Transplanting Leaders And What This Says About The Church
Nov 16
I hope this post provides a perspective on leadership within the Church. Leadership happens to be one of my favorite topics. For a good portion of my life I have been in leadership capacities, from shift supervisors to an Army Sgt, I have had always had people “under” me and as I studied Christ more, I realized that the leadership that Christ exuded was a leadership far from what I practiced. To be truthful it has to be that way in the nature of my jobs. I couldn’t do certain things, I had to, for the good of the organization, act in ways that Christ did not act. We can’t mention Christ’s leadership without mentioning the Cross and we can’t mentioning the Cross without the Church and we can’t mention the Church without people. So ultimately Christ died for people, yet secular leadership has to be about the organization. So that means the church can’t be an organization because organizations purpose is to protect the organization. Jesus protects people.
No one can read Acts through the rest of the New Testament without immediately noticing how the church grew. We see the proclamation of the Good News and then the Spirit opening the hearts and convicting the hearers and then there was an invitation into the community of faith. We see the church begin to meet and the only leaders we see immediately are the Apostles. However, the church is still in Jerusalem until persecution hits and then we see Phillip becoming the first “missionary/evangelist”. A few chapters later, we see something even more beautiful. The lay people who fled Jerusalem takes the Gospel to Antioch (Acts 11) and there is a church established there.
Now I want you to read my sentence again. There was a church, with absolutely NO LEADERS. That’s right, not until later on do we see elders in Antioch. Now lets fast forward. As Paul is proclaiming the Gospel churches are springing up all over the Roman Empire. Again read that sentence. There are “churches” all over the region with no leaders. So we know for a fact that leadership does not constitute the church (regardless of what Calvin and the other Reformers nor the present Reformed persuasion attempts to say). Ephesus, Crete, Antioch, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica and others begin with no human leadership. Only the Spirit and the the words of the person who proclaimed the Good News to them.
Not until much later do we see elders appointed in both Ephesus and Crete. By the time Paul writes Philippi they have elders, there seems that there were no elders at the time of Galatians (if so they were doing a horrible job). So lets get to the time when Elders arise.
When Paul sends Timothy back to Ephesus and Titus to Crete he tells them to select Elders and gives them both a list of qualifications. All of the qualifications were character with the only one cognitive is a knowledge of the truth. These were character traits they had to be presently walking in and it would be ludicrous to believe otherwise. What makes this even more contrary to popular practice is that we don’t see men relocating to become “pastors”. These men must have been men amongst the congregations because Paul never says hey I recommend you take Johnny from Corinth and have him become the pastor over in Philippi. The only time you see something remotely happening this way is when we see Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus, Rome and Corinth. But I believe them to be an Apostolic couple, not a pastor/co-pastor team 
Today however, we have people who move and relocate to “pastor” (which should mean care for, but really means to man the pulpit and give orders) churches. Now you may say “Lionel whats wrong with that”. I have a plethora of answers, but I will say one. If a local established congregation can’t find one man, who is qualified to care for other men and women in their midst, and they must go outside to get one, you could not pay me enough to ”pastor” that group. There is something inherently wrong with a group who loses a “pastor” and can’t find one amongst themselves. That church should be dissolved and they should find other people to meet with.
Transplanting leaders, means that there is not ONE mature adult Christan male in all of the congregation. That could be the ONLY thing it means. Other than that, you don’t have a church, you have an organization and you want a paid public speaker and leader resembling a CEO not a shepherd who lays down his life to serve and care for others. We have to call it for what it is. And if the last man there could not train other man, then he himself should not go on to pastor another group of believers, because he will leave them deficient also.
Listen, the person who should be a leader amongst a group of Christians, is the person who is consistently and presently serving, being hospitable, being an example among the flock. Not somone with special schooling or who is a nice speaker (even if he was hospitable and an example for another flock). I can’t believe that there is not one person in a group modeling this and even if it isn’t someone else shouldn’t come and lead them. They should stop meeting. Because if something happens to the new leader they will have to start the search again.
This model makes words like family and body of no importance. Here is what I believe. I believe if a group of believers are going to start a new fellowship, they should meet for a little while before ever deciding to set aside leaders. We should see these people in the lows and the highs (if they have no lows, run) and see how they respond to adversity and conflict. We need to see if they work or are they just waiting for a job. We need to see if they are moving in the direction of what Paul lists and if not we should continue to pray and wait for the Spirit to appoint so that we can recognize. Those are my brief thoughts I would love to hear yours.
Good post.
I think Matthew 23:8-11 is to be taken very literally:
But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone (in the church) on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven. And you must not be called masters (leaders), for you have one Master (Leader), the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.
In Christ’s upside down Kingdom, we are to “give attention to” what older more mature believers say in light of their lifestyle of sacrificial service, but we are not to laud them, celebrate them or promote them, we are not to call attention to them with special names or titles we are to love them and give them honor and consideration. Period.
If someone wants to be recognized or addressed as a leader, then he is not a leader.
Leaders are those whose lifestyles are marked by dying to self, humbly serving others, they live crucified lives in Christ’s resurrection power. They receive their reward from our one and only Master, Teacher and Father.
Romans 15:14 Personally I am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are rich in goodness, amply filled with all (spiritual) knowledge and competent to admonish and counsel and instruct one another also.
Hi brother. A few comments about your history.
First, you wrote, “Not until much later do we see elders appointed in both Ephesus and Crete.”
Well, there were Elders mentioned in the Church at Antioch which predates the ones you mention and they did have Elders.
See Acts 11:28-30
28 One of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate 1by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine ball over the world. And this took place in the reign of cClaudius.
29 And in the proportion that any of athe disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the 1relief of bthe brethren living in Judea.
30 And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders.
Second, you wrote, …”there seems that there were no elders at the time of Galatians (if so they were doing a horrible job). So lets get to the time when Elders arise”
I am assuming you mean no Elders at the time in which Paul wrote the book of Galatians. Right. Well, that is incorrect as well brother.
See Acts 14:21-26
21 After they had apreached the gospel to that city and had bmade many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to eAntioch,
22 strengthening the souls of athe disciples, encouraging them to continue in bthe faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.”
23 When athey had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
24 They passed through aPisidia and came into Pamphylia.
25 When they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia.
26 From there they sailed to Antioch, from bwhich they had been ccommended to the grace of God for the work that they had accomplished.
At the end of Paul’s first missionary Journey, he returned to each of the churches he had planted and appointed Elders at each church. Then he returned to the Church at Antioch and gave a report.
Controversy erupted amont the Jews who had concerns about all the Gentile Christians. So Paul goes to Jerusalem to share God’s work.
See Acts 15-3-5
3 Therefore, being asent on their way by the church, they were passing through both bPhoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all dthe brethren.
4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and athe apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.
5 But some of athe sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to ccircumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Notice that the church in Jerusalem also has Elders, and since we have no idea when they were appointed, there is no historical reason to doubt they were there for quite some time. As a matter of history, Elders were a longstanding part of Jewish tradition, so I would suggest Elders were a part of the Jerusalem church from close to the beginning.
Now back to your quote where you are confused about the history of Elders at the time in which Paul wrote his letter.
Please note that Galatians Chapter 2 mentions the Jerusalem Council I just quoted from Acts 15.
Two things can be concluded from reading the NT:
1. Elders were appointed from the start of each church plant. Was it on day one? No. Elders were appointed based on service, so until there was a history of service Paul could not appoint them. But once each church was established and maturity confirmed though lifestyle, Paul appointed Elders.
2. There were Elders in Galatia at the time Paul wrote his letter.
Third, you write, “Now I want you to read my sentence again. There was a church, with absolutely NO LEADERS. That’s right, not until later on do we see elders in Antioch. ”
How do you define “much later”? Can you give a source for this assertion? How are you dating this?
Fourth, you write, ” A few chapters later, we see something even more beautiful. The lay people who fled Jerusalem takes the Gospel to Antioch (Acts 11) and there is a church established there.”
The problem I have here is that you are writing with an agenda and you use terminology to suit the agenda that does not necessarily provide an instructive history. All of the early missionaries mentioned as taking the Gospel out from Jerusalem are also mentioned as the group appointed to serve the widows by the Apostles (see Acts 6). So clearly these men had some confirmed role of leadership. The Apostles laid hands on them to affirm their appointment. The point is that using terms like “lay” does not have any meaning since it is not used in the NT, nor do you neither define how you use the term, nor do you show how the term applies directly to these men who were appointed as leaders in the church.
Fifth, let’s look specifically at this part of your assertion, “Now I want you to read my sentence again. There was a church, with absolutely NO LEADERS. ”
How do you know this? What is your biblical evidence for making this assertion? What sort of biblical hermeneutic do you use to discern this as a fact?
Finally, you write, “Priscilla and Aquila in Ephesus, Rome and Corinth. But I believe them to be an Apostolic couple, not a pastor/co-pastor team”
Why do you believe this? What is your biblical evidence for calling them Apostles? But no matter, it seems it is a distinction without a difference because clearly Paul sent leaders around to different places to help plant and establish churches. It may not parity the practice of today, but it does establish the fact that when one local church struggled, often others came in from other places to help support and stabilize the church. I also disagree with your advice that I approve of your view that, “if you have troubles finding good leaders stop meeting together” Where is that view supported in Scripture?
Finally, let me end on a positive not of agreement. You write, “Listen, the person who should be a leader amongst a group of Christians, is the person who is consistently and presently serving, being hospitable, being an example among the flock.”
I agree. I think that is what Paul taught.
Look forward to reading more brother.
Hutch, you wrote, “If someone wants to be recognized or addressed as a leader, then he is not a leader.”
Hmm… Paul writes this in 1 Tim 3:1
“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of 1overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. ”
Paul says that any man who has a strong passion to be an Elder, that is a good thing.
Can you explain how your view fits in with Paul’s teaching?
PS Lionel,
I think we agree on a lot of substance about leadership, so here is something you might like to read as well http://www.morethancake.org/2007/07/faithful-leaders-know-that-success-comes-from-the-soul.html
Hi Joe-
Sure I would be happy to explain it to you.
1Stedfast [is] the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth; -1 Timothy 3:1
This supports and does not negate what I said.
Here is what I said:
If someone wants to be recognized or addressed as a leader, then he is not a leader.
One who desires the “work” of an overseer is not the same as someone who desires to be recognized by men or addressed as a leader.
Like Christ taught we are not to do things so as to be recognized by men our motivation is to be love for God and our neighbor and will manifest itself in sacrificial service to others, not a seeking for position.
But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone (in the church) on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven. And you must not be called masters (leaders), for you have one Master (Leader), the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant. MATT 23:8-11
Hope that helps.
I have a number of resources I can point you to if you need additional help.
Hmmm…indeed! Lol
Hi Joe-
Sure I would be happy to explain it to you.
1Stedfast [is] the word: If any one the oversight doth long for, a right work he desireth; -1 Timothy 3:1
This supports and does not negate what I said.
I did not say that someone who desires the good work of an overseer is not a leader.
Here is what I said:
If someone wants to be recognized or addressed as a leader, then he is not a leader.
One who desires the “work” of an overseer is not the same as someone who desires to be recognized by men or addressed as a leader.
1 Timothy 3:1-focuses on teh desire for the work, not a desire for titles and recognition.
Like Christ taught we are not to do things so as to be recognized by men our motivation is to be love for God and our neighbor and will manifest itself in sacrificial service to others, not a seeking for position.
But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone (in the church) on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven. And you must not be called masters (leaders), for you have one Master (Leader), the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant. MATT 23:8-11
Hope that helps.
I have a number of resources I can point you to if you need additional help.
Hmmm…indeed! Lol
Hello Joe,
1. You said the church at Antioch had Elders. Actually Agabus was a “prophet” Here is what the verse says:
27 Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). 29 So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers [3] living in Judea. 30 And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul
This section clearly says that there were “prophets” it never mentions elders. Not to mention they came from “Jerusalem”
2. I was mistaken about the Galatian elders, so it seems that they did horrible jobs
3. Next we don’t see Elders mentioned in Jerusalem into midway into the letter, the Apostles may have functioned as elders, but we do see them pop up later on (I think Acts 15 is the first mention). You have to assume that there were elders much earlier, like I assume that there none into a little later (which is the premise of the post).
4. I meant to say Priscilla and Aquilla had an apostolic marriage or ministry. This is because they traveled with Paul and they were in Corinth, Ephesus and Rome (this is a fact). So there is no hermeneutic necessary just a simple reading of the text.
5. The church at Antioch began with nonleaders (the bible never calls them elders and if so, they needed some serious help because Barnabas is sent there and he calls for help from Paul).
6. I never said “much later” you inserted that into my statement I said “later” you said “much later. Reread the comment.
7. Finally let me ask you something Joe to answer your last question. To be an “elder” one should meet certain qualifications one of the main one is caring for people. So why would I bring someone to lead (care for us) who has never cared for us. To “hire” someone to care for us, seems to deny the entire purpose of “caring for” you aren’t caring for it is a job. You have entered a legal agreement to exchange “care” for “pay”. This is counterproductive, and has no biblical grounds. If you want to go in and say “well the bible doesn’t say we can’t” I will say the bible NEVER says we must have any leaders either. So which will it be?
EVERY church that I see hire someone to “lead” them, are in actuality looking for someone to give them good bible messages, this isn’t shepherding Joe. Hopefully I answered your questions and you were right about Galatians, but I did say “if they did they were horrible”. For what Elders do I was right about that comment.
Lionel-
I think you are spot on that leadership arises naturally from within a local assembly through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Your and my position has never been that there is no authority in the church, but that it looks radically different from the world system and what we typically see portrayed in the church.
Hutch, sure that explains it well enough and I agree with you.
Joe-
I think we talk past each other quite often, I will do my best to not do that anymore.
Peace.
1. You are correct. Elders in v.30 does not refer specifically to Elders in Antioch. My mistake on that verse.
2. I would not use those words and say Elders were doing a “horrible job.” There was a lot of confusion during this time about how much of the Jewish tradition/ritual was required of the Gentiles. The Elders were misled and confused so Paul brought correction.
3. That is right. I do assume they were there based on the Jewish tradition. The only reason it is not mentioned until this point, is that it had no relevance to the story of Acts. But you did not answer, what is your basis for assuming they did not exist until Paul mentions them?
4. Well, yes hermeneutics is just a word to describe the process through which you take and apply information from the Bible, so yes it is necessary and yes you are doing it.
What is an “apostolic marriage”? I am not familiar with that term from the Bible.
Yes, the couple moved to Rome as they are mentioned in the last chapter. However, on what basis do you conclude that they were there on an Apostolic mission? The church in Rome was already established so that doe snot fit with Paul’s pattern of church planting. In my reading, I conclude that Priscilla and Aquilla were part of the Jewish diaspora under Emporor Claudius. In mid-Acts it is mentioned that he persecuted the Jews and they fled Rome. Priscilla and Aquilla seem to be part of that group and met Paul along the way. When Claudius died Priscilla and Aquilla and others returned to their home in Rome. Paul is writing Romans to bring unity to the Gentile church and the returning Jewish Christians. There is nothing in the letter that implies Priscilla and Aquilla were sent in some Aosotilic church planting funciton. So my question remains, what is the hermeneutic you are using to determine Priscilla and Aquilla were engaging in some kind of “transfer” of leadership. To be honest, I think I am making the case for you that their going to Rome is not a “transfer” of leaders but simply Christians returning home.
5. So then we know, leaders were needed in the Church and leaders came to help establish the church and eventually establish Elders.
But still you say there were “NO LEADERS” You already made the mistake in Galatians that they had no Elders based on your theory that they needed outside direction. So is that the hermeneutic you use.. “a church in trouble = no leaders”. Or is it some other textual clue? I am not trying to be a smart-alek, I am just not sure how you are making this conclusion.
6. Actually you did say “much later” Lionel. Here is the quote from your post, “Not until much later do we see elders appointed in both Ephesus and Crete.” So my question stands, how did you determine “much” later? And why is that important?
7. As Paul says, “all things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial.” So I will never say it is “unbilbical” to hire a person to help lead because that is a violation of the grace of Christ.
However, I agree Lionel that when we make leadership into a pay for service, we diminish the role of Eldership that is established in Scripture. I don’t think it is wrong to do it, just that it creates difficulties and confusion about true leadership.
Hutch, you said, “I think you are spot on that leadership arises naturally from within a local assembly through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.”
I think this is a sign of a healthy church. My mission in every church where I have led has been to “work myself out of a job” as it were. That is, invest myself in others so that ministry did not depend on me, but on the power of the Spirit and the service of everyone.
Joe,
As it relatest to P&A they had churches who met in their homes in each location (as far as I can tell), not to mention they always seemed to accompany Paul in areas where he spent multiple years. That is why I make the assumption, wrong maybe, but there are writers who support that view.
2. When we look at the date of Ephesus becoming a church and the time when Paul wrote the letter to Ephesus, there seems to be a “much later” gap in time. Now “much later could be relative” but it was maybe a couple of years correct (in both Ephesus and Crete)? From when Paul sends Timothy back there and when the church has elders.
3. We see in Antioch there were no leaders (unless they were self appointed leaders, not endorsed by the Apostles) because not until Paul and Barnnabas visit (upon the request of the other Apostles) there were no elders. Maybe hey had a church planting board from some missionary committe
4. I am only assuming as it relates to the elders in Acts, it is an assumption that could be wrong; however, Luke seems to be very consistent to mention Deacons and to mention the elders with Paul but for some reason overlook elders in Jerusalem until much later. With that I was just being holding a thought consisten with how Luke explains things.
I also believe that the Corinthians says “all things are lawful” they used that as an excuse to walk in their liberty instead of love in which Paul rebukes them. So there is no biblical evidence that hiring people from outside was practiced and there is evidence of appointing men from among the community to be leaders, so it only seem logical the right way to do it is the way it was done. I guess we could baptize with water guns so it would fun for kids since there is nothing in scripture telling us about the mode
Thanks for agreeing, at least we agree on that
But seriously I want to focus on what I said about the problems. to me if a group is wise enough to “pick” a leader from outside, there should be enough wisdom inside to select a man from within. I still say it is extremely dangerous and has now been the foundation of “pasotral search committees”, the hiring and firing of pastors who “people” don’t like and so forth. We have lost the relational/shepherding aspect (which are the qualifications from the door and how men were chosen) and this has become about organizational functionality. We are more concerned with the property than we are the people and this my friend is dangerous. So that is why I wrote the post. I apologize about any assumptions (though some people agree with me on some dates and times and so forth) I made, but the premise was that to transport people for pay into your church to care for you seems to be counterproductive.
BTW,
I like your last statement, and that should be the exception not the rule. I believe that if you do take such roles, you take them with the plan to raise up elders so that they may function with the true head not a hired one. The problem is most churches are perfectly okay with the pastor search committee stuff.