Bob

You write...
“the command was to "appoint elders (presbuteros) in every city.” Titus 1:5
Didn’t that command from Paul come with some tough qualifications?

What do we do if an “elder/overseer,” who thinks they’re a “leader,”
doesn’t meet Pauls tough qualifications? :-(

The Bible talks about “elders/overseers” and **qualifications** for
“elders/overseers.” You can’t have one with out the other - Can you?

In 1 Tim 3, and Titus, the first qualification for “elder/overseer” is
*Must Be* **Blameless.** Oy Vey!!! ;-)

1 - A bishop then *must be* **blameless**... 1 Tim 3:2
2 - For a bishop *must be* **blameless**... Titus 1:7

That *must be* is the same Greek word as...
You *must be* born again. John 3:17.
Seems to be a small word - but very important. Yes?

*Must Be*
Strongs #1163, die. - It is necessary (as binding).
Thayer’s - necessity established by the counsel and decree of God.
“elders/overseers,” *must be.* Hmmm? Very important or...?

**Blameless**
Strongs #423 - anepileptos - inculpable, blameless, unrebukeable.
Thayer’s - that cannot be reprehended, (cannot be, rebukable, reprovable,
cannot find fault) not open to censure, irreproachable.

Dictionary - Without fault; innocent; guiltless; not meriting censure.
Synonyms - faultless, guiltless, innocent, irreproachable, spotless.

1 Tim 3:2 ASV - The “bishop” therefore *must be* without reproach...
1 Tim 3:2 NIV - Now the “overseer” *must be* above reproach...
NLT - For an “elder” *must be* a man whose life cannot be spoken against.

“elders/overseers,” *must be* **Blameless.**
How important is **Blameless?**

How many, who honestly examine themselves,
seriously considering this one **qualification,** (*Must Be* **Blameless,**)
can see themselves as **Blameless,** without fault, above reproach,
and thus qualify to be an “elder/overseer?” (Leader?)

And if you can see yourself as **blameless:**
Is that pride? And no longer without fault?

The Bible talks about “elders/overseers.” And very tough
**qualifications** for “elders/overseers.” (*Must Be* **Blameless,**)

Can you have one without the other? Hmmm?

This is only one of many tough **qualifications.**
And there are tough **qualifications** for the children also.

Ever meet anyone, with their children, who fulfills ALL **qualifications.**

Seems we have a bunch of “Unqualified” “elders/overseers”
calling themselves “Leaders.”

Why would anyone want to be known as “elder/overseer” (Leader?)
if they don’t qualify?

Jesus loves me this I know...

Maybe someone can help me on this. Biblical leadership seems reliant on apostles. Apostles first preach the gospel, plant the church, appoint elders, and provide ongoing long-distance encouragement and correction.

The first apostles trained others to carry on their work, so I don't buy that the twelve and Paul were the end. Where is the apostolic ministry now?

Thanks for your comments, Bob.

Dave's post really bothered me and you put words to several of the reasons why. I think another reason why it bugged me so much is that a leader who does not recognize their own power is a very dangerous leader. Any pastor who says, "I'm not in charge, the community is" fails to recognize his or her own power - and is in essence asking the people to navigate around that "invisible" power in a way that won't upset the person with the power! It's the emperor's new clothes.

A pastor who recognizes his/her own power can steward it well. A pastor who denies it asks the congregation to manage it for him - and thats how people get hurt.

Bob

You write...
“the truth is there always has been leadership in the church”

Yes - and His name is Jesus. Mat 23:10 - “ONE” master/leader, Christ.

And - Which “church” are we talking about? ;-)
1 - “The Church of God?” Where Jesus, He is the head of the body?
2 - the church of man? The 501 (c) 3, non-profit, tax $ deductible,
Religious $ Corporation? (Should we call a $ Corporation - The Church?)
Where man takes many “Titles” NOT found in the scriptures.
Senior Pastor, Lead Pastor, Reverend, Right Reverend, Doctor, Vicar,
Prelate, Most Holy Right Reverend, Cardinal, Pope, etc...

In the Bible, can you name anyone with the “Title” and “Position” of
*Today’s* “Pastor/Reverend/Leader?” Running the show?

Ezek 14:1-11 speaks about “Idols of the heart - In my experience...
“Titles” become “Idols”
“Pastors” become “Masters”

Seems, in the Bible, “The Church of God” The Ekklesia, called out one’s,
always refers to people, now the house of God.

Jesus didn’t shed “His Blood” for - An organization? An institution?
A building? A denomination? Or a $ Corporation?
It was for you and me, His Ekklesia, His called out one’s, His Church.

Seems when you say “church” and I say “Church” it just ain’t the same.
Don’t know if you ever checked or not but...
In the Bible, I found...

NO one ever *Led* “A Church.”
NO one ever *joined* “A Church.”
NO one ever *went to* “A Church.”
NO one ever *Tithed* to “A Church.”
NO one ever brought their friends to “A Church.”
NO one ever applied for membership in “A Church.”
NO one ever gave silver, gold, or money, to “A Church.”
NO buildings with steeples and crosses called “A Church.”
NO - Pastors - in Pulpits - Preaching - to People - in Pews. ;-)

In my experience... that’s what happens in the church of man. Yes?
In the Bible... Believers *become* “the Church of God,”

What is popular is not always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is not always popular.

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold - One Shepherd - One Voice - Jesus

"...And inherent in the concept is a sense of both serving AND leading."

But Bob...that is not how it is, is it.

And I think Jennifer, unwittingly, nails it quite succintly...

"A pastor who recognizes his/her own power can steward it well."

Stewardship doesn't always mean it's a good biblical thing that G-d approves of...King Saul, by this measure, would be considered a good steward.
No, it only means that the individual knows the value of what they are managing...and in this case, power.

I'm sorry Bob, but I'm just not convinced that what we're doing as a church is a good thing in terms of structure.

Sheerahkahn,

Not cool. Dont twist my comment to mean the opposite and then use it to support your point.

"I love Fitch and his rhetorical hand-grenades."

Do this on his blog and he'll dis you unless he likes you.

"I recognize that many have been hurt by the exercising of poor or abusive leadership in the church."

But this is a valid point. Almost nothing sours people on church leadership more than some abusive jerk and maybe an even jerkier staff. The stranger they are they tend to circle the wagons, defend one another so they won't lose the office, power and a paycheck.

"But to use that as an excuse to question the whole concept of leadership"

Agreed. But it still doesn't do away with the generalizations people make when they have been wounded by church leaders with frocks and/or MDIVs and/or over-zealous staff members with an entitlement complex. You need to deal with this and the generalizations. Saying they shouldn't generalize isn't enough.

Our models for real, honest to goodness God-fearing and others loving church leaders who lay down their lives for their congregations is fading fast.

Well said Bob. The presence of leadership as a gift and leaders as an important part of the NT church is hard to get away from.

The issue isn't whether or not there should be leaders but what that leadership should look like. Coming from different premises, I think both you and David F have written really helpful posts.

Lord bless you -

"Not cool. Dont twist my comment to mean the opposite and then use it to support your point."

Uh…what?
Twisted?
Hang on…let me reread what was written.

Let see, you're talking about leadership and power…okay, and you defined it, limitedly, but still, a definition…of sorts with the following:

"I think another reason why it bugged me so much is that a leader who does not recognize their own power is a very dangerous leader. Any pastor who says, "I'm not in charge, the community is" fails to recognize his or her own power - and is in essence asking the people to navigate around that "invisible" power"

Alrighty, so…with your "definition" you finished with…

"A pastor who recognizes his/her own power can steward it well."

Okay, so far, that is all you…so…what did I write?
"Stewardship doesn't always mean it's a good biblical thing that G-d approves of...King Saul, by this measure, would be considered a good steward.
No, it only means that the individual knows the value of what they are managing...and in this case, power."
Um…nope…I didn't twist a word.
I acknowledged your definition of power, referred to it as you used it, and I referenced that just because the churchy word "stewardship" is slapped on a subject doesn't mean it's always a good thing.
And then further qualified it by saying that good stewardship is only an individual's acknowledgement that whatever they are stewarding has value.
So…no…there is no twisting of what you wrote, however, I did give you an out…
"And I think Jennifer, unwittingly, nails it quite succinctly..."
You see, the word "unwittingly" means that I'm acknowledging that what you wrote probably isn't what you meant to say which absolves you of collusion with my point.

So I didn't twist a word of yours…if you don't like the conclusion I came too, then use the out I gave you and clarify your point which reflects what you are thinking.

Btw, I took this opportunity to correct my spelling on one word.

This is a good conversation. Thanks for providing it.

I think that perhaps the key element in successful, submitted servant leadership that glorifies God is the mastery of true stewardship.

When we steward, we are holding and using in trust something that does not belong to us; that we did not create; and that we cannot take credit for. The constant awareness that we are stewards of our God-given talents, power, gifts and everything else is, I believe, the key to servant leadership, and the defining difference between leadership that is of God and leadership that is of the world.

The minute we start considering as our own those things we ought to steward, we are lost.

Bonjour!
Don't know how I stumbled onto this site but it's most intriguing. Good conversation going.

I happen to be a missionary serving where less than 1% of the population are followers of Christ. However, the church does exist. The question of leadership is the question of the hour. I would argue that both in the U.S. and around the world the need is for Godly Elders,Pastors,Bishops (all the same from my study). Perhaps it's too simplistic (I have been to seminary) but give me five men (sorry if you hold to a different view) who line up with Tit 1 and 1 Tim 3 and you'll see a revival in my part of the world.

Great communicators/teachers etc. have their place but the need, that God has promised to provide (Eph 4) for His church are shepherds.
And yes, they do exist as per the Scriptures.

The question is, do we really want these types of shepherds (who might not be culturally cool, relevant, hip etc) or do we prefer the "fill up the room GQ guys" who have a good 30 minute presentation. You get what you want.

Carry on the work stateside. My prayers are with you.

We moved away from the CEO model to a flat style of leadership back in 2007 and have found this non-senior pastor model quite refreshing and productive. Our people love it. We call it the Co-Pastor model. The three of us pastors share the pulpit as vocational elders and set the tone and direction of the congregation with the larger group of Elders. It's a lot more work for the three of us to lead together but rewarding and we think - closer to the biblical model.

I would like to make the point that leadership has more to do with the plans of God. Throughout the Bible, God called specific individuals to accomplish His purpose. Likewise, Jesus Christ called the disciples to establish continue the work after He ascended into Heaven.God is still using individuals to establish His kingdom on the earth today and will continue to do so into the future.

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, therefore all believers are servants of God. Every person has been called to serve and therefore no individual is more important than the other. However, God has given specific gifts to some individuals to be used in the edification of the body of Christ, and have positioned them in a 'leadership role'

You put two kids in a room together and one of them is going to end up "leading" the other one. Of course there is "leadership". It occurs quite naturally all around us.

But.... what happens when the real 'leaders' aren't recognized or even allowed input? What happens when there is a "Diotrephes" in a local assembly who controls everything? (see 3 John 1:9) What happens when the testimony of two or three witnesses is replaced by the authority of a "senior elder"? What happens when someone with an education replaces someone with God given wisdom? What happens when political maneuvering replaces the experience of those who have lived a long time and have a lot of experience?

I searched the scriptures for what Jesus said about leadership - and here's what I found: "If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit".

There is so much more to "leadership" than is being discussed here, our thought processes of the word tend to portray an American version of what "church" has become in the last two thousand years. It is the whole concept of the sermon and the organization of the church that bothers me, where we are all just spectators and consumers of whatever is being "taught" on Sunday mornings, rather than participants in the "body of Christ." We pay someone to be be there to teach us what to do because we don't want to do it ourselves. Where two or more are gathered in His name, He said He would be there.