If we are going to transition from church-as-we-know-it (a box) to a dynamic Spirit-filled movement, we will also have to transition from leadership-as-we-know-it to something else.
Alan Creech says the WHOLE thing has to be reinvented:
I mean full-time, paid staff pastors who preach every Sunday and do pretty much all the ministry and stress themselves silly over every little thing in the community – yada, yada. I think this will kill us if we keep this up. It’s beginning to happen, but we’ve really got to re-envision what it means to be a pastor, leader, elder, whatever in our new churches. I don’t think we can afford to keep the old pastoral paradigm alive any more. We can’t do that and expect to happen what we want to happen in these communities.
Fortunately, we don’t have to reinvent leadership. The early church, a dynamic people movement, was supported by dynamic leadership that is contrary to today’s models yet clearly outlined in the New Testament.
Unfortunately, as always, we have to unlearn all that we know about leadership in order to grasp what it can be.
The number one issue (in my thinking) is simply this: New Testament leadership had nothing to do with c-o-n-t-r-o-l. When this is fully digested then, and only then, can we begin to grasp what leadership is meant to be.
Leadership-as-we-know-it in today’s church structures has to do with taking charge of finances, buildings, and centralized decision-making processes that involve roles and organization. It has become a business-like “CEO” type of role. Almost none of this has anything to do with the New Testament church-movement.
In addition, leadership-as-we-know-it usually involves setting one class of people (leaders) above the rest (members, or laity).
Gordon Fee says this about the historical development of church leadership:
Historically the church seems to have fallen into a model that eventually developed a sharp distinction between the people themselves (laity) and the professional ministry (clergy), reaching its sharpest expression in the Roman Catholic communion, but finding its way into almost every form of Protestantism as well. The net result has been a church in which the clergy all too often exist apart from the people, for whom there is a different set of rules and different expectations, and a church in which the “gifts” and “ministry”, not to mention significance, power structures, and decision making, are the special province of the professionals. Being “ordained” to this profession, the latter tend to like the aura that it provides, and having such ordained professionals allows the laity to pay them to do the work of the ministry and thus excuse themselves from their biblical calling.
New Testament leadership, on the other hand, was clearly a servant role (didn’t Jesus say something about that?) that provided a support structure for the people-movement to take off, multiply, go crazy, and otherwise careen madly (by the Spirit) out of control.
New Testament leaders did not occupy positions on boards; they did not have control of buildings nor all-church finances; they did not have the limelight of admiration or attention (except by those who enjoyed physically beating them).
Their role was to facilitate, plant, nurture, release, build up, serve… not dominate, nor control, nor set the one-man-vision course, nor have all the answers. They were not set above, but rather, set below. The Holy Spirit, after all, works through and leads the entire Body of Christ.
The mentality of a leader is to travel alongside. The heart of a leader is to serve. The role of a leader is to support. This is not rhetoric. It must be truly walked out.
I love the way Eugene Peterson, in The Message, recounts Jesus’ message about religious leaders who seek to sit at the head table, who “bask in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery”:
You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don’t set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of ‘Father’; you have only one Father and he’s in heaven. And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.
Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant. If you puff yourselves up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you.
One of the ways, in our own churches, that we make sure this is walked out is that control, one hundred percent of all control, remains one hundred percent with each house church. The church is directed by the Holy Spirit through all the members. “Shepherds” facilitate, shepherd, support, equip, give spiritual direction—all support roles designed to release and empower the church to be the church. That’s it. It is a spiritual, supporting-cast role. Period. If anyone pays any attention it’s because that person, in that situation, is demonstrating the heart of God.
Yet, when walked out this way, how important is servant-leadership as a support structure for the church-people-movement?
Very!
It’s essential to the overall health and well-being of the collective church. It provides a valuable support structure for the movement to keep moving, thriving, and growing.
As Craig Pelkey-Landis says:
Leadership doesn’t have to be a matter of one person’s ego basking in the glow of a few or thousands of devoted congregants. Toss that model in the garbage can. But running away from leadership can be just as toxic.
Leadership must be re-defined and re-aligned, but not thrown out altogether. We need servant-leaders who are shepherds, planters, gardeners, cultivators, releasers, givers, and equippers.
We see from Scripture two primary leadership-servant roles. 1. The elder/shepherd: to shepherd, disciple disciplers, encourage evangelism and reproduction, give spiritual direction, and counsel deeper needs. Timothy and Titus, as examples, were shepherds of shepherds. The books written to them ring out with the importance of churches being under girded by true shepherds. 2. The church-planter and five-fold itinerant ministers (Eph. 4:…): to help found, support, and nurture churches. They did not run churches, they supported them.
Yes, true spiritually-minded support teams are needed to help equip, under gird, release, empower, encourage, build up, and call out to the church to be the church—in and of themselves—to keep gathering and going.
This support structure is like the hidden skeletal system. It provides strength so that everything else in the Body of Christ can find its place and fully function. Leadership is part of what God has placed in His Body for the overall health of the Body—hidden, yet serving a powerful purpose.
We have found that it is valid and Biblical (though not necessary) to provide financial support for both of the leader-servant roles mentioned. But these are decisions that are fully made by the house churches. They are the church. They need no one else to actually be the church. They support certain leader-servant roles only because and if they feel called to do it in the same way that they support other missionaries or ministries.
However, the leadership-support structure cannot become possessive of the fruit, organize the members, put a fence around the harvest, or take ownership of anything. This type of support lets go of everything but the desire to see others run with their vision, their calling, and their God-given destiny. This type of support structure does not try to become a kingdom, a business, or a ministry: it just does the servant work of supporting the ministries of others and the churches themselves.
Leadership: difficult to deal with, needed, yet it must be put in its place!
This subject, typically, elicits many responses. What’s yours?
Comments
30 responses to “House Church Basics– Pt. 5: What About Leadership?”
As I was reading this I was thinking “how can there be no leader” and this paragraph answered it well:
Leadership must be re-defined and re-aligned, but not thrown out altogether. We need SERVANT LEADERS who are shepherds, planters, gardeners, cultivators, releasers, givers, and equippers.
I thought this statement summed it up best.
Cindy High
This type of support structure does not try to become a kingdom, a business, or a ministry: it just does the servant work of supporting the ministries of others and the churches themselves.
This sounds like what we also have been shown see
http://www.watercarriers.org
Peace
With this type of leadership structure there is no check or balance; what I mean is how do you prevent the raising up of WACO or similar type leaders? Also if there is no organized leadership it seems you would end up with a very fragmented church with parts that may get their theology skewed. There are valid points raised in this that should be and I think will have to be addressed in more traditional organizations.
I appreciate this comment in that it reflects a concern that is commonly expressed. I do believe, however, that history has demonstrated that organizational structures are responsible for the spread of most heresy and skewed theology. The difference here is that organic structures are built on relationship, hence a greater safeguard.
I ran across this site by accident. Thanks for putting it on the web. I also see that “church” in america is not the new testament church and long to meet with a uncontrolled intimate, open, group in houses.
By the way, what is the deal with the Rev. title in Rev. Dave Kanis??? I don’t think the head of the church would care for that. Nor does it follow the philosphy of servant.
Can we really say that only house churches are the Christian way? Doesn’t the bible say how men were set up at the tables to distribute the money to the widows? Aren’t the elders placed or recognized in the bible as specifically asked to help serve the “churches” What about the Apostles? Weren’t they the leaders that are talked about above? I think it is HOW the leader leads rather than the common structure we see today.
I don’t want to be guilty of limiting God to yet another “box”, house church. I believe that God can work anywhere. I sometimes let my past hurts cloud my view of the entire traditional church. A leaders character is what is what counts. I know that God is and will continue to reach people in the traditional church. He will use good leaders and bad leaders to accomplish His will.
Now my pitch for house church leader structure.
I have been involved in large traditional church where I saw people become intoxicated by the authority they were given. These people lead with a charm that drew people to them. I began to see people following a man and not Christ. In the house church system the authority is spread among the people. Naturally people tend to look to more mature Christians for spiritual answers, but different people seek out different spiritual “parents” to look up to. The focus is not on a single person. I fee this sharing of responsibility and authority helps to keep the group on track. With no single person leading the group in a single direction the group as a whole grows. This helps to prevent over emphasizing a single spiritual teaching and ignoring others. Keep seeking God wherever you are.
I know this sounds crazy, but I agree with both sides. People may say you cannot agree with both sides. However, I understand and one of the things I believe is that church leaders in some instances need to be a little more understanding of their people. Not all complaining is wrong. In the business world when a customer complains the company tries to find out what it is their doing wrong and fix it. In other words, it does good to listen to your customers. Well who are our customers? The people we serve whether they are in the body of Christ or not. I am not saying let the members dictate to the leaders but the leaders must listen to the members and should be held accountable (answer) to the members. I remember one time listening to Bro. Hagin and he said that we all should submit to (be held accountable to) one another. That’s Bible. Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. I believe in the traditional church, but I believe all traditional churches need to have home cell groups or life care groups, or touch groups or whatever you want to call it in order for the body of Christ to minister to itself in love.
I think you have hit the nail on the head! The Church needs small connected, caring groups for growth and ministry to really take place. This is where real relationships take place. It’s a place where you can be involved with the details of people’s lives. It is also a place where a group of like-minded people can focus their talents and resources on the needs they see around them.
I believe this works itself out best in a House Church setting. Not because it can’t work in traditional Church just that it is easier in a House Church. A House Church that is not connected to a larger Church has the freedom to use its resources where it see fit, there is no need for the large “overhead” that traditional Churches carry. With a simple approach to Church each person becomes responsible for their part in the group, there is no “back row” to hide in. I feel this allows each person to fully embrace their gifts and calling. These small groups develop leadership from within as the teachers and pastors naturally begin to use their gifts. I see this as a more natural well-rounded leadership structure. There are not just 1 or 2 people expected to fill all the roles within the church.
This doesn’t just “happen”, it does take someone to “shepard” these groups in a way that allows this sort of growth to take place. It is not easy and it is not something the groups I am involved with have perfected. We as humans when faced with a situation that we are not sure of naturally want someone to lead us through it. It takes maturity for a person to truly lead from the shadows and allow the group to develop it’s own structure. As the group develops and grows it will naturally “spin off” other groups that have this foundation of leadership from within. This structure does have the danger of a “rouge” group losing site of the truth, so I feel that these groups must maintain contact with the larger body of Christ. This contact will allow people to check in and make sure that their group is not becoming distorted.
Julien Foy – one problem I see in what you are saying here is that it is still “us” and “them” as far as leadership and members are concerned. I think the only real leader should be Jesus, by means of the Spirit. Yes, we should all submit to one another and be willing to hold each other accountable, but that’s very different from “leader” and “members.”
I also have a problem with “leaders must listen to the members and should be held accountable (answer) to the members.” This is the understanding of most people in the traditional/institutional church, and when the “members” don’t like what the “leaders” are saying, whether it’s biblical or not, they think that because the leaders “answer” to them (they sign their paychecks) they have the right to “dictate” what is or isn’t said and who stays or who goes away until the “members” are comfortable and their ears are being tickled again.
Is there a balance between what I’ve just described and the “leaderless” images people get when house church is mentioned? Yes there is. Does it take time and energy to find that balance? Yes it does. The question is then, are we willing to put forth and give our energy and time to do so?
I have to say here that for me, the purpose of house church is not just to get out of the institutional church and do my own thing, although that sounds refreshing it obviously can lead to problems even worse than institutional churches have. No, the purpose is to discern and exercise the truth of the gospel, to see our Master and to fellowship with Him in the keenest and truest sense – the Way. The Way is His Way. In other words, the NT blueprinted the common practices and principles of fellowship. They remain God’s preferred way, not man’s. There is an awakening to those practices today. I believe it is God who is opening our eyes to the power of a simple, reproducible, organic, living experience with Him and each other. The real challenge is in the “each other” but if we are true to the NT pattern, we will see and experience true ‘body ‘life. We must never put our traditions before the truth of God (Mark 7).
I heard a quote recently that applies well. Something to the effect of, “Shepards should smell like sheep”.
My husband and I went back into the IC for one more time around. Now we’ve stepped out again…I’m sure we’ll never return. No quarrels, disagreements, or anything like that. Just a sense that it’s all wrong. I got a book by Wolfgang Simsom called “Houses that change the World”. Quite a confirmation and an eyeopener. We were actually sent out of our church with a blessing! Now we will start toward being a NT house church and RELAX in the Holy Spirit and see what God wants to do.
The biggest question I face are the scriptures about the structure of 5-fold ministries, elders and deacons. Even in Simson’s books there seems to be an elevation of the apostolic and prophetic. Personally, I agree and see no way around that in one sense. Those ministeries travel from house to house bringing teachings, corrections and prophesies, etc.
What would keep those who tend toward ambition to not want to climb that ladder? Since we haven’t been part of a house church yet, I’m hoping that the balance is kept by all sharing together to prevent anyone getting “off” on a glory trip. Especially since that is what we all want to be free from. Yet, according to the Word, all these ministries are necessary to equip the saints.
This site is very informational and well written. Thanks for putting it here for those of us who are seeking to move into the new thing that God is doing across the earth today.
Blessings to you
Carol – “Even in Simson’s books there seems to be an elevation of the apostolic and prophetic. What would keep those who tend toward ambition to not want to climb that ladder?”
Good questions. I don’t know that there is an exact answer. But from my own personal experience within the HC, there have been those who were ambitious and wanted to elevate themselves, but were, for the most part, unable to do so. Mainly because they did not possess either of those two giftings.
Those who did possess those giftings were generally very cautious when it came to using or exercising them because of their understanding of what kind of impact their actions could have on the people.
I didn’t see much elevating of individuals. It was more of a coming into or stepping into who they were created and gifted to be. As they stepped into those “roles”, because of the relationships that were already established within the gathering, it was a very natural thing. The people had gotten to know them as one’s who were very intentional in the way they lived their faith, and it made it more of an automatic thing to receive, or hear and understand, what the Lord was doing through them.
Typically, anyone who is motivated by a selfish ambition will only be able to disguise it for a certain amount of time before it becomes obvious to those around them. I find this especially true in the closeness of house church.
Peace to you.
(I’d love to hear what others have experienced on this topic.)
i tend to agree with you. the more we have got away from the pattern that christ left for his church the greater the trouble we have created for ourselves. jesus left us a simple pattern to use and people, for a number of reasons, have created ‘monsters’.
The problem I have struck is that people who have rejected the traditional church leadership structure, also reject any form of leadership by a single person in a group, even if that is what the Holy Spirit was leading that person to do. It’s because not every believer has the discernment that certain gifts in the body have. Because they can’t discern what the Spirit is saying, they reject altogether what the Spirit wants. Sometimes, as in my particular case, God sends someone along with a message and direction He wants the particular group to take. But if they have developed a particular, erroneous, house-church philosophy/model in their heads, it seems very difficult to shift. It grieved me terribly as the Holy Spirit was leading me to teach and they were loving it as long as they weren’t put on the spot to actually implement what the Spirit was saying. When that time came it just caused heartache and trouble. So, I’m left without fellowship again. All forms of church I have encountered have basically fallen down because people can’t seem to hear the voice of the Spirit of God, and when someone comes along who is sharp in that gift, which I happen to be, they basically vote it down. They don’t like that one man has a direct line to heaven. Well, sometimes, that’s the way it is. You’d just love to edify the body with your particular gift, and you can see how that would happen, but they just can’t see it.
Geoff
Great comments Valdez.
One of our ultimate goals should be to ensure that each member is equipped such that our fellowship truly enjoys, as Proverbs suggests, the wisdom that comes from the counsel of many. In that, a true leadership by consensus will evolve – even if an individual leader is facilitating the effort.
When a consensus is not reached, those who are wise leaders among the group will quickly begin to facilitate a dialogue such that all members have an opportunity to grow through the differences. Until a God-centered, Spirit-led consensus can be reached, those wise leaders/facilitators know that the group is ill-advised to move forward. Such leaders/facilitators will also quickly recognize the difference between a time where the Holy Spirit is not providing clear direction versus the pride that might be causing one or two to hold out for their own agenda. The mature leaders/facilitators will not faint back from addressing this issue, but clearly understand the need to address it in a way (Matthew 18) that seeks to win all involved.
Now, if I can just get that beam out of my eye…
I think that the key factor in Christian leadership is influence. It is not about position but it is about whether or not you are able to influence others……not to fufill your agenda but to assist them in unlocking thier own potential and helping them……Jesus said…”Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.” It is about following him and not denominations or men.
One thing that keeps coming back to me regarding this leadership issue is that of spiritual gifts. The books of Ephesians and 1 Corinthians make it clear that God has ordained certain individuals as pastors, teachers, and administrators. In other words, people who disseminate the word of God to the rest of the group and see to the administration aspects of the ministry. There is nothing wrong or evil about this – in fact, it is very Biblical. On the other hand, I do agree that the concept of church leadership has been warped over time, and no longer do most pastors really shepherd and nurture their people. So in that respect, I agree wholeheartedly with the article. But we must also acknowledge that we need sound Biblical guidance and a true representation of Bible doctrine in our house churches, and some people simply are not capable of providing that. That’s where the teacher/pastor comes in. Without the guidance of one learned in the scriptures providing revelation to everyone else, all you have is an exercise in what could turn out to be heresy. I love the house church model. I don’t want to do it any other way. But within that context we need leaders who teach, nurture, love, and yes, lead, just as Paul led with authority. The scriptures teach a Biblical order of spiritual hierarchy (I know that’s a bad word in house church circles), and we would do well to adhere to this model. It is there for our good.
hmmm… Interesting comments, Andrew. I wonder if there is a difference between true spiritual authority and the positional hierarchy that we tend to refer to as leadership in the church?
Roger, this is a wonderfully insightful statement. A book that brings clarity to that issue is an old book by the Asian missionary, Watchman Nee, called Spiritual Authority. The thesis of the book, if I were to oversimplify it, is something along the lines of what you said: There are leaders who lead by throwing their weight around, but then there are those whom God has ordained to lead because of obvious gifts to do so, and we are obliged by God through the scriptures to submit to that authority.
Now, I know I am probably going to be labeled a house church heretic, but I believe the scriptures could not be any clearer on this subject. The scriptures very clearly promote – indeed command – that we submit to a Biblical order of authority. Let me clarify. I don’t mean a Jim Jones syle leadership with absolute power. I mean that within each body of believers, there will emerge a person(s) who has the gift of illuminating the scriptures to the rest of the group. There will also be others perhaps, if the group is big enough, that will serve as “elders,” or what the original Greek manuscripts call “overseers.” (Now there’s another word that house churchers don’t like – overseer. But that’s what the scriptures say.) God places these people among us so that the integrity of Bible doctrine may be maintained and so that His people walk in the truth of His Word. He also commands us to “honor” such people and to “submit to their authority.” What does that mean? Does it mean that we must do everything they tell us regardless? Not necessarily. But as long as our leaders and teachers are truly nurturing and feeding us as loving shepherds, we should pay them special honor and submit to their teachings as long as those teachings are Biblical.
See, here’s some potential problems with us house churchers if we aren’t careful.
First, we think that everyone should have equal authority. Not true. Yes, we are all on equal footing when it comes to our relationship with God. I saw in one article on this website where the writer said that there is one cheif, and the rest of us are just indians. Well, that’s true, but the Supreme Cheif – God – has delegated certain jobs – “positions” if you will – to certain ones whom He has chosen. So while we are all equals, God has said that He has appointed certain ones to be pastors, teachers, elders, evangelists, etc. and they operate with His authority. That’s why being a person in “authority” is such an incredible responsibility, because the pastor/teachers speaks “as the oracles of God.” That’s why James says, “Brethren, let not many of you assume to be teachers, because we who teach will be judged with the greater condemnation.” Wow! Now…how many of you want to be teachers? Any takers? But yet that’s what God has called a select few to in order enrich the rest of us.
Too many house churchers want to come together and throw around a few abritrary ideas based upon some very loose interpretations of the scriptures and then say they had church. And that’s how heresies get started. They don’t want anyone challenging them; they don’t want anyone telling them how it is; they just want to get together and Cum-bay-ah. This is one of the great tragedies coming out of the house church movement, that we want to divorce ourselves so much from the institutional church that we abandon spiritual authority and church structure altogether. I think that is a gigantic mistake. What does the book of Acts say about how the New Testament did church? It says “They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching.” In other words, the people recognized the spiritual authority that these men had, and they submitted themselves to their teachings. And the apostles, I’m sure, served humbly in that capacity.
Secondly, we often are guilty of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We think that EVERYTHING the institutional church does needs to be scrapped, and I must respectfully disagree. Yes, the institutional church has a lot of things wrong, but they are also doing a few things very right. Let’s take artistry, for example. We house churchers want to keep things simple, and I think that’s great. I like simple, too. But does that mean that production and artistry is wrong? Absolutely not. Just read the Old Testament and see how God commanded Moses to worship and decorate the Tabernacle. God likes extravagance just as much as He appreciates humble offerings of worship. God is the consummate artist, and I think He appreciates choreographed dance, choirs, drama, and beautifully arranged music. I know I appreciate it.
Lastly, I think we house churchers are guilty in some cases of committing the same sins against the institutional church that they have committed against us – spiritual elitism. I fear that all too often we strut around in a spiritual sense as if house church is the only place where God is doing anything and that we have all the answers. Friends, house church is a wonderful movement that I am pleased to be a part of, but we must be careful of spiritual pride. House church is just another way that God is moving in the earth, but it isn’t the only way. In spite of the many pitfalls of institutional church, God has used it to His glory in many ways, and in spite of the many shortcomings of house church, God will use it as well.
Sorry for the length of this, but I hope this is helpful to someone.
How do you lead without a leader?
That is the point. Christ is the leader…we have to get the human leaders out of the way so He can lead. THAT IS THE POINT!
For two years, our group met in our home. Everyone who attended the same church in our neighborhood comprised our group. There was no planning or formal teaching. We just met with the intention of edifying each other in the Lord, and the Holy Spirit showed up. Ever meeting was different. It has to be if the Holy Spirit is in charge. Those who wanted could share a teaching or a simple passage of scripture and tell how it helped them that week.
Why must it be unstructured? Because every week the needs are different. Circumstances change, conflits arise, there are hurts that surface, sometimes there is great and joyful events that take place.
The “church” is a living organism. In our neighborhood group, sometimes we would be packed out wall-to-wall and those times were usually a lot of fun and lots of sharing and singing. I noticed sometimes when we had the fewest people, there were some serious matters that would surface. For instance, one of the single girls, a new convert came. There was just a few attending that night. Our oldest elderly women were absent and they would have been very disturbed by what took place. I knew it was for a reason. A young college age girl emotionally fell apart and began to relay a horrific story of how she had been gang raped when she was in high school. She shared how desperate she had become until finally she was transformed by the Holy Spirit when she accepted Jesus. That night was an amazing healing ministry as each and everyone there prayed for her, shared scripture, and express their sorrow and love for her. Wise … Holy counsel came forth. I saw the power of the Body of Christ before my eyes. So you see, when the Holy Spirit moves, he supplies exactly what is needed and the group to hear it. Christians need to LEARN how to follow and trust the Holy Spirit. It can’t happen if a professional leader takes control and they always do.
see also http://www.theunstructuredchurch.net/
This looks like a very heathy dicussion. I am reminded that what Paul did in the school of Tyranus (Acts 19:9)for two years was not teaching but discussing. In our church we find that the best way of learning about a tipic is not to have one person “preach” but to have a general discussion on the subject at hand. Yes there may be someone in the meeting who is an “expert” on the subject but that person doesn’t do all the talking, in fact things work best when they keep quiet for most of the time and just chip in every now and then to keep things on teh right tracks. That is how I believe church leaders should act, they are not there to do all the ministry or teaching but to oversee. Overseer is one of the most common nouns used for church leaders in the NT.
I like to draw an anology between the church and a factory making, for example, TVs. A production line will have a supervisor (elder). His/her job is not to carry out all of the work himself but to supervise the work of others (other church members), to make sure they are getting it right, to make sure the environment is safe. What we have in most traditional churches is that the supervisor has decided that the best way of making sure the TVs get made just right is to tell those in the factory (church) to sit down and watch him do it “just to make sure it is done right you understand!” How disasterous, how many TVs get made? How do the stills of those in the factory develop?
Another point to note is that in the NT churches did not have just one leader, they had several. See for example Acts 20:17 to end. Paul addresses the elders (plural) of the church (singular) at Ephesus. The is safety in having several leaders, if one gets it wrong the others can correct him.
This is a very good post on leadership and I agree with most that has been written. But I want to add one scripture to the dialogue: 1 Cor. 12:28 says that God has placed first apostles, second prophets, third teachers …. and on it goes. Many have said that this is just a list. But I want to say, that this was given by the Holy Spirit for a reason, there is a good reason why apostles are first, and prophets second and teachers third. There is a need for the divine order of church government. In God’s order for the New Testament Church,He has places apostles first. They have the special anointing for leadership. The real apostle is humble and broken inside, and has gone through years of training and preparation by the Lord. Most apostles don’t start out as apostles, they start out as a teacher or prophet or pastor or evangelist and with time God commissions them as apostles. They have the authority to bring the others together in team ministry.
I agree that the local church must have its own leadership, its best to have a leading elder and other elders that work as a team with him. But also the leading elder needs to relate to a spiritual father. So the church is moving from the organizational structure to the relational structure. True apostles are not controling but have fathers hearts. There needs to be the father son kind of relationships in the churches. I think its good if the elders in the church have a spiritual father, who gives correction, counsel and input into their lives, and this comes through relationship. Its not good if a senior leader of a church is independent, but he needs a place of accountablity. This is not contoling accountablity but relationship accountability, through intimacy of relationship between a spiritual son and spiritual father. There is a balanced form of accountablity that is biblical. Jesus was 100% accoutable to his Father. He only did and said what he saw and heard His father do and say. Thats where he got his authority from .
Do you know what the word SON really means. It means, SUBMITTED ONE. You see the real son, is submitted to his father. Its like in a home, the father makes some rules and wants the son to obey the rules, as they are good rules, he wants to have a pleasing son, who obeys. The son doesn’t obey out of fear (slave mentality) but out of love (the spirit of sonship). This is a very important apostolic value that needs to be part of the church. Before you can be a father in the church and have your own spiritual sons and daughters, you need to learn to be a son yourself. Do you have a father who you are submitted to? Or are you free and independent? (spirit of slavery)
A real father lays down his life for his children, he serves and supports them from under, and lifts them up. The real apostle is at the bottom, he is the foundation that holds the rest up. The apostle gets his hands and body dirty down there in the mud, he is a foundation builder, its a dirty humble job. He lifts up his sons and daughters to go on and do greater work than he himself, he has a real fathers heart.
It seems to me from your post above, a lack of this spiritual father and spiritual son aspect. There seems to be too much freedom and sometimes a lack of accountability. Don’t misunderstand me, we need to allow freedom for the Holy Spirit to move and allow and administration of the Holy Spirit in gatherings, leadership is not above God and above the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Also in your post, I don’t think there is enough honor given to the offices of apostle, prophet, teacher, pastor and evangelist. You didn’t even mention the words apostle and prophet. Yet they are the foundation building ministries in the church today. If you receive a prophet as a prophet you will receive a prophets reward. The house church movement, needs to allow these five offices to operate in the gatherings, they are meant to equip and train the saints. Remember the local church is just one aspect of influence in the community. Most of us work in in the market place, in local or national government, in media, in business, in education and few of us work as leaders in local churches. Yet the fivefold offices are there to train each one to be effective in the community.
The small group house church gathering has its place. But there also needs to be gatherings where gift offices such as apostles, prophets and teachers can spend time to equip saints. This training is very practical, its not just knowledge to puff us up and get us full of pride. Its practical training, so we can minister in the community.
The house church movement must not just have the one kind of gathering, but look at having different kinds of gatherings, so that we can mature and be effective in society and advance the kingdom on the earth.
John Marcus
Kyoto Japan
http://www.youtube.com/ApostleProphet
http://www.JonnMarcus.wordpress.com
Using the term “officees” to describe the “five-fold” is wrong. That word does not even appear in the original greek and the term was used during the middle ages (hence the use in the KJV) to elevate the different ministry gifts above the so-called laity by English clergy.
Also, the word “submit” in the NT–especially in Hebrews–means to let yourself be persuaded by; not a demanded obeyance of a ministry gift
WHAT ABOUT LEADERSHIP?
I am new to the Simple House Church.
And this post will make me somewhat vulnerable, as I might share stuff that is a little personal. But I’ll test the waters 🙂
There was a season in my life, where for many years I lived in very close proximity with other believers, and where the word was awesome and the anointing good.
Eventually there was a need for me to return to aging parents in their final years. It was then I realized how much liberty I had. How micromanaging the ICs around me are. Within the IC I watched young Christians on Fire for Jesus so excited about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, only to be told, howbeit in well-cloaked terms, they would never be allowed to exercise themselves in what the Holy Spirit has for them.
They are trapped within a cunning labyrinth of spiritual glass ceilings. Perhaps with your understanding of religious flesh, you recognize that kind of leadership. But those dear sincere little ones are still there, locked in by fear. Will those leaders ever lovingly feed the little ones with liberating truths? How to differentiate the fruit of the Spirit from religious testosterone? Or will those little ones spend their lives locked in a permanent parent/child relationship. Parents in the natural want their own children to grow up to the measure of the stature of their potential in Christ. How much more does God desire the same for us? Paul is so full of the Father’s heart. He says “I would gladly be spent for you, even though I know you will love me the less for it”. “Christ IN YOU is the hope of glory”. To know a heart like that is to know a leader. In the garden, the serpent has two very subtle messages. 1. You are not who God say’s you are, and 2. you can’t trust in God’s love. Perhaps a true leader is one whose desire is that I realize how much I really am what God says I am, and how bountiful God’s love really is toward me. And that desire compels he/she to suffer loss for that end, without even considering it a loss. Maybe my thinking is too (pie in the sky).
God’s love is a magnetic force to my life. For me, that force can also be strong when its poured out through another. When His sheep hear His voice they follow.
I know it’s a bit late to comment on John Marcus’ excellent comment but I must say how sweet it is to find a defense of the ministries of the apostle and prophet on a simple church site.
While I so agree that we must get away from the adulation of men, the “Iam of Paul…Cephas…Apollos” syndrome that Paul corrected the Corinthians on, we also must avoid the “I am of Christ” group that he also rebuked. It sounds very spiritual to take that position but I’m not sure that Jesus gave us such a purist option.
After all “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” (Eph 4:11) Paul’s great balancing revelation however is that Christ gave these ministries, not to gather unto themselves but “to prepare God’s PEOPLE for works of service”,to release that great ‘people movement’ to go and fullfill there true calling. But I contend that it is not going to happen just by us sitting in in our living rooms and ‘allowing the Holy Spirit’ to lead rather than men, as if the Spirit is restricted and cannot lead through men.
Truth is there has never been a move of God where there was not key men or women in some leading role, whether it be a Moses, a Wesley, a Zinzendorf, an Edwards or whatever. And usually such people were apostles or prophets, men who carried a bigger picture than just the local fellowship.
It concerns me for instance when I hear homechurches refer to themselves as local churches when Paul, with the bigger picture, seemed to see all the saints in a local area as the local church, encompassing a variety of ways of meeting but with an eldership over the whole town that carried a much bigger vision than the smaller ‘house to house’ gatherings, vital as they were. I believe that that is God’s bigger intention and that only the restoration of true servant apostles and prophets can take us into that fuller expression of Christ. I’m passionate about home church/simple church but I tend to believe that until we welcome the restoration of apostles and prophets among us we will finish up where we’ve come from, “of Paul…Apollos…Cephas” with an elitist and marginialised group maintaining that “we are of Christ”.
Phillip Walters
http://www.backyardbelievers.com
Can you tell me what is the Defferences function between Pastor and Elders? what is Clergy?laity?
You are right that there is a timeline problem if indeed John’s Revelation was written in AD95, but there is far more evidence that it, along with the rest of the New Testament was written before AD70. For one, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple before His generation passed away and we know that this happened in the year AD70. So if John wrote in AD95, why wouldn’t he have proclaimed that Jesus’ prediction had come true like was the custom of the New Testament writers when something was fulfilled? Instead he doesn’t mention the destruction because it hasn’t happened yet. I know for sure that Gary DeMar and Hank Hanegraaff can give you more reasons for an early date and against a late date. Hope it helps some.