different audience and different problems. Paul's instructions to Timothy were for the benefit of the church at Ephesus, and Pauls's letter to Titus was for the benefit of the church in Crete.

Apparently the Cretian Church was not lacking in disreputable people in the church and they needed to be sternly rebuked. For that reason, well-qualified Elders (note Elders, not pastors) should be appointed in every town. This suggests that if you get men of sound repute appointed as leaders, your problems in the church are going to be diminished. That is the reason why no church should appoint a pastor from outside the church to lead it.

And note that Elders are appointed in every town bearing in mind that Crete is an island which is now part of Greece. The original religion of Crete was the Minoans but Christianity came to Crete as a new religion so Paul had to set up a structure to ensure that it was a church reflecting what he believed was the truth given to him by God.

Paul's instructions to Titus was not unlike those given to Timothy. First and foremost an Elder (not a pastor) must be blameless. How can you know if a man is blameless if he has arrived from outside of the church? By reputation? I have known of men who have been recommended by reputation, been appointed to lead and then had sexual relations with his secretary.

Next, it says that an Elder must be the husband of one wife. Not the husband of one wife or the wife of one husband. NO. The husband of one wife. The word husband in Greek gives a very clear connotation of a man.

Next, they are required to have faithful children meaning not being accused of loose behavior, or disobedient, meaning insubordinate, excessive or riotous.

He is not to be arrogant or self-willed, irascible (angers very easily), doesn't spend his time in the local pub, not quarrelsome, given to sordid gain (money), very hospitable, likes the company of good men, uphold sound doctrine (teacher) plus a few more characteristics if these are not enough to be going on with.

Paul sets these requirements out because as he says, For there are indeed many insubordinate men, empty talkers, and mind-deluders, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouth you must stop, who overturn whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for the sake of ill gain.

That gives us a pretty good idea that the Cretian church needed some wise counsel and leadership if it was to grow. Another fact in this respect is that men of those days would not take advice and instruction from women so that removes them from the sphere of leadership.

Next, I will deal with older men and women in the church and slaves.

 

[Elihoenai]

First though, I have been studying life in Jesus' times and life in a Jewish context bearing in mind that the New Testament Church (NTC) was a Jewish church known as "The Way" and seen as a branch of Judaism. I have seen that in Ancient Israel, the men were spiritual leaders at home and providers for their families. There was no concept of equality and women going out to forge a career for themselves. Having said that, women did not sit at home twiddling their thumbs. They spent their time very productively, caring for the home, growing vegetables, making garments and most important of all, caring for the children. In all, families were very close-knit and they interacted on a daily basis with each other.

In the religious Jewish community, the father is central to the stability and success of a growing healthy family. From this backdrop, the NTC was formed and ordered and one can see where the instructions in Timothy and Titus came from so let's take a look at them.

We have to understand that the instructions in Timothy and Titus do not speak to the church today for the simple reason that the church in New Testament times was not governed by a paid pastor. There was only one church in each town that was governed by a plurality of Elders. As in the church at Corinth. The church at Ephesus. The church in Rome. The church at Phillipi. The church at Galatia and so on.

There are several verses throughout the NT that make this clear which I will deal with later.

Now back to Timothy. In 1 Timothy 3:1, it is a good thing to desire to be an Elder. The word bishop in this verse in some translations is a bit misleading because it is interpreted in the light of the role of a bishop today but in fact, that is not the case. The best translation is "overseer" which is what an Elder is. They oversee the life of the church.

In verse 2 it says the Elder must be blameless and the husband of one wife. What does that tell us? To be the husband of one wife means that an Elder cannot be female because a female cannot be the husband of one wife. All she can be is the wife of one husband but that is not included in the conditions for the ministry of Elder. If any women say she is an Elder ask her when she became a husband.

I have heard all sorts of explanations why that does not mean the husband of one wife but for now, if that is what it says it is good enough for me. And if anyone gets upset about this just remember that I am the boss in my house because my wife says so.

In addition, in verse 4 it says that an Elder must be master of his house, (note his, not her), and his children must be in submission. Note again his, not her. And in verse 5 it says "If a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God.

Verse 2 says that they have to be apt at teaching. The word teach in Greek is didaktikos which means teach, not preach. It is the word where we get our didactics from. Didactics is a theory of teaching, and in a wider sense, a theory and practical application of teaching and learning. The present-day church in the main has got stuck on the theory side of things and rarely puts into practice the application side of it. I can't remember too many sermons where the preacher finishes and then says "Now go out and do it."

The Elder teaches and the hearer learns and puts it into practice. The church in the town would meet in homes all over the town and the Elders would visit the homes and give their teaching to the people. There is no indication that they all met on Sunday morning at 10 am. In fact, they could not meet on Sunday as they were Jews and they worked on Sunday. In addition, there is no indication that they stopped meeting on the Sabbath and met on Sunday.

We also need to note that they met daily for meals in each other's homes. We are not sure what else may have transpired when they met in homes for meals, but it would not surprise me if the Elders taught as issues arose during their daily lives. And by the way, the breaking of bread has nothing at all to do with communion. It was a Middle East term used by one person to invite another round for a meal as in if you are not doing anything this evening come round and break bread with us. The meal always started by the head of the house, breaking up a loaf of bread and being passed around to each person at the table. Until that happened the meal did not start.

So the bottom line is leadership was male. It was Elders who led, not pastors. It was Elders who did teaching not preaching. Breaking of bread was eating a meal together. Acts 2:46 And continuing steadfastly with one mind day by day in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they shared food in gladness and simplicity of heart. They did not share a thimbleful of wine and a bit of bread.

Indeed, the man is the head of the woman. Now to the foremost. Are you Blameless/Sinless? If you are not Blameless/Sinless, you don't qualify as a Bishop/Overseer.

 

[marksman]

Indeed, the man is the head of the woman. Now to the foremost. Are you Blameless/Sinless? If you are not Blameless/Sinless, you don't qualify as a Bishop/Overseer.

In case you had not noticed, I have not been discussing whether I qualify to be an overseer. All I am dealing with is what scripture teaches so your accusation is moot.

 

[Elihoenai]

In case you had not noticed, I have not been discussing whether I qualify to be an overseer. All I am dealing with is what scripture teaches so your accusation is moot.

1 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


And you conveniently missed the first and foremost quality of being a Bishop/Overseer, that of being Blameless/Sinless.

 

[marksman]

1 Timothy 3 King James Version (KJV)

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


And you conveniently missed the first and foremost quality of being a Bishop/Overseer, that of being Blameless/Sinless.

And you conveniently missed the fact that the word blameless is in my posts.

 

[marksman]

Next, older men.

When I first became a member of the body of Christ, one thing that was very obvious and that was the respect that was given to older men. From my experience, all the leadership positions in the church were filled by older men. There was not a young man amongst them.

In my studies of the NTC which was based on the Judaistic way of life, a man could not assume a position of leadership unless he was married and had children and was at least 40 years old. Not like one church that I was in where it had several older elders and who called out "the pastor" because he had a vile temper so he sacked them all and replaced then with Elders in their 20s. In other words, people who he could manipulate and control.

So it is not surprising that Paul should mention older men specifically.

He says that they should be sober and this word only occurs three times in the New Testament. This means circumspect which means unwilling to take risks.

Next, they were to be grave which means to be honorable as in "The honorable gentleman will give us his views on the matter." Or in the case of the English Parliament, where MPs are referred to quite often as the "Honorable gentleman." This means that the person is deemed to be honest.

Temperate which means safe in mind and self-controlled.

Sound is to be well in body and true in doctrine.

Sound in faith which means moral conviction of religious truth, and reliance on Christ for salvation.

Sound in charity meaning love which means affection or benevolence or specifically a love feast.

Patience meaning cheerful and enduring.

I have to admit I have met several men who fulfilled these criteria, especially when they were honoured as older men and when their input was well regarded. If you have men in the church that fulfill these criteria, you tend to have a sense of security and you can trust them with the day to day life of the fellowship as these sorts of criteria tend to produce people that put others first.

I have read that if you want to know what sort of man who is leading the church see where he puts his car. If it is by the church door in a spot reserved for him, you have got problems. If it is anywhere there is an empty parking spot, thank God for your blessings as a church.

Another anecdote. When I was training to be a youth leader in government youth clubs, I went to a local Apostolic church. At communion time, I could not help notice that the Pastor was about 30 years old and all the Elders who came out and sat in the front row, had grey or white hair and must have been in their 60's or 70's.

At the time I did not know then what I know now but I could not help feeling that something was wrong expecting those mature and wise men to submit themselves to a person who was young enough to be their child. Why does the church turn a blind eye to the truth which is set out very clearly in scripture.

 

[marksman]

first thanks for the topic, second, why not start with the Lord Jesus in showing leadership, read Matthews chapter 6 & 7

there is no set rule in a leadership position, only that's which is generally set by the Lord. just like a marriage, what works for house A may not work for house B. one must learn to LOVE in order to recieve LOVE. but setting rules is a must for each protection. as with raising children, one must learn the person.

my bottom line is this, not everyone is cut out to be a leader. plain and simple. just as not everyone is called to preach teach or pray. but by working together then leadership works. keep people busy, and they want be in others business.

PICJAG.

I didn't start with Matthew 6 & 7 because it has nothing at all to do with leadership in the church.

As for there being no set rule in a leadership position, Timothy and Titus prove otherwise as Paul told Timothy and Titus to set down rules for ALL the churches in Ephesus and Crete. I would consider that set rules.

 

[Elihoenai]

And you conveniently missed the fact that the word blameless is in my posts.

Incorrect. I quoted the entirety of your post and am not engaged in censorship of any kind. Did you do any teaching on being Blameless/Sinless?

 

[marksman]

Incorrect. I quoted the entirety of your post and am not engaged in censorship of any kind. Did you do any teaching on being Blameless/Sinless?

As I said, I used the word blameless more than once.