I finished reading I Am a Follower over the weekend, and I was really excited when I did. As previously mentioned, I’m not sure if some of the ideas presented about leadership in a local church, or the Church in general, are entirely biblical.
But I am also aware that I have an obvious bias, here, in that I’m on staff at a local church. So correct me if I’m wrong, but I couldn’t help but feel that Mr. Sweet would almost rather do away with leadership in the Church altogether:
“Many Protestant denominations like to tout the Reformation concept of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’ But that reality is blocked in many of those very congregations by leadership that suggests, despite its protestations to the contrary, that only those anointed with money (paid staff) and credentials (ordained clergy) are the leaders.
“Twice in one chapter within his first epistle, the apostle Peter calls the people of God a priesthood. This is the one and only reference to priesthood acknowledged by any of the New Testament writers, and it refers to a priesthood of plain folk, least disciples – followers of Jesus, the one and only High Priest” (Loc 3182).
But “priesthood” and “leadership,” are not the same thing. I agree with 1 Peter 2, and the Reformation concept built upon it, but might we not have leaders within the priesthood?
While it probably is the only New Testament reference to the “priesthood,” it is not the only New Testament reference to specific leadership roles within the Church.
Ephesians 4:11-12 is never mentioned in the book:
“And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry …”
We are the saints, the priesthood, who do the work of the ministry, but Jesus, Himself, apparently, gave some specific roles of leadership and teaching. 1 Timothy 3 goes so far as to outline qualifications for bishops and deacons, that, by inference, separate them, in a way, from “plain folk.”
But Sweet doesn’t seem to agree.
Later in I Am a Follower, after a questionable passage about the damage caused by leadership titles in the secular world, the author comments,
“Even in fairly healthy fellowships of followers, titles have often been the curse of Christianity” (Loc 3228).
I can’t think of a healthier fellowship of followers than the first century Church – the very eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection – and yet leadership roles and titles seem pretty clear and consistent.
A few chapters later, Sweet writes, rather melodramatically,
“The ideology of leaders as shepherds does not let God be God. It is based on the notion that Jesus can’t possibly lead by himself, so someone has to do it for him” (Loc 3281).
Yet the Greek word for “pastors” in Ephesians 4:11, referenced above, is “poimenas” – shepherds.
Jesus, of course, is the Shepherd-with-a-capital-S, but He clearly calls certain ones to help. He doesn’t need our help, and He is certainly able to lead a fold if their shepherd-with-a-small-s gets lost, but His omnipotence doesn’t negate the leadership structure clearly outlined in scripture.
On Friday we’ll look a little at the role of “first followers” (aka: leaders), based on ideas in I Am a Follower, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the general question at hand:
I’ll be the first to comment on this wonderful topic. I think it all depends on the ‘church’ in mind, because now-a-days if you look at churches they are ran as businesses and not as Churches. Let’s look at Pastors, now pastors are ‘preaching’ pastors only. I’m sorry but if your not making disciples and knowing your congregation intimately your not a pastor at all. It’s not about speaking on Sunday mornings that is just a small job but it seems to be the most important today. Therefore what leadership is really going on when Pastors are not concerned with making disciples? If you look at elders they were also to carry the weight of leadership and train up young people, not look over the finances of the church and talk about the next step they see the church going into. But if you have Pastors and Elders who are being leaders by taking people under their wings and are actually “entrusted with their soul” then yes Church and or Spiritual leadership is biblical.
Great thoughts [again 😉 ]. “Making disciples” is often different from what we think about when we thinking about “building a church.”
I think it’s important to have clear leadership in the church and in the body of christ at least on a local level. Which is not the say that everyone else can be leaders but it is healthy for us submit to some kind of authority. Which even leaders submit to the ultimate authority as well as the rest of us, God. God places spiritual leaders in our lives such as pastors and elders to be examples; a physical example. Interesting topic…..never really thought about it before But i do think it’s necessary for ministry to be successful.
“it is healthy for us submit to some kind of authority.”
Great point, Garret. Couldn’t agree more. It’s painful sometimes, but healthy.