Who is Your Leader?
Here below is a good article on leadership and authority. For myself, I realize that Jesus has given us spiritual authority, I am learning more about this and cannot deny it. However, no one yet has convinced me that there should be other leaders in the church besides Jesus. Ask yourself the questions: Who is your leader? Who do you follow? Are you led by the spirit or have you put your faith in another?
Jesus asks: "when the Son of man comes, shall he find faith on the earth?" Of course He will, but what kind of faith will He find? Will He find that we have trusted Him enough to see Him as the only leader among us and that we know that He is right next to us and we can depend on Him to lead us into the vicissitudes of life and to all that He has promised? He told us that where two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in the midst of us. If that is true, it is only real for those that have the faith to believe it is true and recognize His presence. I want Jesus to be completely beside us in all that we do and for us to know that He is there in a very real and personal way. Learn radical faith and come out of your conservatism. Have the faith to know that He is walking and talking with you as you seek a continual presence with Him.
What if a man (or woman) walks into a prayer meeting and wants to talk to the leader of the group? The type of faith that you have will determine the answer. Who is the leader of the group? If he comes to me, I will be quick to say that Jesus is our leader. Will you have the love for this man to immediately pray to the Lord to reveal Himself to this person so that he will have the faith to also know our leader, or will you guide him unto another person that has been designated as your leader? Jesus lives through His followers, that does not make us the leaders. Is Jesus among you in a real personal way, or is He there in a detached impersonal way? If you have sufficient faith to know He is truly there, you will not allow anyone else to be the leader but Him. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
In the spirit of unity, I will submit to others as to the Lord but I will submit to only one leader and that is Jesus. You want to be called a leader, I will not submit to you and I will counsel others not to submit to you either. I will follow your example but not your leadership, the more I see leadership in the church other than Jesus, the more I despise it. I cannot help it and I have come against it every time. I have admitted that I have a problem with it but must now admit that it is the problem of others. If I am indeed called, I must teach according to my calling. If you want to call your political and business leaders by that name, fine. Leadership in the church other than the Lord Jesus is false, corrupt, lacking in true wisdom, usurping the headship of Jesus and can only lead to pride.
Why is it so hard to take the narrow road? Pride. In every instance of leadership in the New Testament, it is either the spirit of the risen Jesus who leads or a false person, as in the blind leading the blind, led to dumb idols, into error or leading into captivity. The Father in the spirit led Jesus in every instance and then He was led away by the elders and chief priests. You may tell me that all you want to do is lead another to the Lord Jesus. Really? How many false and faithless churches with the traditions of men and the doctrines of demons are telling us the same thing? Don't you know that there are those that think of their ministry as in a position of head-ship? Put away that type of thinking. The Jesus I want to see is the One that leads me into a closer relationship with Him and to those around me. I want to follow the One who is the Way, the Truth and the life. If I put my trust in Him, He will not lead me astray. Do you think that there is anyone in this whole world that can tell me that they should be my leader? You need not follow me in this, but I will counsel you to follow my example and follow Jesus.
Of course we have spiritual authority, we know that Jesus has shared His glory with us and that we have power over demons and sickness. We have the authority to bless and rebuke in the name of Jesus, to intercede for others, to establish, to break down, to build up and to rule over the earth as our dominion. But we are nothing without Jesus, it is not our authority, dominion or glory, it is His. We have no righteousness in ourselves, we cannot save others and for sure we are not to rule over them in the church. And we are not called to lead, only the leader can do that. He is our One and Only Commander and we are not part of a worldly army but a spiritual one that must march as One in unison, marching in one rank behind Jesus, not one another. I am perfectly willing to submit to others that have the humility, love and servant attitude that we have been taught from the beginning. We are to be restored to the original purity of the early church. How can we submit to each other as in the Lord if we differentiate between leaders and followers among us? To be one body, we must submit to One Head. Let the fragments fall where they may but they will be devoured by the dogs. I want you to be perfect, without spot or wrinkle and ready to meet the Lord.
The article below is good but every time the word leader is mentioned, it could also be translated as minister and still have the truth that is intended. Why is it so hard to have Jesus as our only leader? You need to know that He wants our eyes focused on His leadership and not the leadership of man. You need to know that Jesus is the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne and He is the One that shall feed us, and shall lead us unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from our eyes. Why would you want other leaders besides Him? Why would you even want to follow another? What could be the motivation that any one of us would follow any other than Jesus unless you don't have the faith to know that He is among us when we gather together. It is He that wants you to trust Him enough to know that He shall lead us.
Those that truly follow Jesus are not leaders, they are followers, servants and ministers, and Jesus is leading them into His Kingdom. Those that love us enough, point the way to Jesus, if we are to follow their example, we do not follow them but follow the same leader they are following. The sons of God are not the ones that are being led by man but rather the ones led by the Spirit of God.
I will have more to say about authority soon and if you have more to say, please do. As to leadership, we have heard a lot and this is not the first time that we have discussed it, we took this on in depth with the Nicolaitan issue. I have had a lot of others bear witness with me the last time we discussed this, but we have yet to come to one accord. Wanting to be a leader in the church is a hard bad habit to break. The leaders in the church - who do they want us to follow? If they want to do the leading enough to be called a leader, then the answer is obvious. I will continue to tell each one of you to follow Jesus. If we are truly following Him, then we cannot follow someone else at the same time thinking we are all following Jesus. A double-minded man is unstable in all His ways. This is not a fence to straddle, it is simply deciding whom you want to follow and being totally committed to service, not leadership.
Love you all,
Jay.
LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORITY
Jim
Christians these days seem to have a problem with the issue of authority. Husbands are to have authority over their wives, or,
depending on the teacher, any man over all women. Various teachers and pastors claim authority over their listeners or
congregations. Disciplers or shepherds claim authority over their "sheep." I have heard dozens of teachings and read dozens of
books about who has authority over whom, and I have been to dozens of conferences at which the question was asked, "Yes, but
who has authority?" Seems to be a problem.
Authority is not power. Power, the brute ability to force another person against their will, is shared by both the cop and the robber.
Yet only the cop has authority: the morally legitimate ability to compel another, backed by force if need be.
For the most part, we transfer this common notion of authority directly into discussions of authority in the church. And if a person
has a dictatorial vision of how authority should operate, the same vision takes shape in the church. If a person has a managerial
vision of authority, the church ends up being administered as if it were a corporation. The list could go on, but the point is clear: our
tendency is to begin with the idea of authority that we feel comfortable with and transfer it into the church.
Yet none of these transfers are adequate, for authority in the church is different from every other authority we know, if what
Jesus said makes any difference.
JESUS' DISTURBING TEACHING on authority for his followers contrasts them with every other society. The kings of the
Gentiles, he said, lord it over their subjects, and twist this rule to appear good by calling themselves "benefactors". They exercise
their power, and try (more or less successfully) to make people think that it is for their own good. But it should never be so in the
church; rather, the one who leads is a servant and the one who rules is as the youngest (Luke 22:24-27).
Secular authority can and will exercise dominating force to ensure obedience. But leaders in the church are to be genuine
servants. As such, their leadership is based solely in truth and trust. Let me expand on this a bit.
Leaders in the church are leaders precisely because they are servants, not in pious rhetoric but in deed. When someone truly lives
a life of serving others, meeting their needs, and acting for their good, others begin to trust them. But if they are
doing things for selfish motives or because they love power, you distrust them, even though what they do may appear to be serving
you. Leadership in the body is based precisely on the trust that comes from a life of true service. More on this later.
THE NEW TESTAMENT has things to say about leadership in the church and about spiritual authority. But oddly enough, given
the magnitude of our present debates about leadership and spiritual authority, it has very little to say about a link between the two.
That is, though the scriptures are concerned about both leadership and spiritual authority, they are strangely silent about leaders
having spiritual authority or spiritual authority flowing from leaders. This silence, it turns out, is quite significant.
The New Testament uses two words which correspond to different aspects of what we mean by "authority." The first, dunamis,
is usually (and rightly) translated as "power." This word is less important for us because though power may be associated with
some kinds of authority, it also can exist without authority. A robber with a gun has power but not authority over others.
Even though it will not exactly answer our question, it will still be worthwhile to look at who has dunamis—power—in the New
Testament. If you take a walk through a concordance, you will find that the following possess power: God, Jesus, the Spirit, and
also angels, demons, principalities and powers. Human beings may be energized by them. The ministry of the gospel, the miracles
of the apostles, and the lives of believers are all conditioned on the power of God. Yet, strikingly, the New Testament never
recognizes human beings with "power" in their own right—power always comes to people from elsewhere.
Things become even more interesting when we turn to the other Greek word relevant to spiritual authority: exousia. This word is
usually translated as "power" or "authority" and is the closest equivalent (in both denotation and connotation) to our English word
"authority." The New Testament's list of those who have exousia is basically the same as those who have dunamis: God, Jesus,
the Holy Spirit, angels and demons. But now, the list can also be extended to humans who are not merely energized by other's
authority but have authority themselves.
Thus, kings have authority to rule (Rom. 13:1-2) and Jesus' disciples have authority over diseases and spirits (e.g., Matt. 10:1).
Furthermore, believers are said to have authority over various aspects of their lives: their possessions (Acts 5:4), and eating,
drinking, and being married (1Cor. 9:4-5).
What is interesting here is that the New Testament does not know anything about one believer having "authority" over another.
We have plenty of authority over things, and even over spirits, but never over other Christians. Given the present debates about
spiritual authority and leadership, that should be surprising. Kings have authority over their subjects; Paul had authority from the
high priest to persecute the church (Acts 9:14, 26:10-12). But those are from outside the church. In the church, one believer is
never spoken of as having exousia over another, regardless of their position or prestige.
With the exception, that is, of 2Cor. 10:8 and 13:10. In these texts Paul speaks of himself having "authority to build up, not tear
down". But this exception is really more a proof of the rule than a problem when you take two things into account.
First, by his own admission, Paul is speaking "as a fool" in this section of his letter, whereas he studiously avoids claiming authority
over others when he speaks "soberly."
Second, the context of the letter is one characterized by persuasion. The profound significance of this will become clear in due
course. Paul spills a great deal of ink trying to persuade the Corinthians to listen to him. If he "had authority" over them, in the
sense we usually think of it, why did he bother? Why not just give the orders and be done with it? Before we answer that, we
should notice that Paul seems to lack authority—in our everyday sense of the word—even when he is "asserting" it. Now this
should caution us against thinking of leaders as having authority merely on the basis of two sentences in 2 Corinthians.
NOW LOOK AT things from the other side. Rather than asking who has authority in the New Testament, we should ask its
opposite, whom should one obey? The answer here is interesting, too. If you examine the usage of hupakouo, which is the Greek
equivalent of "obey," you will find that we ought to obey God, the Gospel (Rom. 10:16), and the teaching of the apostles (Phi. 2:12,
2Th. 3:14). Children are to obey their parents and servants their masters (Eph 6.1, 5). Are believers to "obey" church leaders? If
they are, the New Testament doesn't say so.
But not so fast—what about the text in Hebrews 13:17 which says "obey your leaders?" This text is interesting, because it gives us
an insight into the positive side of the New Testament's understanding of leadership. Up to now I have emphasized the
negative—that they do not have spiritual authority in the usual sense, and believers are not told to obey them. In spite of all this,
the New Testament insists that there are recognizable leaders in a local body and that their existence and ministry are important to
the health of the body.
What is this clue in Hebrews 13:17. If you examine the verb translated "obey" in this text, you will find it to be a form of the word
peitho which means "persuade." In the form used here (the middle-passive) it means something like "let yourself be persuaded by"
or "have confidence in." Now that's helpful. Believers are to let themselves be persuaded by their leaders.
Leaders are to be accorded a certain respect which lends their words more weight than they have in and of themselves. And the
rest of the church should be biased in favor of listening to what they say. We are to allow ourselves to be persuaded by our
leaders—not to obey them mindlessly but to enter into discussion with them while being biased toward what they are saying. So
now we understand that it was significant that Paul's statements in 2 Corinthians were in a context of persuasion. He was trying to
persuade them to let themselves be persuaded by him.
The other verb used in Hebrews 13.17 reinforces this conclusion. When the text goes on to urge people to submit to leaders, it
does not use the garden-variety New Testament word for "submit." The normal word is hupotassomai, which connotes
something like placing oneself in an organization under another person.
The word here, however, is different. It is hupeiko, and it occurs only this once in the New Testament. Its connotes not a
structure to which one submits, but a battle after which one yields. The image (to transfer it out of the military usage) is one of a
serious discussion, an interchange after which one party gives way. This meshes nicely with the notion that we are to let
ourselves be persuaded by leaders in the church, rather than meekly submit to them as we might to the existing powers and
structures of life.
This all makes sense with the criteria for leadership in the pastoral epistles. There, character is the most important thing about
leaders—they should be "respect-able". If they are supposed to be "persuaders", it makes sense that they ought preeminently to be
respect-able, because that is the kind of person whose words we are inclined to take very seriously. The kind of respect-ability
outlined there lends credibility to the words of leaders, and hence gives us confidence in opening ourselves to being persuaded by
them.
WE NEED TO take our ideas of leadership in the church from the New Testament and not from the world. Thus, we should
begin not with a worldly concept of authority, but from the biblical idea of "persuaders" and try to flesh that out in our particular
situations.
It is true that the one by whom people are persuaded does receive a kind of respect and authority. Yet this is not the
authority-to-be-obeyed kind of authority and the mindless submission which characterizes much spiritual authority today.
We have seen that spiritual authority is based on earned trust in leaders. Yet, in the body it is also based on truth. Leaders in the
church ought to love the truth and hate being listened to when they don't speak it (and since they are not God, they won't always).
Presumably if leaders are wrong in their judgment and yet are seriously concerned to serve, they wouldn't be happy with someone
following them in their error.
Furthermore, truth is essential to the persuasiveness of leaders. But persuasion presupposes dialogue; and dialogue requires that
active participation of the whole body. A leader who has the personal charisma to persuade people of something untrue, and does
so, is demonic. And terrible, too, is a body of believers who follow mindlessly. To be persuaded of a lie is the worst form of
bondage. Leaders in the church are bound to the truth and serve it above all in their service of others. And the body of believers is
bound to the responsibility of dialogue toward truth.
The necessity of truth, by the way, is the reason why the New Testament emphasizes obeying the gospel or the apostles' teaching,
rather than leaders. The trust engendered by service is dangerous if it is not coordinated with a common submission to the truth of
the gospel. If truth and trust are not together the basis of leadership in the body, the trust which can be created by service is just
another, more subtle form of power—the power we call manipulation.
Genuine Christian leadership, then, is based on truth and trust, not on worldly authority. Leaders in the church are called to
respect-able lives of service. Such lives engender the trust of others. Yet leaders as well as the rest of the members of the body
are in common subjection to the truth which is in Christ.
Authority is RECOGNIZED not ENFORCED.
Can a woman have this trust and truth of Godly authority? You bet she can for IN CHRIST there is neither male nor female just
Christ Jesus. Therefore there have been and are women Apostles.
May 11, 2000
Latter Rain Discussion Archives
The Lord has given us the grace to reconcile the children to their Fathers
As One Body
Issue Oriented Discussion Newsletter
Index | Search This Site | Aristide.Org | The Latter Rain | Babylon the Great | The Kingdom | The Nicolaitans | Jezebel
The Baptism With the Holy Ghost | The Grand Delusion | World Trade Org | Liberation Theology | Jay Atkinson | Alphabetical Index