Frank

As someone who has studied Scripture, Christian history and theology for several years, I find myself in essential agreement with Cheryl and Paula as to the nature and function of Christian leadership. I believe that a synthesis of what Jesus, Paul and Peter teach in the NT on this subject leads one to conclude 1) the men and women who were leaders were mature, Spirit-gifted and called individuals whose responsibility was to nurture, train and equip the entire congregation for works of ministry (cf. Eph. 4:1-16); 2) in the NT situation, the term “elder” as described the maturity and stability of those who served as leaders, while the terms “overseer” and “minister” describe their primary functions (cf. Titus 1:5-2:5); and 3) when the Spirit-gifts and calls people in the congregation to ministry to the congregation or to the outside world, besides doing their part to train and equip these people for ministry, the elders are to lay hands on these people as an act of recognition and blessing upon them as ministers of Christ, called by him and having his power and authority to carry on this ministry (e.g., Acts 13:1-3). And while elders have responsiblilites to nurture, train, and equip the saints, and to also guard them from spiritual wolves, having Christ’s power and authority for the work they do, they are not lords and masters of the congregations (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-4). And as for decision making in the church, whether it has to do with doctrinal or practical issues, I think Acts 15 indicates a process of open discussion and mutual consent, first, among the leaders as advocates of the congregations, and then between the leaders and the congregations. Though I know others may not fully agree with me, I do think this a biblically and theologically sound analysis of the nature and function of NT leadership.

Furthermore, I think it is interesting that Alister McGrath, in his recent book the history of Protestantism, PROTESTANTISM’S DANGEROUS IDEA, points out that the doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” was understood to involve, among other things, mutual accountability for doctrine and practice between the church leaders and congregations. The leaders were to teach the congregation sound Christian doctrine and ethics so as to live godly lives and be effective witnesses for Christ, but the congregation, on the basis of this same sound Christian doctrine and ethics, also had the responsibility to test the doctrine and practice of the leaders, and to call for their rebuke and discipline when they clearly had strayed. This understanding of the “priesthood of believers,” according to McGrath, was the Protestant answer to the Roman Catholics charge that Protestants had no means of restraining false doctrine or immoral living in their midst. Perhaps, if Protestant churches really understood and practiced “the priesthood of all believers,” some of these present church leaders would be humbled and reminded what their true role and function in the congregation is supposed to be. The question is, of course, whether or not Protestant churches and seminaries are willing to really practice what they preach.