BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP



BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES OF LEADERSHIP

BY

Dr Mathew Clark

HERE ARE SOME MEMORABLE QUOTES ABOUT LEADERS!

The required attributes for getting people to follow you are: the correct proportions of arrogance and ignorance!

It is a simple truth that those who most want to become leaders or rulers are those least suited for the job. (Douglas Adams)

The only thing that walks back from the tomb with the mourners, and refuses to be buried, is the character of the deceased.

It is impossible to give a dog an ulcer – dogs hardly ever try to be anything but a dog.

Spiritual life is fostered and spiritual maturity engendered, not by techniques but by truth.

You are already of consequence in the world if you are known as a person of integrity.

If you resist the temptations of money, power and sex, the world thinks of you as a fool – and God uses you to confound the wise.

Lesson 1: Basic Biblical values in leadership

There is a vast amount of writings on the market today that deal with the topic of leadership. It is the new buzzword in politics, in business, and in churches.

However, in terms of Christian works on leadership, a recent estimate suggests that less than 1% of published material contains references to Scripture. Even leaders (such as John Maxwell) who learned their leadership roles in the church, publish material that has minimum reference to Christianity in general and Christianity’s charter, the Bible, in particular.

Where the Bible is used, in most cases it is used inductively, providing “support” from a text or a Bible section or two to back up the writer’s arguments. Although one or two works have made it to the market place that attempt to re-assert the role of theology and the Bible as normative in Christian leadership studies (e g James Means 1993: Effective pastors for a new century. Grand Rapids: Baker Books) they have been mainly pushed aside in the torrent of other works that use secular models and systems to identify, motivate, promote and equip church leadership.

I am preparing these lessons as a Biblical theologian – “biblical” in the sense that the theological discipline I teach is New Testament, and biblical in the sense that I am not approaching the Bible inductively but deductively. I am asking the text of the Christian Scriptures to share with us what a godly leader looks like. The teachings, stories, poems, proverbs and prophecies of the Bible provide us with a vast deposit of knowledge on this subject. And in the New Testament paradigm, Christians are described as “disciples” – which simply means “followers.” If we are followers, we must have a leader – and surely the nature of His leadership should be the over-riding role model for ours?

It is clear from the quotes on the previous page that leadership can be seen as a problem. This is particularly true of the generation of Europeans (and especially the British) who endured the Second World War. Adolf Hitler was known as “Fuhrer” by his sycophantic followers, and his leadership left Europe in ruins, and millions dead. Since then the Anglo-Saxon approach to leadership has stressed the utility and servant-hood of leaders rather than their powers and privileges. Indeed, in the Westminster system of democratic rule, where leadership is not limited by fixed maximum terms for elected leaders, the electorate normally disposes of their leaders after a certain time anyway, lest they become too used to power (a good example is the dismissal of Margaret Thatcher.)

Another generation is rising that not only does not remember the War, but that has become used to the notion of the “guru” – the unquestioned and unquestionable authority to whom one abdicates the decisions and values of one’s life. The growth of a celebrity culture has brought new shallows to this development in that “leaders” and role-models are often those people who are highly visible in e g arts, sport or politics, rather than those who are worthy, virtuous and upright. This has led to the growth of “fan-dom” – “fan” being short for “fanatics.”

Without plumbing the depths of ultra-cynicism, let’s take a look at some of the most basic Biblical values that address human leadership and leadership styles.

1. The ultimate monarch/general/leader is God

The very heart of the Biblical world-view and value system is the sovereign and incomparable God. In the very first verse He figures as creator of the universe, in the last verses he is the reigning conqueror who has set all dissent “beneath his feet.” This is the Lord who owns “the earth and its fullness, the world and all those who live in it” (Ps 24). He shares his majesty and power with no-one and no thing.

Yet this ultimate God is also a loving and gracious God. He is a God who “gives gifts to humanity.” (Eph 4:8) The great, unanswered question is why he loves us, why he even notices us, and why he deigns ever to use us! Yet for some reason he has seen fit to use us as co-workers in the work that he is doing on earth.

In dealing with the notion of working with God, one always needs to keep in mind the story of the mouse and the elephant crossing a bridge. The mouse looks up at the elephant and says “Boy, are we shaking this structure!” The disparity in abilities between God and us is even greater than that!

The sin of David in counting the people of Israel (1 Chron 21) was that ultimately the people of Israel were the people of God and not the people of David. David could be seen at most, with all his tremendous leadership abilities, as a shepherd over God’s flock, a steward over God’s property. This is an image that we encounter a number of times in the New Testament, particularly in the parables of the servants and landowner.

It was this sense of God’s sovereign rule that drove the prophets into conflict with the rulers and leaders of their day, the last two great examples being John the Baptist and Jesus. Jesus’ confrontation with Pilate spelled out clearly who had ultimate power and whose kingdom would be eternal.

While God often called and endowed great military figures to perform great battlefield exploits, there was never any doubt as to whose victory it ultimately was. Where the populace elevated a human figure to rule over them, on the basis of their military prowess, this invariably ended in tragedy of some sort. Even in the case of David, the “man after God’s own heart”, this was true (e g the rebellion of Absalom.) Right at the beginning, when Israel asked for a king, God told the unhappy Samuel that it was not a rejection of Samuel but a rejection of God as their king that was taking place.

2. Humans are fallible

There is not a major Biblical figure that is not depicted as fallible. Some of the Biblical narratives depict ultimate tragic failure (Samson, Saul, Solomon) while others show failure followed by God’s gracious restoration. These include Jacob, David, Ahab, and Peter.

Where there is no massive failure, the personal shortcomings and sins of the characters are evident throughout Scripture. Noah lapsed into drunkenness, Abraham into doubt and brought forth Ishmael from Hagar, Moses into anger, Peter into hypocrisy in Antioch, etc.

So evident were these shortcomings that Jews and Christians have often been criticised by other religions for the poor moral calibre of their antecedents. For instance, the pagan Greeks thus accused the Jews of Alexandria in the years BC, and Muslims today challenge Christians everywhere with the lack of moral strength in the Biblical characters.

However, this consistency in the Bible record is intentional – God alone is true, before him let every mouth be closed and every man become a liar.

3. God endows humans with leadership by calling and empowering them

Almost without fail human leadership among God’s people begins with a clear calling from God. Sometimes this calling comes to people in strong positions to exercise influence (e g Moses), but most often it comes to those who could have been considered “least likely to succeed” by their peers. This group includes folk like Gideon, David, the Galilean fishermen and tax collectors that Jesus called, and a host of other Bible characters.

This fact means that the eventual achievement of their leadership is to the glory of God and not their own. The strength in which they achieve is not their own, but God’s. These two elements are brought out most clearly, where God whittles away Gideon’s army of 30 000 to 300, so that it would be clear who actually won the battle!

The vision and goal that were set for the leaders that God called was also from God and not from themselves. Never could Abraham ever have imagined in himself the task that God gave to him. The failing of Joshua’s generation was that they did not pursue the vision of God for them to its ultimate conclusion, and left part of the land unconquered. Jonah found the task set for him by God too daunting – but when it was ultimately achieved, was disappointed in the result!

An exception to this rule appears to be the leadership of Nehemiah. There is no record in his account of a divine calling to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, only a mention of his brokenness and compassion when he heard of the plight of the Jews left defenceless in Judah. Surely one could argue that such brokenness that endured for days was the result of God’s moving in his heart!

4. Reluctant leaders

There is an underlying theme in the Scriptures that those whom God called and empowered to do a task were not at all keen to undertake it. The most graphic example is Moses, who found numerous reasons why God should use someone else rather than himself. Gideon cannot believe that God wishes to use him (“Sarcastic angels, already!”), Amos tells the high priest Amaziah he had been a herdsman with no desire to speak prophetic words, but God took him away from behind the herd and sent him to the king’s palace. Jonah was the ultimate reluctant.

Bearing in mind the remark of Douglas Adams that those who most seek to exercise power over others are those least suited for the job, perhaps this election and compulsion by God of the reluctant leader makes excellent sense in the divine plan – such people will probably not continue beyond their mandate, nor seek honours for themselves.

5. Servants, not masters

It was Jesus who articulated this most clearly: “He who would be greatest among you, let him be the least of all.” “The servant is not greater than the master. If I, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, so you ought to do to one another.” There is only one excuse for a person to soar above their peers – the benefit of their peers and not themselves. While it is true that the apostles taught that the ox that treads the corn should not be muzzled, this does not imply that leaders may exploit their followers to their own material advantage.

To lose the heart of a servant when in a leadership position is to enter into the realm of pride and self-will. The Bible records many stories of men (and women) who walked this pathway, whose ultimate end was failure and the inevitable discovery that “God resists the proud.” I have too often seen the ministry of individual ministers peak and never go further when they took the honour to themselves and lost the simple humility in which they had begun their ministry.

6. Democracy?

There seems to be a clear distinction in Scripture between election by humans and calling by God. Most leaders in the Bible were called, anointed and empowered by God, without consulting the general will of the populace. At most, when a leadership gap was perceived to have arisen, the process of throwing lots would be followed (Acts 1) – this presupposing that God would indicate his choice of person by manipulating the “fall of the dice.”

In Acts 6 the large group of disciples was instructed by the apostles to elect their own deacons to serve fairly at the tables of food. They set strict criteria for the choice. Interestingly, while the vast majority of the disciples were Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic (called Hebrew here), this majority nevertheless elected a group of men who all bear Greek names – since the original complaint of unfairness in distributing the food came from Greek-speaking widows. Here we have an example of gracious concession of the majority to the feelings of the minority.

The problem with elected officials as leaders of God’s people is that there is always the temptation to be a populist or demagogue. People tend to elect people to serve their own will, not the will of God. The problem with non-elected leaders is the temptation to abuse God-given authority for personal ambition and luxury – and examples of this litter both the Scriptures and church history!

Lesson 2: Different types of leadership in the Bible

The Bible deals with human leadership in a number of different situations, leading to different types of leadership. Contemporary discussion of church leadership tends to assume a number of things, the most common being a Western (even it situated in Africa, Asia or Latin America), liberal, (sometimes post-modern), middle-class, urban or suburban, setting. This is the same “market situation” faced by contemporary business, and one therefore finds a large influence among church leadership that has its roots in the business and marketing sector that is also aimed at this segment of society. It is also the most affluent (in aggregate) setting, so resources are available to develop leadership themes with profit.

The Bible knows little of such “nice” settings. The closest one comes to this is the so-called Golden Age of Israel, from Solomon to Hezekiah, and the Greek and Roman cities of the first century. In the former, leadership of the people was generally of poor spiritual quality and largely condemned by the prophetic witness raised up by God at that time. Powerful Christian leadership reached the latter group, but themselves produced few godly leaders of note from it, to influence the next generation. Most Christian witness for the next 200 years was borne by common people going about their daily business from place to place.

Powerful leadership in Bible times generally came from a more exacting crucible than the deposit of urban plenty that is producing today’s “greats”.

1. Military leadership

The Bible narrative covers millennia, and in that period God often called leaders to go to war. The Bible gives examples of men and women who were called primarily for warfare: Joshua, Samson, Saul and David (at least in his early years) are good examples.

However, even the more “gentle” Biblical figures at times found themselves called to military exploits. Abraham had to fight the coalition of kings to free Lot. Moses appeared as a figurehead at a great battle. Nehemiah the wall-builder built alongside others with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other.

Although New Testament times did not call for military exploits by church leaders (the Crusades were a huge mistake), there is no guarantee that Christians will not find themselves at some time leading men in the crucible of battle and war. And we can be certain that God calls many to take up leadership in the war that is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, evil in the spiritual realms, and elements of this world.

God called military leaders in defensive situations and in offensive situations, called them as liberators as well as conquerors.

In the narratives of the great wars of the Old Testament one learns most clearly that “the battle is the Lord’s.” He never expected people to fight in their own right or their own might. The timing of the battle was the Lord’s, the location of the battle was generally of his choosing, and the defeat of the enemy was clearly by his power.

If we insist on spiritualising Old Testament military exploits in the New Testament, then it is these elements of divine sovereignty that need also to be transferred, along with the character and abilities of the human leadership involved.

2. Administrative leadership

Here one encounters characters such as Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah, Esther and Mordecai, and James the brother of Jesus. These leaders tended to be marked by the divinely ordained position of influence in which they found themselves, and by wisdom.

Most of these Old Testament figures reached positions of influence via a pathway of tragedy. Personal and national disaster led to them becoming first powerless slaves and then influential figures that utilised the resources of the ungodly for the preservation of God’s elect.

While not as dashing as their military counterparts, these folk were often just as charismatically endowed. The role played by dreams and interpretation of dreams in the lives of Joseph and Daniel deserves particular mention.

Administrative leaders were prepared and placed by God, for times of crisis and for the preservation of God’s people.

3. Pioneering leadership

“Going where none has ever gone before!” In the Bible there is a particular class of person who goes into new territory and breaks new ground. Sometimes this might be linked to military prowess (e g Joshua), but often it is simple obedience that takes them quietly into new worlds.

The earliest of these may have been Noah, but the most distinct is of course Abraham. He simply “believed God”, and set forth into the unknown, led by the promise that God made to him, and the beginning of whose fulfilment he experienced only in the evening of his life when Isaac was born.

Joseph was such a pioneer (albeit involuntarily), as was Joshua, and later on Jonah (most reluctantly.) In the New Testament Paul epitomises it, going only where “Christ has not been preached.” However, Paul’s ministry was the essence of apostolic ministry and leadership, and its like lives on today wherever men and women go, in the name of Jesus, to places where Jesus is unknown.

Pioneers break the soil and prepare the place upon which others later will build.

4. Apostolic leadership

The title “apostle” can only really be given to those who are pioneers, breaking new ground. However, their leadership calling does not stop there, since after breaking new ground the apostle must also play a crucial role in establishing the work that has been built up on new soil.

Apostolic leadership is seen primarily in the New Testament epistles in terms of instruction of new converts, establishment of basic Christian norms in a new and challenging environment, and confrontation and refutation of heretical tendencies in both doctrine and ethics.

The challenge to the apostle was to establish the teaching of a Galilean carpenter to Galilean fishermen and tax collectors, and this in a multitude of different settings and contexts. The challenges that were raised differed as widely as the Galatian legalists and the Corinthian libertines! That same apostolic challenge remains today, as the gospel needs re-interpretation as it is established in ever changing contexts in an ever-changing world.

Apostolic leaders were also called on to provide the necessary structure to local churches, and to further the good relationship between existing churches.

5. Teaching leadership

Moses became known as the lawgiver, the one who taught Israel the laws and values of God. Jesus was the ultimate teacher, acknowledged as such by the Jewish leaders with Nicodemus as their spokesman. People were astonished at his teaching and its authority.

The apostles were also called to teach – to instruct new converts in the ways and values of Christian discipleship. The evangelistic mandate of Matt 28:19 includes the teaching mandate: “Teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.”

James warns that people should not all desire to be teachers, since there is a greater judgement upon those who do it incorrectly. He himself is clearly a teacher of note, his entire epistle being devoted to instruction.

Teaching is one of the least materially rewarding positions, a fact that is obvious even in secular society. Even those it is a highly influential position, it is difficult to always see it as a leadership position, since while leaders have followers, teachers produce graduates! However, the course of world and church history has more than once been radically altered by unassuming teachers.

6. Prophetic leadership

The major role of the prophet in both the Old and New Testament is to confront those who have power and influence. In the Old Testament the prophets stood as charismatically endowed figures over against the “official” leaders of Israel, viz the priests and kings.

Some prophets were clearly also leaders of men, Elisha being the best example. However, normally they were lonely figures, rejected by most of their contemporaries. Jeremiah is perhaps the best and most radical example of how thorough this rejection could be. Their leadership and value was often only recognised after their death.

There were some periods where the official rulers were better intentioned toward the prophets. The story of Ahab, Jehoshaphat and the prophet Micaiah (1 Kings 22) is an interesting cameo of what happens when different monarchs have differing approaches to prophets and prophetic words! However, Isaiah’s friendship with and support of Hezekiah is also an example of prophetic leadership in political and military matters.

The seers such as Samuel were an interesting class, fulfilling the roles both of “judge” (a charismatically endowed leadership figure such as Deborah and Gideon) and of prophet. Samuel’s leadership was crucial to Israel, until he was rejected for a more acceptable type of leader, a king. The Lord gave them a taste of what could happen when they were ruled by a man “according to their own heart” (Saul), as opposed to his own rule.

Prophetic leadership is generally corrective leadership, confronting human leaders with the demands of God.

7. Shepherding leadership

As Ps 23 tells us, shepherds are leaders. Peter was given particular instruction by Jesus to look after the flock of God. In his own epistle (1 Peter 5) Peter links himself to the elders as a shepherd of the flock of God.

Jesus is of course the ultimate shepherd, the Good Shepherd. His commitment to the flock is demonstrated by the fact that he lays down his own life for it. His sort of shepherding leadership is the touchstone by which false shepherds are identified – they come to the flock for their own advantage and so hurt the flock, while a true shepherd protects the flock even if it endangers his own life.

Shepherding leadership is given the task of protecting and nurturing. Ensuring that the people of God are well fed, and protected against misdirection and predatory figures and teachings. They need to ward off that and those who would harm the people of God. They are ultimately responsible to the Great Shepherd himself. This is particularly the responsibility of those with the ministry and office of pastors and elders.

Lesson 3: Human temperaments and styles in Biblical leadership

Looking at the human species from the point of view of human temperaments can be a useful tool to understand one’s own strengths and weaknesses. This is especially true in terms of leadership types and styles.

“There are two types of people in the world: those who divide the world into two types of people and those who don’t!” This little joke is just a reminder that what we are about to do is risky, but also generally speaking possible and useful.

The human species can be divided in introverts and extroverts:

It can also be divided into people who are oriented toward other people and those who are oriented more toward abstracts or things.

If we superimpose these upon one another we get a basic division of humanity into 4 basic temperaments or types. A Bible character of that temperament represents each.

Extrovert

People Abstracts

Introvert

Tim LaHaye, in works Transformed Temperaments and Spirit Controlled Temperaments, deals with these types in some detail. I am indebted to him for the list set out below, of the strengths and weaknesses of each personality type:

Sanguine (Biblical example: Peter):

This is the ultimate extroverted people person. Usually has selling, speaking or acting as a profession. With a good manager, can be a great leader!

In Christian practice, these people make great evangelists and soul-winners. They both need people and draw people. Their potential to influence people is therefore huge.

Strengths:

Outgoing, enthusiastic, warm, personable, friendly, compassionate, and carefree. A real Oros man makes the party go!

Weaknesses:

Weak-willed, unstable, undisciplined, restless, undependable, egocentric, loud, exaggerates and fearful.

Can be an excellent leader at times, but without maturing and dealing with their weaknesses, can be an extremely dangerous leader. Many of the great Christian leaders who have failed morally and very publicly have been of this type.

Choleric (Biblical example: Paul):

The truly determined person – almost always does eventually develop into a leader. This sort of person is a visionary and builder, a real go-getter and achiever. However, since they are more oriented to abstracts (principles and things) than to people, can also be hard and uncaring. The great dictators of human history normally come from this personality type.

In Christian practice these are normally pioneers and apostles, people who from nothing make something. Church planters and church builders, their mark is evident wherever they go.

Strengths:

Strong-willed, determined, independent, optimistic, practical, productive, decisive, leader, and confident.

Weaknesses:

Angry, cruel, sarcastic, domineering, inconsiderate, proud, self-sufficient, unemotional and crafty (manipulative.)

These folk are motivators rather than those who need motivating. It is a greater problem to hold them back than to urge them onward. Don’t get in their way, but if you can influence them for good, they will turn the world upside down!

Phlegmatic (Biblical example: Abraham):

This is the laid-back and easy-going personality type. Normally non-confrontational, given to a sense of humour, and not set on over-achieving. Their most besetting sin is laziness, although once involved in a project they normally become very thorough and dependable workers. One finds them employed as diplomats, teachers, accountants, engineers and technicians.

In Christian practice these are normally teachers and/or administrators. Usually do jobs that others don’t want to do, do not need supervision or approval. Can be a loner, which is both good and bad!

Strengths:

Calm, easy-going, dependable, efficient, conservative, practical, leaders, diplomatic, and humorous.

Weaknesses:

Stingy, fearful, indecisive, spectators, self-protective, selfish, and unmotivated.

If you can get this guy motivated, he makes one heck of a support player. But watch out, he can also lead, and knows how to give careless leaders hell!

Melancholic (Biblical example: Moses):

Here we have the artistic temperament in all its glory. These people can be hard to be with, but are capable of producing most of the beauty that makes human existence worthwhile. They have perhaps the deepest need for people and for approval, of all the personality types. Do not generally look for leadership positions, and when they do really need to be supported!

In society these people usually become artists, musicians, inventors, philosophers and thinkers.

In Christian society you will normally find them in the music and drama departments, or wanting to be counsellors.

Strengths:

Gifted, analytical, sensitive, perfectionist, aesthetic, idealistic, loyal, and self-sacrificing.

Weaknesses:

Self-centred, moody, negative, theoretical, impractical, unsociable, critical, revengeful, and rigid.

The leadership potential of these people is dependent upon the amount of emotional support their core-group or team can give them. Because of their empathy for human hurt, they make good pastors but are best in a team situation. The hurly-burly of church leadership can scar them very easily.

Within these personality types one finds much variation. No one person is ever exclusively typical of any single personality type, although most exhibit a dominant tendency. Age, maturity and sex also play a part in modifying one’s temperament. In Christians, the work of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of discipline also gradually modify one, so that one can so deal with one’s weakness and develop one’s strengths as to present a well-balanced personality.

In terms of leadership the greatest comparison is between the leadership styles of the extroverts and the introverts. If one looks at both secular and church history, it seems that at times the introvert makes the greater impact; at others it is the extrovert. Certainly it is true that the introverted personality types do not find leadership as attractive or easy as the extroverts, and therefore have to work harder at it. However, the extroverts, because public position comes more naturally to them, are often more tempted by the typical pitfalls of leadership: the attractions of money, power and sex. Extroverts make spectacular leaders, whose fall (if it comes) is equally spectacular!

Certainly God has been no respecter of persons: he has called and enabled all personality types, as our Biblical examples show.

Our personality type as well as our personal preferences will often determine our leadership style. Robert Dales identifies four major leadership styles with their strengths and weaknesses:

Style Strengths Weaknesses

Catalyst Team builder Becomes personally insignificant

Commander Inspires action Autocratic and arrogant

Hermit Wise Tends to remain aloof from people

Encourager Counsellor Generally a poor manager.

Can you match these styles with the personality types we have looked at?

Lesson 4: Pauline leadership and its opposites

The apostle Paul had continually to deal with challenges of leadership. While it is clear that he did not lay much store upon his own leadership (in the sense that he just got on with the job without having to talk about it) he was regularly challenged by others who wished to assume leadership over those he had led to Christ.

In a way both Paul and Jesus suffered from what the contemporary world calls “lack of leadership savvy.” Contemporary leadership gurus would point out that neither of them made it clear that they were in charge, and they made no overt moves to win people to themselves by “marketing” themselves or tailoring their image. Where they had influence they did not always use it to their own advantage. It was only to be expected then that other less worthy but more savvy people would move into the “leadership vacuum” that they had left by their omissions. This remains true for Jesus until today – with the cosmic power and influence he has at his disposal, why does he not use it to bind the world to himself? For Paul the aim was simple: to turn the people to Christ, not to himself. So wherever he went opportunists and manipulators saw their chance and made their move to take over his congregations.

This dynamic has left us with a number of interesting discussions in the Pauline literature concerning Christian leadership. This lesson is devoted to an overview of that.

1. Christian leadership according to Paul.

The two major leadership ministries in the New Testament were those of apostle and of bishop (Grk: episkopos = overseer.) The bishop was considered identical to an elder, and the qualifications for both were identical.

4.1.2. The character of New Testament apostles, and their approach to their ministry

4.1.2.1 Self-appellation (what they called themselves)

Slave of Jesus Christ (Greek: doulos) - Rom 1:1, Phil 1:1, etc. Paul thus identifies himself as one who has no rights of his own, no property of his own, no family of his own, no future of his own - indeed, no life of his own. All that belongs to Jesus Christ.

Ambassador - 2 Cor 5:20 (referring to the task of an ambassador, not the lifestyle)

Elder - 1 Pet 5:1

Witness - 1 Pet 5:1

Servant/assistant/attendant of Christ (Greek: hyperetes) - 1 Cor 4:1

Steward/trustee of the mysteries of God (Greek: oikonomos) - 1 Cor 14:1

Spectacle (comic show) for Christ - 1 Cor 4:9

Fools, weak ones, despised ones - 1 Cor 4:10

Father (as one who brought them into the life of Christ) - 1 Cor 4:15

Servants (Greek: diakonoi) - 1 Cor 3:5

Co-workers (Greek: synergoi) with other believers, not rulers/leaders (Greek: kyrioi) over them - 2 Cor 1:24

Slave (Greek: doulos) of the believers - 2 Cor 4:5

Co-workers with God - 2 Cor 6:1

Prisoner of the Lord - Eph 4:1, Philemon 1

4.1.2.2 Their description of their ministry and their own situation

Paul contrasts the responsibilities and difficulties of apostolic ministry with the benefits that the converts derive from it.

1 Corinthians 2:3

Ministered in weakness, fear and trembling

1 Corinthians 4:

Not reigning (vs 8)

Last, appointed to death (vs 9)

Spectacles to be mocked (vs 9)

Fools, weak, despised, while their converts are wise, strong and honourable (vs 10)

Hungry, thirsty, naked, beaten with blows, no fixed abode (vs 11)

Labour with own hands, return blessing for reviling, suffer persecution (vs 12)

Beg while being defamed; filth of the world, offscourings (vs 13)

2 Corinthians 4:

Troubled but not distressed, perplexed but not in despair (vs 8)

Persecuted but not forsaken, cast down, but not destroyed (vs 9)

Always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus (vs 10)

2 Corinthians 6:4-10

Ministering in patience, affliction, necessities, distress, stripes, imprisonment, riots, labour, vigilance, fasting; by pureness, knowledge, temperance, kindness, Holy Spirit, love, word of truth, power of God, armour of righteousness, honour and dishonour, evil report and good report; as deceivers but still true, as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet living, as chastened but not killed, as sorrowful but always rejoicing, as poor, yet making others rich, as having nothing but possessing all things.

2 Corinthians 10:12-13

Neither commending themselves nor boasting, despite the practice of the false apostles in Corinth of asserting and affirming themselves and one another.

2 Corinthians 11:7-9 & 12:13-14

Did not take a salary from the churches, but was supported from established regions “for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.” His opponents in Corinth despised him for not taking money for his services.

4.1.2.3. The evidence of their apostolic calling

Patience (endurance), signs and wonders, and mighty deeds - 2 Cor 12:12

Recognition by others of the calling to break new ground - Gal 2:9

The apostle’s converts from paganism are the seal (stamp of genuineness) on his ministry - 1 Cor 9:2

4.1.2.4. Relationship to other ministries

Ephesians 4:11 lists the ministries given by Christ to his church for the following tasks: to complete God’s work in the believers, to perform Christian ministry, and to edify the body of Christ.

If the church is understood to be a movement not an institution, then the work of these callings is not to work out how to cut up an existing cake, but how to work together to bake lots of new cakes. These are not ranks, but ministries - they are diverse ministries required to meet the diverse needs of a growing church. On the basis of the story of Acts and the content of the epistles, we can deduce the following complementary relationship between ministries:

Apostles break new ground, going where the gospel is unknown, and establish churches.

Prophets speak the direct and immediate word of God into the situation of Christian work. Their word is both encouraging and confrontational.

Evangelists use existing churches as bases, to preach the gospel to those who are unsaved, in areas where churches are already established.

Pastors and teachers “feed the flock” and “instruct in righteousness”, fulfilling the roles of caring, nurturing and instructing.

4.1.3. The New Testament notion of a bishop

The New Testament gives us very little information about the bishops in the New Testament church. Only a handful of references can be found to them or to their “office”. Yet for most of its existence the Christian church has been dominated by the episcopalian form of government, with a ruling class of priests and bishops directing the affairs of the church and the lives of its members. This form of church government is still present in the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican and Methodist churches, and in every form of the Orthodox churches. An episcopalian form of religion therefore governs the majority of people who are termed “Christian”.

4.1.3.1. The term “bishop”

The Greek word for a bishop is episkopos, from the preposition “over” or “upon” (epi) and the noun “watcher” or “guardian” (skopos). In its earliest (pagan) use, the term referred to the gods who watched over the education and knowledge of the people - the so-called tutelary gods. Current understanding of the word is that it means “overseer” or “supervisor”, although these terms imply notions of rulership that would have been foreign to the first-century church. In that church elders were expected to care for the flock rather than to lead it.

In the New Testament the term is used in the same context as the terms deacon and elder. Indeed, in Titus 1:5 & 7 the terms bishop and elder appear interchangeable, or at least to refer to very similar ministries. Whatever the case, the juxtaposition appears to indicate that a bishop was a person involved in the nurturing of the local church, and had as co-workers a number of elders and deacons. In fact, from Phil 1:1 it appears that at least one local church in the New Testament age was nurtured by more than one bishop, together with a group of deacons.

4.1.3.2 The qualifications of a bishop

Accepting that the qualifications for elders set out in Titus 1:6 (and followed by a description of the ideal bishop in 1:7-9) are the qualifications of both elders and bishops, then with the incorporation of 1 Tim 3:1-7 the list of qualifications would appear as follows:

(From Titus):

Blameless, not accused, void of any offence (anenkletos);

A husband of one wife;

Having faithful children (tekna pista = believing children?);

Not accused of prodigality (wastefulness), or unruly;

A steward (oikonomos) of God;

Not self-willed (authades from “auto” and “willed”);

Not prone to anger;

Not given to alcoholic drink;

Not a brawler (plektes = one who readily strikes another person);

Not sordidly greedy of personal gain;

A person who loves strangers (philoxenos);

Someone who loves good people (or the good - philagathos)

Sober (of thought and habit - sophrona)

Just (fair)

Holy (hosios = pure, hallowed)

Self-controlled

Cleaving to the word he has been taught

Able to exhort and to teach, with sound teaching.

(Added characteristics from Timothy):

Not vulnerable to accusation

Not given to wine

Sober

Well-behaved and orderly

Able to teach

Not a lover of money

Patient

To manage his own home well

His children subject to his discipline

Not a neophyte who could become arrogant

Having a good testimony among non-Christians

4.1.3.3. The ministry of a bishop

The formidable list in 4.1.3.2 above dwells more on the characteristics of the bishop than on his responsibilities. However, from it (and the context of Titus’ and Timothy’s work) one can derive the following functions:

To be an example of what a Christian should look like - in behaviour and character

To teach sound doctrine

To confront argumentative and heretical persons

To manage the affairs of the household of God

To exhort and preach

To represent Christ and His church to the outside world.

In a word, to fulfil the task of what we would term today “the pastor of a local congregation”. However, in the New Testament it would appear that the bishop was one of a local team that included other bishops and elders, as well as the deacons. This team provided the infrastructure upon which the body of Christ came to expression and lived out its testimony in a given locality.

2. False leadership according to Paul and the other apostles

Paul had to deal with “leaders” in a number of settings. In some cases he had to confront those who issued heresies into the church, in others (such as in Corinth) with those whose attitude and values were contrary to the spirit of Christian leadership. Peter, John and Jude also leave us clear testimony of the presence and nature of false leadership in Christian circles.

1. The nature of false leadership as dealt with by Paul

Paul was used to opposition and vilification.

- Phil 1 - some preach the gospel from envy and strife, some from contention.

- Gal 1 - if anyone preach any other gospel, let him be anathema. These false leaders tried to make Jews out of pagans who had converted to Christianity.

- 2 Cor 10 & 11 - false leaders in Corinth

- mocked his (Paul’s) bodily presence

- compared themselves unwisely to one another

- called his speech contemptible

- corrupted the mind of his converts from the simple gospel

- accused Paul of being so ashamed of his ministry that he took no money from the church!

- took advantage of the Corinthians, bringing them into bondage, devouring, taking from them, striking them in the face....

- boasted continually of their tremendous revelations

- 1 Tim - false leaders who

- give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils

- preach asceticism, withholding from marriage and eating meat

- hate sound doctrine

- love money and riches, becoming and promoting discontent

- squabble about meaningless terminology, genealogy, etc.

- 2 Tim - false leaders/ teachers who

- are lovers of themselves

- are proud and boastful

- highminded, of corrupt minds

- lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

- have a form of godliness but who deny its power.

In Colossians he does not attack or describe such leaders directly, perhaps because he did not found the church at Colossae and therefore did not have the same relationship to the people there as he did in other cities. However, from his writing to them we gain an impression of people who taught a new “philosophy” or “science” that turned their minds away from the lordship and pre-eminence of Jesus Christ and focussed it on the world of angels and demon, of what we eat and drink, of what days and feasts we keep, etc.

2. The nature of false leadership as dealt with in other New Testament writings.

In 2 Peter 2, Peter refers to false prophets and teachers who bring in damnable heresies and who, through covetousness and “feigned words” (“big act”) make merchandise of the people of God.

They walk in the flesh in lust, and despise government (any disciplined rule.) They are presumptuous and self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of “dignities” (apparently meaning “spiritual powers”.)

They celebrate their own deceptions, have eyes full of adultery and never cease sinning. They beguile unstable souls, they exercise their hearts with covetous practices. They speak great swelling words of vanity, they attract people through the lusts of the flesh. They promise liberty but are themselves servants of corruption.

Jude basically repeats these accusations of Peter, leading to the probability that they were facing the same challenges and perhaps even collaborated in their writing.

The two short letters of John (2 John and 3 John) both deal with possible abuse of influence in a local church. In 2 John he warns the local church leadership not to receive and allow into the congregation those people who do not believe that “Christ has come in the flesh.” These people seem to be the same Gnostics that he deals with in his first epistle, people who taught that flesh was evil and spirit was good, therefore the good Son of God could not have become flesh. The moral danger of their teaching was that, if the body is evil anyway, and the spirit is good anyway, then it does not matter what deeds you perform with your body!

In 3 John he has an opposite problem – someone in the church, a certain Diotrephes, who “loves to have pre-eminence among them,” was preventing “straight” teachers of the Christian way from entering the church. This had to be dealt with by the locals themselves.

In these non-Pauline writings we find a tendency in the false leaders that Paul also notes: they use every means to assume leadership roles for themselves, and then band together to pour contempt on and to resist the correct teachings and pathways of Christ.

Lesson 5: Charismatic endowment versus human talent and skills

The Bible makes it clear that God never expected humans to accomplish his work in their own power.

It contains numerous examples of people who were the most unlikely candidates for the job God gave them, and yet who succeeded.

However, it also contains examples of people whom God had “prepared” with human accomplishments so that they could bring their own talents and skills to the task laid upon them.

1. Unlikely characters empowered by God

Joseph the son of Jacob: A younger son who eventually becomes the second most powerful man in the Egyptian kingdom, which at that time reached to the Euphrates River.

Moses: a child saved from genocide, at the age of 80 a shepherd with 40 years experience in that line! Although accustomed to the courts of Pharaoh, he had not been there for decades. Given a job as spokesman, and he couldn’t even speak properly.

Many of the judges, notably Deborah (a woman!), Gideon (a younger son of an insignificant clan), Jephthah (son of a prostitute), Ruth (a pagan woman), and Samuel (called at 12 years old.)

David, son of Jesse – “Where others saw a shepherd boy, God saw a king!”

Amos the herdsman: he did not ask for the job.

Daniel and his three friends – slaves who changed the way an empire was ruled.

Mary of Nazareth – young, female, and from a lousy address!

The fisherman and tax collectors of Galilee – what a motley crowd to turn the world upside down!

Looking at these characters, even more amazing is the type of equipment God gave to them: Joseph was given the ability to interpret dreams, as was Daniel. Moses was given a rod that turned into a snake and the ability to “toggle” in and out of leprosy. Gideon was given a whittled down army 1% of its former strength, armed with lamps, trumpets and clay pots. David was given a sling, Amos just the anointed words he spoke. The disciples were given the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. None of this is likely to convince a secular parliament, stand up in a court of law, or appeal to a present day board of directors or shareholders!

2. People whom God used with their own skills and talents

While it is clear that God has no problem with placing square pegs in round holes, there is also evidence that he at times uses people according to their abilities and influence.

It may be argued that even here he retains his sovereignty, since it might well be that he has placed these people there, and prepared them for the task at hand.

Moses: although listed above, his years at Pharaoh’s court were in part preparation for his later task.

Nehemiah: as a high official in the court of the Persian emperor, he was in a position of influence to set things moving for the city of Jerusalem to be restored and its walls rebuilt. He used this influence unashamedly, getting supplies and men from the empire, rights of passage through its provinces, and protection from the slanders of the local brigands who were lording it over the people in Judah.

Esther: her beauty and wisdom and the good counsel of her uncle were used for the salvation of the Jews in exile.

Saul of Tarsus: learned in the Scriptures and theology, a native of a Greek city who was acquainted with the ways of the Gentiles, their gods, arts and pleasures. He was a good choice for breaking the soil and planting the gospel in pagan lands.

In this category one finds others who could have achieved more for God by virtue of their status and influence. Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, and who believed in Jesus. Joseph of Arimithea, a rich man who provide the corpse of Jesus with a resting place, but did not support him in any other way that we know of.

In this lesson we are faced by two challenging questions with regard to equipping and placing people who are called to, or available for, Christian leadership.

a) If God ignores the lack of expertise of people and uses them by virtue of his own power poured into their lives, why should the church bother to train or equip people for ministry and leadership?

b) Similarly, if God uses people as square pegs in round holes, who are we to try and find out how to use people in our churches according to their natural abilities? Perhaps God wants to use someone who is least qualified for the job rather than the guy who is best qualified?

These are not simple questions to answer, and a tentative evaluation may be as follows:

a) Let God take the initiative in calling and equipping (with his power) those he wishes to use as leaders.

b) Let the wider Christian community then recognise that calling and divine equipping.

c) Provide every support, encouragement and equipment for those who are identified in this way as leaders.

There is no easy “natural” way to live with the manner in which God calls, leads, and assigns ministries. He has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. The power of his message is not in human oratory or knowledge, but in the demonstration of power. He uses people that do not always look good, sound good or even always behave good – why, we do not know. It is his way.

A contemporary example of a man who was called and used by God in a role far outside of his own qualifications and experience is David Wilkerson, author of The cross and the switchblade, and founder of Teen Challenge ministry. A small town pastor from a conservative North American Pentecostal church, he followed the leading of the Holy Spirit into a world in which he stands out like a sore thumb – the gangland streets of New York. Here he was given a powerful ministry among gang members and drug addicts, for which he was not equipped by anything in his past to deal with – a ministry that continues to change the face of the city. His church and ministry in Times Square is one of the major reasons why Times Square is now a place of family entertainment whereas just a few years ago it was the seedy underside (par excellence!) of New York.

My own experience shows the ways of God, and is shared by many of us in the ministry: why call an introvert whose interest and talents is in sciences, maths, computers and similar stuff, to work as a pastor and teacher with people? Or to be a speaker? Makes no human sense, but it makes sense in God’s kingdom.

Lesson 6: Jesus the ultimate leader

Jesus told his disciples: “As my Father has sent me, so send I you.” (John 20:21) Paul says: “To the extent that I follow Jesus, be my disciples.” (1 Cor 11.1)

We are not called to gather people around ourselves except to the extent that they follow Jesus with us. He is the ultimate leader. Our leadership is always delegated leadership, which is precisely what the term “In His Name” implies. Paul calls it being an ambassador or emissary of God (2 Cor 5). He was especially critical of people who linked themselves to human leaders – he declared that they were carnal, not spiritual, in doing so (1 Cor 3:4)

Looking at the leadership of Jesus we are challenged by two aspects in particular: firstly, ways in which we can be like him, and secondly, ways in which we cannot be like him.

The distinction is fairly simple: we can be like him in his humanity, but not in his divinity. He was son of God, and to an extent so too can we be sons of God (John 1:12). However, he was also God the Son, and in that sense no one can ever be like him. Failure to make this distinction has led some into error, notably a prominent Faith teacher who claimed that “Any human could have died for sin – you or I could have done so.”

1. Jesus the Leader – beyond our reach

Jesus Christ entered this world as God in the flesh. As such he was recognised by the Father, by angels, and by demons.

In this capacity he overcame the forces that bind humanity. He took on principalities and powers, and when they had done their worst, contemptuously showed them up for what they were: powerless, disobedient and runaway slaves of the One True God, Maker of Heaven and Earth. He plundered Hades of its captives. He overcame sin in the flesh, making its sting of no account to those who believe in him. None of us can do that.

Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King in a sense that we never can be.

As prophets our words are subject to the evaluation of Scripture and of other Spirit-filled believers. His were not.

As King he rules over all of creation, including his enemies. We cannot rule, except in a delegated role in which his power works through us. Without his personal recognition no evil powers will heed us – ask the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 21). The most we hope for is to rule with him.

As Priest he is the ultimate High Priest – making a better sacrifice in a better sanctuary to provide us with a better hope and with a better salvation/atonement. He ever lives to make intercession before God for us, able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through him. None of us can do that. As a priesthood of believers we can intercede for each other and minister to each other, but, as Paul says: While we can plant and we can water, only God can give the increase! (1 Cor 3)

There are many other areas in which the leadership and rule of Jesus can be seen to be far above ours. Can you think of some?

2. Jesus the leader – our example and role model

There are many ways in which we can learn from the leadership of Jesus. In some cases he explicitly commands us to be like him:

In humility – as he, the Lord and Master, washed the feet of his disciples, he commanded his disciples to wash one another’s feet.

In losing so that we might win – as he laid down his life so that he might take it up again, so he commands us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him (Matt 16:24ff)

In obedience – he came to do the will of his Father. He did not deviate from the plan laid out by his Father in the Scriptures, not even in his direst hour: “Not my will but thy will be done!” he confronted a close friend and called him an ally of Satan for attempting to divert him from this obedience. When the devil tempted him to act outside of the mandate given him by his father, he resisted him.

In not using his influence outside of God’s plan for him – when the people would make him king, he rejected it. When he could have called a legion of angels to set him free, he did not do so. When he could have made bread from stones, he did not.

In not looking at the “results” of his ministry – when the crowds were eager to follow him, he taught them difficult things, and whittled them down to 12 reluctant disciples (John 6). He went to far as to throw cold water on an enthusiastic convert who declared his intent to follow him “anywhere he went!” – “Birds have their nests and foxes have their holes but I have nowhere to call my own.”

In laying down his life for his friends, in giving his life for the flock of God – he did not count his own life as more important than those whom he came to save and serve.

Jesus came as both the anointed Messiah and as the Suffering Servant of God. We can go out and work for him, anointed and filled with the same Spirit as rested upon him, and doing the same deeds he did – but we can only do it authentically if we do it as servants, not as masters – like he did!

If we want to be Godly leaders, we have to be prepared to learn from and emulate our ultimate leader. Under his authority we have power of all manner of evil, but he sternly admonishes us: “Do not rejoice that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” (Luke 10:20) We should not concentrate on our achievements but on his!

Lesson 7: A Biblical evaluation of a current trend in leadership training

One of the current gurus of leadership is John Maxwell. He is of special significance for Christian leadership studies because he learned his principles of leadership in a large urban church environment, but today acts as a leadership consultant to both the church and the secular world.

The work of Maxwell that I wish to look at is the summary of his leadership philosophy – The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people will follow you.

From the point of view of Christian leadership it is noticeable that in this work he derives no values at all from the Scriptures. He refers to his own career as a minister, but the role models of leadership that he presents in the work are primarily sports coaches, business entrepreneurs, political and military leaders, and gurus such as Gandhi. Maxwell is of a very popular present-day persuasion – that there is little difference between the vital principles of life and success as they function within the church and within the secular world.

Without taking issue with Maxwell on the broad issue and definitions of leadership in the world (he knows more than I!) I do believe that he is vulnerable if he believes they can be simply transferred to the kingdom of God. The Christian way has a nasty habit of functioning as an “upside-down kingdom”, in which worldly wisdom is ridiculed and defeated by God’s ways and means. What I want to do is subject some of his “irrefutable” laws to Biblical scrutiny and see if they hold water in the Christian world.

1. The law of the lid

According to Maxwell, this (first) law states that your leadership ability is the lid that determines the maximum extent of your effectiveness. The lower an individual’s ability is to lead, the lower the lid on his potential.

The single strongest Biblical dissent from this absolute standard is found in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence. In refutation of such an irrefutable law Paul would argue that God simply doesn’t give heed to that sort of thing. His choice of person, of leaders, and the impact they make, is determined solely by his intervention in their lives, the vision he gives, and the power he provides them with.

In the Bible God almost seems to delight in playing havoc with such laws! He takes the foolish, the weak, the understated and the reluctant, and uses them to change the world.

Perhaps it needs to be said at this point: Maxwell presupposes an autonomous human leader – a politician, entrepreneur, businessman, coach or general who is setting out to fulfil their own vision and meet their own destiny. In the Bible we find only circumscribed human leaders – servants of a God who chooses them and uses them despite who they are and what their developed or undeveloped leadership ability might be. In the church “effectiveness” is divine – when humans become autonomously effective, we are no longer leading in a church.

2. The law of influence

“The true measure of leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.” He uses as example Princess Diana – a person who deliberately went out of her way to cultivate influence via her media image, her involvement in charitable causes, and other typical PR-dictated ways. She became a leader because she developed influence.

Two major New Testament players simply refused to play that game – Jesus and Paul. Neither were image conscious, neither developed contacts with people of power and influence, neither were demagogues, playing the gallery and planning for popularity. Neither “covered their butts” against the mighty, nor did either curry favour with institutions and celebrities. And both became leaders whose impact still turns the world upside down – the non-Maxwell way. Both died as losers, according to the manner in which influence is judged in Maxwell’s work.

Christians have all been called to influence their age. Many have died without evidencing any measurable influence or impact on their surroundings – but what happened after their passing has shown that sometimes an un-influential seed of wheat needs to die before it can produce fruit. In losing influence during their lives many have had a profound impact after their deaths. But the Law of Martyrdom does not feature in the leadership stakes of today!

3. The law of navigation

“Anyone can steer the ship, but it takes a leader to chart the course.” In terms of autonomous human leadership again this makes sense – one needs individuals who can see the big picture and find their way through the many challenges to a successful end.

Unfortunately the Bible only recognises one Navigator: God, via the Holy Spirit. Every Christian, whether in a leadership position or not, has to recognise that their call is simply to obey the commands of the great Strategist and not to take his vision into their own hands.

This leads to some strange situations: Gideon had to fight the war against Midian God’s way – what a weird thing to do: lose 99% of your army and arm the rest with trumpets, jars and lamps! Paul and Silas followed their own strategy to take the gospel deeper into Asia – but the Holy Spirit prevented them (I wish they told us how!) and then drew them via a vision to Macedonia in Europe instead. One of God’s great strategic decisions, which meant that Asia was later evangelised by European missionaries while modern-day Europe was not evangelised by Asian missionaries!

God can use people with vision and the ability to find a way – but all of us need to remember: “There is a way that seems right unto men, but the ends are the ways of Death.” God’s ways are not our ways, and when we choose human leaders we need to find those who can hear God’s direction more than those who can see the thing clearly for themselves!

4. The law of respect

“People naturally follow leaders stronger than themselves.” Which is precisely why the entire populace of Palestine (Roman, Jew, Galilean and common people) abandoned Jesus after Palm Sunday. In fulfilling Isaiah 53 Jesus abandoned the law of respect, strength and power, and became “One whom we did not like to look at.” This problem he passed onto Christian ministers, by encumbering them with a message, a Saviour, and a way of salvation that simply does not earn the respect of humans. “It is foolishness to the thinker and offensive to the achiever.” This burden echoes throughout 2 Corinthians: Paul claims that he has no natural advantage in preaching the gospel of Jesus – all he can do is faithfully obey the God who sent him to preach, and when something happened, then he would know that it was the work of God and not of himself.

5. The law of the inner circle

“A leader’s potential is determined by those closest to him.” Which is no doubt why Jesus chose such a crowd of losers to surround himself with.

Not only is this a law that simply cannot stand in the light of Scripture, it is an extremely dangerous law for Christian leaders to follow. Its applications means that they should dismiss those who do not fit into their ministry philosophy, and gather around them only people of potential, people with whom they can click, and who can click with them. It justifies the leadership clique.

After 20 years of training pastors for ministry I have learned not to try and out-guess God on the potential of candidates presenting themselves for ministry. I was myself written off by a great Christian leader in my denomination while I was still a Bible-school student (you eavesdrop, you never hear good about yourself!). I arose to a top leadership position in the entire denomination, something he never achieved himself. I only got there because God wanted it; I neither sought it nor accepted it gladly. Similarly I have too often seen God choose the unlikely to confound the able.

One thing we need to accept in ministry is that God should be the final arbiter of our partners, including our life partners. Many ministry marriages end because a pastor applied the law of the inner circle in choosing a mate, seeking the ideal pastor’s wife instead of marrying the woman God intended for them. Many local churches become impregnable strongholds of an inner-circle’s interests and vision, to the hurt of the larger body of Christ.

Maxwell’s 21 “irrefutable” laws contain much wisdom, much of it not at odds with divine wisdom. From it one may well learn. But I have attempted to show in this lesson that Christians need to look beyond the cool, the funky, the humanly popular and wise, and submit every human thought and opinion to the scrutiny of Scripture. We need to work from out of Scripture, applying God’s revealed standards and values, rather than attempt to justify human wisdom by finding tenuous links between it and God’s word.

-----------------------

Extroverts

Introverts

People Abstracts

Sanguine Choleric

(Peter) (Paul)

(Moses) (Abraham)

Melancholic Phlegmatic

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download