The Narrow Path Ministries

Years ago, I was part of a fellowship that emphasized the importance of submitting to church leadership. To be fair, this church was an otherwise healthy church, however I feel that there were control issues that led people away from the fellowship. Right now, I'm trying to pin down just what submission to leaders should entail. Should they be able to advise you on who you should pursue a courtship (relationship) with? What job to take? Which satellite congregation to attend (if the church is multi-campus)? Advise you on who to disciple?

It was also common for this group of churches to ask its people to commit to the local church for life (to plant your flag and die there).

A couple texts below and then more questions:


17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. (Heb 13)

12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. (1 Thess 5)

5 Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5)

Should Christian leaders have authority over other Christians? If so, what does this look like? What does it mean to submit to leaders and be under their authority? Do all Christians need to submit like this?

Does Satan go after leaders more so than just the regular Christian?

Is there some sort of umbrella of protection gained from submitting to the leaders in a church (God ordained authority)?

In what way will leaders be judged differently (by God) than other believers?



I appreciate any thoughts that you guys have.

Brian

It was also common for this group of churches to ask its people to commit to the local church for life (to plant your flag and die there).

It is one thing for a church to encourage its members to settle down into a suitable fellowship for as long as possible, and to stop church-hopping. Stability is helpful and a necessary part of developing fruitful relationships over time for yourselves and for your children. On the other hand, too many churches ask their members to make a "covenant" with their local church resembling marriage. We are married (committed for life) to Christ, but not to a particular local assembly. When such covenants are entered by church members, they seldom have the liberty to move on to other situations without incurring the sense that they are betraying the group that felt that they owned them for life.

Should Christian leaders have authority over other Christians? If so, what does this look like? What does it mean to submit to leaders and be under their authority? Do all Christians need to submit like this?

The interpretation of the specific verses about submission to leaders depends upon one's presuppositions. One set of presuppositions will yield a different understanding of the texts than will another. Some come to them with the assumption of an institutional structure, where the elders function as something of a board of directors, and the pastor as a CEO. Others come from a more relational paradigm, in which leaders are available, like older siblings, when counsel, accountability and objectivity are desired by the younger siblings. Exegesis of the texts will not necessarily favor one conclusion over the other in the absence of other, more foundational considerations.

The institutional idea of the church cannot avoid conferring political power upon the leadership, since the organization cannot efficiently do its business without a leader or committee of some kind with whom the buck can stop. The management of staff, facilities and scheduled activities requires the presence of recognized authorities who can make decisions, which must be followed by others in the organization. Such leaders are also a legal requirement for any group that seeks 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

When one takes this approach, the matter of leadership style may vary from one set of leaders to another, but in some measure they must control the organization and its participants. Whether the leaders wish to micro-manage the lives of the congregation, or wish to merely lay out broad ground rules for participation will depend on the policies of a given institution, and there is no scriptural information determining the boundaries of control over which the leaders may not step, other than that of the conscience of the individual.

That is, the leaders cannot rightfully require a person to do that which violates his godly conscience. Matters such as whom one might marry, or where one might live, or what career one might seek, are not usually in the realm of conscience convictions so much as strong preferences. Therefore there is no reason why an institutional-type church might not require total submission on such matters (if that is their style).

Since the Bible does not, in my opinion, condone this style of church institution, we should not be surprised to find that the Bible does not regulate specific governance policies of such.

Unless the Bible presupposes this kind of institution, the verses you cited cannot be meant to require submission to leaders in the micro-management of one's life. If one chooses to be a part of such an organization, one should obey whatever policies are in place as conditions for membership. This is simply a matter of integrity. If you join an organization that requires you to pay your tithe to that organization, then you should do what you have agreed to do, or else find another group with which to associate. The same goes for letting them make decisions for you about marriage, career, wardrobe, diet, child-rearing, etc. If you wish to maintain your freedom in Christ to manage such matters without interference from church leaders, you should not join a church which sees these decisions to be within the domain of the elders.

While I freely fellowship with believers in this kind of church, I would never join nor limit my fellowship options to such an organization. I don't think Jesus or the apostles would either.

A more relational style of fellowship is one in which several Christian principles prevail:

1. No one is considered to be "in charge" of anyone else. There are no "masters" other than Christ, and "you are all brothers" (Matt.23:8). The head of every man is Christ (1 Cor.11:3).

2. Some brethren, due to their experience, wisdom, maturity, or whatever, are available to provide teaching, counsel and mentorship to the younger siblings in the family. This they provide as a service, not as an imposition. Thus, others may avail themselves of this service, or not. Having received counsel in non-moral decisions, the individual is free to follow or reject the counsel (e.g., 1 Cor.16:12). The elder does not get his feelings hurt over the latter, because he does not believe anyone is required to submit to him in such matters. An exception would be the case of a younger believer voluntarily agreeing to make himself accountable to the elder believer—which would be an ad hoc arrangement, made between themselves, and intended only for a limited period of time.

3. Everyone in the fellowship has personally acknowledged the lordship of Christ (1 Cor.11:3), and has been baptized as a declaration of their willing submission to Him (Rom.6:2ff). Those who sincerely have made this commitment are eager to do what is right in the sight of God, and will voluntarily seek guidance from the older brethren when they feel a deficiency in their own biblical understanding or wisdom.

4. The submission of the Christian is primarily to God, the only person to whom we are said to be accountable (Rom.14:12). The value of legitimate spiritual leaders is in their ability to communicate faithfully the word of God to the rest of us (Heb.13:7) and in the example of holiness that their lives provide as models to emulate (1 Pet.5:3). Submission to them, therefore, is presupposed to be simply submission to the word of God, which they are presupposed to be speaking! If they speak contrary to the word of God, then "we ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Our submission is to God's word. Submission to the words of leaders is required exactly insofar as their words are agreeable with God's word.

5. There are standards that apply to all in the fellowship. These are those which are plainly taught by Jesus and the apostles, and, apart from the basic doctrinal commitment to the Lordship of Jesus, are primarily comprised of moral boundaries (i.e. matters of sexual impropriety, financial dishonesty, neglect of parental or spousal duties, being an agent of division in the fellowship, etc.). Immoral behavior (as defined by the New Testament) is to be met with the general disapproval of the whole community of believers. Matthew 18:15-17 suggests that steps should promptly be taken to confront sins of individuals who do not repent on their own, in order to elicit restoration through repentance. These steps begin with private confrontation, but may escalate, in some cases, to the level of a public reprimand (the latter may be the first step in cases of scandalous, public misbehavior—Gal.2:14). In the case of one who remains unrepentant, the whole family must express disapproval and withhold table fellowship until repentance occurs (1 Cor.5:11). This action is not necessarily undertaken against the offender by an official group of leaders, but by the consensus of the whole family (1 Cor.5:4-5).

6. Institutional-type of leadership can be avoided or minimized if the fellowship can avoid acquiring church real estate (homes and rented halls can usually suffice for normal-sized fellowships groups), hiring salaried staff (why can't the members of the family conduct all of their duties as volunteers—you know, as ministries?), or conducting elaborate programs (simple charity, missions support, and discipleship should be a way of life, not a program). If such trappings cannot be altogether avoided, then there is nothing wrong with organizing to the point of meeting such needs (e.g., Acts 6:1-6). The danger is that an ad hoc organizational strategy may become permanent—and even defining of the function of the group.

7. This kind of arrangement depends heavily upon the leading of the Holy Spirit (in the place of structured authority) in the life of the community and in each participant. This should not be considered to be too idealistic, since all the children of God are led by the Spirit of God (Rom.8:14). The problem is when the church begins to include those who are not children of God. This should be avoided, as a policy, since the church is the assembly of the saints. It is true that young children of Christian parents may be included in the fellowship, whether converted or not, but must be controlled by their parents while young enough to be thus controlled. Once unbelieving children become independent of their parents, they should be required to leave the church, unless they become believers themselves.

Obviously, as long as the churches welcome members into their ranks whose commitment to Christ is tentative or non-existent (and who are thus not inhabited or led by Christ's Spirit), there will be need for legalistic structures, because law is necessary only for lawless people (1 Tim.1:9). However, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty from law (2 Cor.3:17), and to the extent that a given church is governed by the Holy Spirit, it will not be a haven for the lawless, and will find little occasion for external structures of control upon the saints.

In what way will leaders be judged differently (by God) than other believers?

They are in a position to do more damage by the mismanagement of their lives than is the average Christian. As trusted examples, they may lead others astray, and become somewhat responsible for the sins of others they have thus influenced, as well as their own. How God may specifically redress such criminal behavior is not explained in detail. I think it to be very frightening.

Does Satan go after leaders more so than just the regular Christian?

Probably. I would, I were him.

Is there some sort of umbrella of protection gained from submitting to the leaders in a church (God ordained authority)?

As popular as this idea is in institutional churches, there is not much evidence for this in scripture, with the possible exception of Paul's identification of disfellowship with delivering one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor.5:5, 13). This may mean that the excommunicated person has been deprived of protection that he otherwise would have enjoyed as a member in good standing in the fellowship. However, this action is not taken because someone failed to submit to leadership, but because one refused to repent of flagrant moral impropriety. The protection does not come from submission to leadership, but from following Christ as an integral part of the Christian body.

Steve,

Your thoughts are much appreciated. I see you deleted the words, "be afraid, be very afraid."

I was listening to an old message today, and there was a thought that suggested that those with the gift of teaching should be under the authority of their elders (pastors) and should not jump ship if they think they are not getting the opportunities they think they deserve (perhaps God is working on their character and humility during the process of waiting). The pastor was saying that those who leave to go where that particular gift (teaching) is more appreciated oftentimes flunk the program that God had them on (where His goal was to cultivate humility and other important Christian virtues in the individual before opening up a large scale teaching role).

He also said that it can be dangerous to study theology on your own by going online (or by just "googling" topics). He believed the proper convictions should be reached in community (where you know the lives of the individuals whom you are studying with).

What do you think?

Brian

There may be some wisdom in those insights, but they certainly should not be considered to be universal rules. Sometimes learning as a community (if the community is somewhat ingrown) can be even more dangerous than researching things for yourself.

There are many passages on both the submit, listen, respect the leadership and on the cautions to those in leadership to not domineer. I think most on this forum can easily recognize what relation to spiritual leadership is not and where it goes astray. I think a good question would be what healthy relation to spiritual leadership look like or what it is.
I will seek to lay out some obvious scripture that speaks to this.

Acts 6:4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."

This is to be the heart and mind of all christian leaders who have the privilege to labor and serve the body of Christ. These men are deserving of much prayer and should be shown thanks and honored for such sacrifice and ministry. To the degree that leadership does things out of these two fountains, to that degree is the leadership healthy and is trustworthy. The leadership in any local body should be freed up by the rest of the body to be able to give themselves more fully to this end, for the sake of the good of the local church and the glory of God.

1 Thess. 5:12,13 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,
and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.



1 Cor. 16:15-18 Now I urge you, brothers you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence,for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such men.

The charge of being subject to the first converts, who may be the qualified leaders of the Corinthian church, is based upon their heart of serving the body of Christ.
Be subject means- This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".
It is important to see that this subjection was to be the attitude to every fellow worker and laborer, such men, in the whole church and not just to a select few. Since love is to be the mark of a Christian then mutual humility and looking at anothers interest first before oneself should be characteristic.

Phillippians 2 Paul says - I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need,
then in vs 29,30 So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.

Not only is warm Christian reception and honor to be shown to Epaphroditus, but to all others that are like him. All of those who are fellow workers, fellow soldiers, and messengers.

Heb 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

Leaders, here and in other descriptions of church leaders, are those who speak the word of God, which is the authority. That being said, the body is to remember them in prayers and in conversation that may turn to gossip/slander ect. The body should imitate them just the same as Paul told believers to imitate him, to the same degree that they imitate Christ.

Heb 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.

Obey here from Vines- "to persuade, to win over," in the Passive and Middle Voices, "to be persuaded, to listen to, to obey," is so used with this meaning, in the Middle Voice, e.g., in Act 5:36-37 (in Act 5:40, Passive Voice, "they agreed"); Rom 2:8; Gal 5:7; Hbr 13:17; Jam 3:3. The "obedience" suggested is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion.
I should add that one should be willing to be persuaded, just as the Bareans seemed to be as they joyfully received Paul's words. Blind obediance is not communicated here at all.
The word submit here is only found in this one place in all of the NT. It communicates a disposition to yield.


Here is how the elders are instructed in 1 Pet 5:2-5 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
This passage models both the warnings and the encouragements for leaders in the church. The summary is that the whole body should be clothed in humility and that should be seen in both the body relating to the elders and the elders relating to the body.

Matt 20: 25-28 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

The other synoptic accounts, Mark 10:42-45 and Luke 22:25-27, speak the same. A church leader is to truly be a servant. Could you picture a servant dictating to the ones whom he is serving and playing the 'because I said so " card?

2 Cor 1:24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.

The contrast here is obvious, and directly ties into Matt. 20 and the other synoptic Gospels. Christ church is not to reflect the authority over/ruling over model that the unbelieving world operates in, but it is to model servanthood and working alongside.

1 Cor 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ

The spiritual covering of man is Jesus, that is not some some simplistic cop out but the biblical truth.

Rom 14:12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
I don't see anywhere in scripture where believers will have to give an account to other men.

One of the characteristics of the unrighteous in 2 Peter 2 is that they despise authority. And also of false teachers in Jude, that they reject authority.

This despising or rejecting authority is speaking regarding angelic beings. You obviously could take a secondary approach and say that one should not despise or reject any or all authority around them. How could you despise and reject someone while genuinely praying for them, as we are commanded to do.?

1 Cor 16:12 is relevant too- Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but it was not at all his will to come now. He will come when he has opportunity.

This shows that, even among the leadership of the church, leadership must allow for the leading of the Lord in matters that are not moral or clearly laid out in the word. Paul did not play his 'I have been to the 3rd heavens, you haven't so obey me' card. He respected the godly character of Apollos and yielded to the fact that God may lead a brother to do or not do something that was different than his, Paul's, wishes, wishes that had spiritual ramifications.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

If the Apostle Paul was ok and commended the Bareans for checking out what he was saying with the scriptures, then one must conclude that every believer today has the right to check or ask biblical questions about what may be said or how one may be directed by leadership.


So I guess I need to rephrase my original question. We know what leadership shouldn't do and how they have and can abuse 'authority' or there position of leadership, but what is there realm of influence, in light of the above verses and others that I likely missed, does the leaderships voice have any extra weight than any believer speaking the word of God?

Sorry for the length. Hope for some interaction here. Jesus is precious.

steve wrote:The interpretation of the specific verses about submission to leaders depends upon one's presuppositions. One set of presuppositions will yield a different understanding of the texts than will another. Some come to them with the assumption of an institutional structure, where the elders function as something of a board of directors, and the pastor as a CEO. Others come from a more relational paradigm, in which leaders are available, like older siblings, when counsel, accountability and objectivity are desired by the younger siblings. Exegesis of the texts will not necessarily favor one conclusion over the other in the absence of other, more foundational considerations.

...

As popular as this idea is in institutional churches, there is not much evidence for this in scripture, with the possible exception of Paul's identification of disfellowship with delivering one over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor.5:5, 13). This may mean that the excommunicated person has been deprived of protection that he otherwise would have enjoyed as a member in good standing in the fellowship. However, this action is not taken because someone failed to submit to leadership, but because one refused to repent of flagrant moral impropriety. The protection does not come from submission to leadership, but from following Christ as an integral part of the Christian body.

Steve, do you have recordings or articles on this topic online? I will take a look, but I figured I'd ask. Your ideas here seem potentially of great benefit and I'd like to understand this better. Thanks.

I am not positive, but I think my lectures entitled "Who Will Lead Us?" (party of the "Some Assembly Required" series) may cover this topic somewhat. I am sure that I go off on a rant about this in a number of my verse-by-verse lectures, when treating a relevant passage. I would suggest, perhaps my lectures on the following passages (in situ): Matthew 20:25ff / Matthew 23:6-12 / Romans 14:12 / 1 Peter 5:1-4 / 3 John 9; etc.

I addressed the topic somewhat a week or so ago, while addressing the Orange County Organic Church Forum, in Irvine, CA. That lecture can be found at this link: http://media.theos.org/Steve%20Gregg/To ... 0Forum.mp3

steve wrote:I am not positive, but I think my lectures entitled "Who Will Lead Us?" (party of the "Some Assembly Required" series) may cover this topic somewhat. I am sure that I go off on a rant about this in a number of my verse-by-verse lectures, when treating a relevant passage. I would suggest, perhaps my lectures on the following passages (in situ): Matthew 20:25ff / Matthew 23:6-12 / Romans 14:12 / 1 Peter 5:1-4 / 3 John 9; etc.

I addressed the topic somewhat a week or so ago, while addressing the Orange County Organic Church Forum, in Irvine, CA. That lecture can be found at this link: http://media.theos.org/Steve%20Gregg/To ... 0Forum.mp3

Thanks Steve. I've never really heard the idea of institutional vs non-institutional church leadership so thoroughly articulated. I had not read the Bible until my twenties and when I did it seemed so different from churches. I appreciate just having some words and concepts to attach to this impression. I'm listening through the mp3's.

In one of the mp3's you mentioned "Charity Ministries" in the context of legalism, is that correct? The truthinheart website had some kind of reluctant warning about this ministry. If some people think they are legalistic in a way that does not really affect others then maybe it's none of my business. But folks at the church here have CD teachings by them. If there is something to be careful about that could affect others then it would probably be helpful for me to know?

I am reminded of a comment by Joyce Meyer, whom I respect and enjoy very much. She told the story of a viewer who attended her conferences for years, never missing. But she came to a time when she felt she wasn't getting as much out of them as she used to. She even took this concern to God, asking him "What's wrong with Joyce? I'm not getting a lot from her teachings like I did before. " After much prayer over the matter this woman says God tugged at her heart and said "nothing's wrong with Joyce. Your just sitting back and expecting her to do all the work. So get up and do something with what she's teaching you. Put it into practice.

It's like church on Sunday. It's more than a hour once a week, it's a 24/7 way of life. So I think sometimes we want to submit to church leadership because that way we can just do as we're told and not have to think very much. My Pastor is great at helping you get to the real reason for your belief, your understanding, your opinion. Rather than expect us to submit to his opnion he wants us to form our own, understand it and be able to defend it.

Too much submitting is scaring the younger church goers off which won't help our causes or fill our pews.

In one of the mp3's you mentioned "Charity Ministries" in the context of legalism, is that correct? The truthinheart website had some kind of reluctant warning about this ministry. If some people think they are legalistic in a way that does not really affect others then maybe it's none of my business. But folks at the church here have CD teachings by them. If there is something to be careful about that could affect others then it would probably be helpful for me to know?

Charity, like many others, is a ministry that is endeavoring to follow the biblical teachings to the letter—though sometimes with damaging effects. There was a branch of this ministry in Idaho, where I lived over a decade ago (when those lectures were delivered). I cannot say how much or in what way Charity may or may not have changed since then.

I remember the issue of women needing to cover their heads was legalistically enforced to the point that women who did not agree with the necessity of the practice were made to feel inferior and often could not comfortably stay.

Also, their belief that divorce and remarriage is never legitimate led to the breaking up of a number of second marriages, thus (unnecessarily, as it seems to me) destroying some godly unions, and causing spouses thus to violate their vows and defraud each other.

Of course, Charity has the right to interpret scripture on these issues in this manner, if that's the best they know how to exegete the text. Everyone should follow his/her own conscience about such controversies, and no one who disagrees is ever forced to join the group and conform to their specific ideas. However, there is an unavoidable sense that many will receive in their presence, which they may or may not be intending to convey, that they alone are truly uncompromised in these areas. Weaker or less-secure Christians might be drawn into the group by the sense that this is the only way to be pleasing to God, and then be brought into the bondage of rules that may or may not end up harming them.

I would hasten to point out that Charity Ministries are not alone in presenting such a danger. Every cult and many regular churches also would fall under this criticism.