In this post i am responding (indirectly) to a blog post by a brother whom I respect and appreciate. Drawing from Jesus' words in LK 22:24-27, where He responds to a dispute among the apostles over who is the greatest, our brother uses this passage to dismiss the concept of servant leadership, and to assert that there is no true leadership save that of the Lord Himself. (One head, one body) Certainly Jesus is the only Lord, and we have great practical difficulty with this however much we may agree in theory because Lordship is not an American cultural concept, and we tend to think and respond culturally. However to take this passage to say that there is no human leadership seems problematic at best. The position taken illustrates the danger of taking one passage, emphasizing it, and downplaying, in this case, many others. Yet the best of us probably do this on a regular basis. It takes a lot of work and study to search out every possible verse and passage that may bear upon a given subject, and come to a Spirit led harmonization of them all. With more difficult questions this may take months or even years.
As I read the comments to our brother's blog post & his responses I see that he is saying that we may influence one another as long as we don't force it, with which position I heartily agree. We are not to cajole or coerce one another. however i think there are other Scriptural themes that can provide boundaries to leadership abuse. One is the theme of brotherhood in Christ, which is eternal. In contrast, any leadership role in this life ends with that life, if not sooner. Another boundary is the theme of consensus. In our group we believe in elder guided, as opposed to elder dominated, consensus. We understand that the Lord can speak through anyone in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. A third boundary is the priesthood of all believers. So I cannot accept the idea that no believer has a leadership role but rather that we look carefully at the person's humility, godly character, and maturity over a period of time before allowing ourselves to receive influence from that person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
within "the priesthood of all believers", every believer "has a leadership role" of one sort or another?
ReplyDeleteBrother Rick, It also seems interesting to me that in the Mark passage Jesus seems to be teaching that none of us should aspire to be "greater" than others- speaking perhaps of seeking status and power. So it may be out of context to use this passage to say that there should not be *leaders* in the body- because in the NT, spiritual leaders are never described as being "greater" than others. Rather than having power or prestige, leaders simply have a different role and utilize different gifts- for the edification of the brothers and sisters. ~cs
ReplyDeleteBrother Rick,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the context of the passage (Luke 22:24-27) may have nothing to do with leadership in the body- it seems more that Jesus is simply denouncing pride and selfish ambition- qualities that should not mark any believer, whether an Elder or not.
It is painfully true that many of us have known Elders in local assemblies who have inappropriately sought “greatness” (power, prestige, etc.). But doesn't it remain true nonetheless that the biblical model for proper spiritual eldership in the local body includes the humility and servant’s heart that Jesus modeled and taught- never selfish ambition or striving for power?
That not all elders have always done it well may not be a reason to deny the clear biblical necessity for elders and leadership. Just my thoughts.
Chris / insteadofbriers at yahoo dot com
"Leader" has a bad taste in many a Christ follower's mouth as noted in prior comments (power, prestige. abuse). I like the idea of Sherpa instead. Someone who has deeper experience, tested, proven, yet humble. I don't think many believers would struggle to listen, be persuaded by, etc, a man with that godly background. .
ReplyDelete