Being Subject To Our Leaders

[Guest]

Hi Sue,

Thanks for the input. I believe you are correct. I think I posted the following at the same time you posted, so that the following leap-frogs over your topic, back to Paidion's.


Paidion,

The arrangement you describe is a satisfactory one for those whose idea of church remains "in-house." That is, those who are willing to identify the leaders of their own movement as "apostles" possessing the authority to assign authoritative local elders.

The problem is, all those other Christians, who do not recognize the leadership of the Church of Christ, but with whom they hope someday to have unity, may justly ask, "Who authorized your apostles to tell us whom we must submit to?" I doubt if there is an answer that satisfies anyone except those who join the same movement.

[Guest]

Thanks, Sue -- that's a nice collection of verses.

Joh 15:26 And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

I think it is the same Spirit in some sense, but it seems odd that Christ would send His own Spirit from the Father. He didn't say "whom I will send to you from myself." And, the Spirit of truth must be in some sense different from the spirit of Christ because it testifies "of" Christ, who is comprised of both spirit and flesh (in some sort of glorified form).

Isn't this topic what created the EastWest schism in some measure? (filioque clause or some such?)

This is one area (along with the Trinity and the Atonement) where I think we'll have to remain in "mystery" to some extent.

[Guest]

The problem is, all those other Christians, who do not recognize the leadership of the Church of Christ, but with whom they hope someday to have unity, may justly ask, "Who authorized your apostles to tell us whom we must submit to?" I doubt if there is an answer that satisfies anyone except those who join the same movement.

It took me a few moments to realized that you understood me as using "the Church of Christ" in a limited sense of certain groups which call themselves "the Church of Christ". I wasn't. I was using it in the sense of the universal "Church of Christ", the only Church which Jesus founded. The circle of fellowship with which my local church is associated does not call itself by the title "the Church of Christ".

Members of the true Church do not join it, but are added to it by the Lord. These members are found within denominations, within the Lions Club, and many other clubs, as well as without. But some members of the one and only Church like to express that Church in a non-denominational way.
That is the case with the expression of the Church with which I am associated. Yet, the belief is that God has set leaders, apostles, prophets, etc. to lead the Church as per the quote from my last post.

It is true that most others do not recognize the apostles whom we recognize. That is not to be expected until the Church comes into unity. However, we recognize that God has established other apostles who are outside our circle. We do not yet know who all of them are.

We believe that if they are genuine apostles whom God has chosen, then it is clear who has authorized them.

I recall once a Mormon acquaintance who said to me, "Don, when are we going to baptize you?"

I answered, "I have been baptized."

His reply, "By what authority?"

I said, "By the authority of Christ." But that answer did not satisfy the man. He recognized only the authority of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

I realize it is difficult to nail down who is, or is not a true apostle. But isn't that the case with all revelation which comes from God? When someone says, "God told me to ...." I, who am a bit of a skeptic, usually ask, "How did He tell you? Did you hear an audible voice? Was this a feeling you had which made you believe your thoughts were God speaking? Did He tell you through circumstances?" In more than one case, a person said, "He told me in an audible voice." There's no way to gainsay that statement.

However, there is true revelation from God. But how can we discern true revelation which has its origin in God?

One could even suggest that the revelation received by the first apostles themselves cannot be positively affirmed, and relegate it to realm of the subjective. Why believe that it is true revelation just because it happens to be in the book we call "the Bible"? If we affirm that it is because the Bible is the Word of God" we have simply set the problem back a step. What objective evidence do we have that the Bible is the Word of God?

It seem that the bottom line is that God must give each of us a personal revelation to be able to discern what comes from Him and what doesn't.
And that, of course, in the eyes of the skeptic, is also subjective.

[Guest]

This is one area (along with the Trinity and the Atonement) where I think we'll have to remain in "mystery" to some extent.

I think so. Probably along with other areas as well.

[Guest]

Hi Gregg,

Sorry so long in getting back to you on this. I’m glad Steve answered here, because he said many of things I wanted to say (only much better than I could have ) and that saves me time answering your last post.

You’ve raised some good points and I’m not going to debate you’re exegesis on the passages you quoted because I think you’re probably correct on that. But it really doesn't change anything I said so far as I can tell.

However, I want to ask you what you think the purpose of leadership “authority” is and what the source of leadership wisdom is.

I’d like re-iterate that I’m of the opinion that, in the western world at least, we are in a very different situation now since we have tremendous access to not only the bible but very good expository teaching on it as well.

If it’s true (as I suspect it is) that the real authority rests in the word of God and not an office (as Jesus seemed to be expressing to the apostles Matt 23), then most of us have direct access to that counsel and have less need that anyone “shepherd” us toward that end as they did in the 1st century. In fact, it would seem that on at least some of the most basic truths, the Holy Spirit is the one who directly gives believers counsel (1John 2:27).

I will grant that there is need for leadership and guidance in many cases, but I would say it’s mostly for new believers and let’s say…"high maintenance" Christians. Some people need a great deal of help, guidance, and encouragement and leaders who have those gifts are very much necessary and a useful blessing to the body.

I only have a short time to post this and I wanted to give you my opinion on some of the direct questions you posed.

So … what is this biblical sphere of authority? In what areas does the church leader have a right to speak authoritatively into our lives?

I would tend to say that it’s more limited to principles rather than particulars. I think micro-management of people is a dangerous proposition and only leads to cult-like co-dependency (is it OK to use psycho-babble on a Christian forum? ).

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include teaching and doctrine within the body?

My opinion is yes if it is the direct and unquestionable teaching related to the commands of Jesus and the apostles. “Sound doctrine” in scripture always relates to behavioral things IMO. I don’t think this includes debatable or abstract doctrine.

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include God-given vision or prophetic direction for the body?

I have to confess that I would have no idea of how to test that and therefore I’m generally skeptical when someone says “thus saith the Lord”. I’ve seen this abused so many times that I would have to say that if God gives a prophetic utterance through someone, He’ll likely also find a way to undeniably confirm that to everyone else expected to heed it. I don’t give a blank check to any self-proclaimed “prophet”.

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include holiness and purity in the body?

Of course. Those are non-negotiables for Christians. I would further say that this “authority” extends to anyone that scripturally exhorts another towards those ends (2Tim 3:16). Shouldn’t we all be encouraging each other to a closer walk with Jesus?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include healthy relationships in the body?

I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

Does their sphere of authority (responsibility) include making disciples of all nations?

If a leader is able to do that….he’s got my blessing.

In your example of the Prison Fellowship, the lines seem pretty clear. You “come under” their umbrella when you are doing their ministry. But things get a little more muddy in the local church context, don’t they? Especially if we view the local church as something more than an organization, series of meetings, or menu of ministries. (Which I’m sure you do.) If we broaden the sphere of local church to match what we truly believe local church should be, then the church leader’s sphere of authority will extend in like manner, won’t it? In other words … if our idea of submitting to church leaders is limited to their role over church meetings and projects, then haven’t we relegated church to being merely a series of meetings or projects?

Unfortunately in our culture, Christianity is treated more like an enterprise, even in the local church in most cases. There are, of course, exceptions. And I would say the dynamics of leadership in a local church depends on the relationships that are created. Again, that may or may not be associated with an office.

One more last thought …

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our churches were filled with people who desired to humbly and completely open up their lives to the wisdom, counsel, direction, and protection of godly shepherds? People who would actually invite their leaders to come stretch out their sphere of authority to cover every area of their lives? To say, “You’re welcome to come into my life – my finances, my marriage, my family, my walk with God, my mission in life – and help me become what Jesus wants me to become.” (And I don’t mean putting ourselves under the control of others, but under the "weighty" counsel of others. You said it well, Christopher – “I think that is at the heart of biblical leadership, helping each other fully submit to our King.”)

I think that ideal would be a beautiful thing if it were widely available. Who wouldn’t want access to godly experienced men who have walked out their faith for many years. But again, I’m not sure how the average Christian would go about finding mentors like this that don’t have some other agenda attached to their guidance. I strongly believe that authority extends only to teaching and counseling the principles revealed in scripture, and not to the particulars of things like who to marry and how to educate and raise one’s own children.

Anyway, my break is over so that is all I have time for now. Look forward to your further comments.

[Guest]

Hi Christopher,

Wonderful response! I totally agree with the heart of what you wrote. (I’m just sorry you had to use your break time to write it!)

Let me try and address some of your questions or points:

However, I want to ask you what you think the purpose of leadership “authority” is and what the source of leadership wisdom is.

I think the purpose of leadership “authority” is very much what you said in your last post. It’s “… helping each other fully submit to our King.” The godly shepherd uses his authority to serve the sheep – to help them fulfill the purposes that God has for their lives. (As opposed to fulfilling the shepherd’s own personal or ministry purposes.) Colossians 1:28-29 is probably a pretty good summation of this. “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.”

I think the source of leadership wisdom is fear of the Lord – a wholehearted, softhearted, brokenhearted submission to Jesus, His words, and His ways. (Guess I could have just said “Jesus” or “the Word of God”, huh? But I figure that since Jesus and His Word are a sure, unchanging foundation, it might be more appropriate to focus on the leader’s attitude or approach to Jesus and His Word.)

I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

Well I can certainly understand your confusion … it was a poorly worded question. (So poor, I’m not sure I can figure it out.) Let me try again. Does the shepherd have the authority or obligation to “speak into” the lives of any believers who have poor, unhealthy, or broken relationships either with one another, or with other family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.? (Hope this was more clear. If not … we can just leave it by the side of the road and go on.)

I will grant that there is need for leadership and guidance in many cases, but I would say it’s mostly for new believers and let’s say…"high maintenance" Christians.

I would agree that new believers and “high maintenance” believers have the greatest need for leadership and guidance. But my experience is that Christian maturity is not always linear or logical. (In fact, it’s often quite messy and confusing.) I find that even the most “mature” in our midst might still need support (leadership, guidance) to work through important life issues. Maybe blind spots in their character that have never been addressed, or new phases in life where they have no experience or bad experience. It’s also common for these mature ones to stumble in the most basic of things at times. They can often pull themselves out of these holes … but sometimes they can’t. They need help. (I’m also speaking from my own personal experience. I may be more spiritually “mature” right now than I was twenty years ago, but sometimes that just means that my sins are more subtle and near to the heart. The outer stuff has slowly been dealt with, but the inner stuff seems more glaring than ever. I could sure use some godly leaders to speak into my life at times.)

I really appreciate your take on godly spiritual leadership, Christopher. In fact, I have a feeling that if we sat down and hashed out what this leadership should practically look like in the church, our thinking would be remarkably similar. (Even now, I end up saying “yea and amen” a lot when reading your posts on this.)

Most of our perceived differences probably come from my naivety regarding the church situation in the U.S. and my idealism as a church planter among the unreached. We’re pretty much required to be idealistic because we come into a situation where we’re called upon to write on a blank sheet of paper. (In our situation here, we had the joy of building things from scratch … no believers, and no traditional church baggage. In fact, we didn’t want other believers joining us from the few small churches in the area, and strongly discouraged it. We wanted the freedom to build church based on our biblical ideals instead of how others in the world were doing church. I’m not saying that we succeeded … just that we had the freedom to try.)

But I also confess to being naïve about what’s going on in the States right now where church is concerned. It’s been so long since I’ve been in the U.S. for any length of time that I’ve just never had the opportunity to suss things out for myself. (And I’m awfully sad to hear the reports from you guys about the state of things there.) That said … I’ve gotta believe that a revival of godly leadership can take place in the U.S. church. Isn’t that a possibility? Not necessarily a change in the lives of the present leaders – though that would be great – but the raising up of a new generation of servant shepherds who will lead in Spirit and truth. Which brings us to …

But again, I’m not sure how the average Christian would go about finding mentors like this that don’t have some other agenda attached to their guidance.

I think it starts with guys like you, Christopher. (“Guys” is generic here!) It sure seems to me that you don't have “some other agenda” attached to your guiding others. There might not be many of you around in the U.S., but there are some. (And, as such, you guys have a pretty big responsibility.) Any young man would be privileged to have you as their mentor, because you’re godly, humble, teachable, and really seem to understand what “right” spiritual leadership is all about. So like I said, I think it starts with guys like you. If you’re not already doing this, I encourage you to go find those young men who need spiritual mentors and pour your life into them. You’ll end up raising a new generation of spiritual leaders that understand what it means to really lead. (Much like what’s described in Robert Coleman’s “Master Plan Of Evangelism.”)

Sorry about the preaching. I just get excited when I think of what God has for guys like you.

By His Grace,

Gregg

[Guest]

Hi Gregg,

Thanks for your response and your very kind words.

Just a few things real quick:

Where I was going with the whole “purpose” and “source” thing is pretty much what you said. But I wanted to emphasize that godly leaders get their wisdom from the word of God? And if we have the same access to that as they do, I think that pretty much levels the field. There is much to be said about maturity and experience also, so I don’t want to appear like I’m minimizing that. But I would echo what Steve said earlier about having appointed leaders only when and where they are needed. It doesn’t necessarily apply universally to all Christians IMO.

you wrote:

Well I can certainly understand your confusion … it was a poorly worded question. (So poor, I’m not sure I can figure it out.) Let me try again. Does the shepherd have the authority or obligation to “speak into” the lives of any believers who have poor, unhealthy, or broken relationships either with one another, or with other family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc.? (Hope this was more clear. If not … we can just leave it by the side of the road and go on.)

Ok, I understand now. I would of course expect a believer to be open to counsel of another concerned friend and brother/sister in the Lord in such matters. Right relationship is essentially what the gospel is all about and every Christian wants to have them. However, I would still say it’s a relational thing. If an elder I barely know butts into a situation he knows little about, I personally don’t know if I would give his words much weight. But if he knows me and I know that he is wise and cares about my well being, I’m much more inclined to listen to his counsel.


You wrote:

I would agree that new believers and “high maintenance” believers have the greatest need for leadership and guidance. But my experience is that Christian maturity is not always linear or logical. (In fact, it’s often quite messy and confusing.) I find that even the most “mature” in our midst might still need support (leadership, guidance) to work through important life issues. Maybe blind spots in their character that have never been addressed, or new phases in life where they have no experience or bad experience. It’s also common for these mature ones to stumble in the most basic of things at times. They can often pull themselves out of these holes … but sometimes they can’t. They need help. (I’m also speaking from my own personal experience. I may be more spiritually “mature” right now than I was twenty years ago, but sometimes that just means that my sins are more subtle and near to the heart. The outer stuff has slowly been dealt with, but the inner stuff seems more glaring than ever. I could sure use some godly leaders to speak into my life at times.)

I agree with you. But who exactly is responsible for “pasturing” the “pastors”? I once asked the pastor from my former church if he had any real accountability and he only half-jokingly said “I’m basically like a benevolent dictator”. I say “half-joking” because after reading the denominational distinctives, I found out he was right. He often referred to his “pastor” as being the head of the denomination, but he was 1500 miles away and I doubt the man even knew him. I’m not sure what pastoral value there was in that relationship.

Most of our perceived differences probably come from my naivety regarding the church situation in the U.S. and my idealism as a church planter among the unreached. We’re pretty much required to be idealistic because we come into a situation where we’re called upon to write on a blank sheet of paper. (In our situation here, we had the joy of building things from scratch … no believers, and no traditional church baggage. In fact, we didn’t want other believers joining us from the few small churches in the area, and strongly discouraged it. We wanted the freedom to build church based on our biblical ideals instead of how others in the world were doing church. I’m not saying that we succeeded … just that we had the freedom to try.)

I would just like to express here how much I admire and appreciate what you’re doing on the mission field Gregg. I have the deepest respect for people like you that literally lay down their lives for the sake of the gospel.


you wrote:

But I also confess to being naïve about what’s going on in the States right now where church is concerned. It’s been so long since I’ve been in the U.S. for any length of time that I’ve just never had the opportunity to suss things out for myself. (And I’m awfully sad to hear the reports from you guys about the state of things there.) That said … I’ve gotta believe that a revival of godly leadership can take place in the U.S. church. Isn’t that a possibility?

I’m sorry Gregg if I painted a bleak picture of godly leadership in the U.S. church, I’ll have to go back and see where I mis-spoke and correct that. I hope you aren’t too discouraged by what I said because I really didn’t mean to suggest that there is no good leadership to be found. In fact, I believe godly leadership is alive and well in the U.S., it’s just not necessarily found (in most cases) in official church eldership. Sometimes it is, but my own experience has been that more often it’s not. However, I’ve encountered many godly leaders who don’t hold an office and have no desire to (which is itself a pre-requisite according to 1Tim3). Steve has been one of those types of leaders for me. When I needed help sorting out my church stuff a few years ago, he made himself very accessible to me and was a tremendous help. Yet Steve is not a church leader (and has no desire to be if I understand him correctly). My own opinion (and experience) is that God brings these people into our lives when we need them.

I think it starts with guys like you, Christopher. (“Guys” is generic here!) It sure seems to me that you don't have “some other agenda” attached to your guiding others. There might not be many of you around in the U.S., but there are some. (And, as such, you guys have a pretty big responsibility.) Any young man would be privileged to have you as their mentor, because you’re godly, humble, teachable, and really seem to understand what “right” spiritual leadership is all about. So like I said, I think it starts with guys like you. If you’re not already doing this, I encourage you to go find those young men who need spiritual mentors and pour your life into them. You’ll end up raising a new generation of spiritual leaders that understand what it means to really lead. (Much like what’s described in Robert Coleman’s “Master Plan Of Evangelism.”)

You make me blush Gregg.

Honestly, God has brought people into my life to walk beside for awhile, both as mentors for me and people seeking mentoring from me. I prefer it that way. Leadership titles scare me frankly. I’ve seen some very godly and humble men turn into something different once they’ve been recognized and appointed as church leaders. I know that doesn’t have to be the case, but I can’t see how I would be more immune to that than they were. I believe God knows who to put together when guidance is needed.


Anyway, breaks over again and I’ve said too much already. (BTW, I can think of nothing I’d rather use my break time for ).

Lord bless.

[Guest]

Christopher, in the early days of Christianity, the apostles appointed overseers in every church. In your opinion, what were the responsibilities of these overseers?

[Guest]

Overseeing.

[Guest]

Since you have shared no specifics, Christopher, it seems that you think they ought to do nothing at all except just be there. Am I right? If not, please specify exactly what actions they should take in their oversight.

It seems that you think they should not attempt to take any active part in correcting wrongdoing or in other aspects of the people's personal lives, except to make suggestions in the way any other brother or sister might. So in what way do they differ in their role from the "laity" (so to speak)?
In other words, why were certain men appointed by the apostles as overseers? If they have no role beyond that of other members of the congregation, why did the apostles bother to appoint overseers at all?