Post for marc (very long).

Last week Marc posed a question about what I'd written regarding pastors. I didn't have the time to answer properly, so I ducked the question, intending to come back later. Now is later. Below is my attempt to answer some of what was asked.

Marc wrote:
I'm curious to know what Biblical leadership looks like in your view.

Who is eligible for leadership? Who appoints them? Or should it arise naturally? Where are 'lay' people in all this--are they those who are not "gifted" in any leadership capacity?

More importantly, what does leadership and authority actually look like within the church--how does it play out? Leadership by definition seems to imply some who are set apart from others for that particular "assignment" (a term I got somewhere in my seminary reading, which I like).


Who is eligible for leadership – everyone that is given gifting to be a leader and will walk in it in faith. Rom 12 v3-8 covers it well, where it talks about having different giftings and the need to exercise faith in them, including leadership. Is leadership a matter of training and expectation or a gift from God? This passage implies it’s gifting – not that training is not important, but training and ability aren’t the reason someone is a leader in the church.

Who appoints them? Or should it arise naturally? Both. I would expect that someone with a gifting & calling for leadership to be living that out in the way the operate in church, before they are recognised formally in a leadership capacity. If someone is called to be an elder then I would expect them to not only fit the various scriptural qualifications, but also that people will seek them out for leadership. They will have demonstrated Godly wisdom and insight and been able to teach and guide in the things they say and the way they live their lives.

When the individual is demonstrating their calling through the way they function in the church I would expect that to be recognised by the existing leadership. They would formally recognise that calling in front of the church, laying hands on the individual that they would receive more of the grace and gifting required to walk in the role to which they have been called.

Where are 'lay' people in all this – They are all ‘lay people’. Each should be functioning in the gifting they have received, operating up to the limits of the grace and faith given them. There is no special class of people who are different from everyone else, who have a right to perform certain duties, rites or sacraments. It is also important to realise that this kind of church grows out of relationship, rather than rule, and that everyone is church together, rather than there being a separate trained and appointed ruling class.

More importantly, what does leadership and authority actually look like within the church--how does it play out?

This is where it becomes more complex, partly because I think we (the church) is still working out a right theology of church leadership.

As I understand it, a local church would be overseen by elders, although in small fellowships there may be a single elder with a team around him of those who can advise, administrate, act prophetically, have demonstrated maturity and Godly wisdom etc. There may well be a single elder that acts as community head - an equivalent may be seen in James at the church in Jerusalem – but it’s not a case of having ‘rank’ so much as function and recognition. It is also important that this is not seen in terms of politics, with the elders jostling for popularity and a higher degree of recognition. They might well bring some leadership and guidance to the eldership team, but would not dominate or control it.

How do they know what God’s will is? Collectively, God’s people often do hear God quite clearly, and although a mis-understanding of this has lead to the idea of democracy and church meetings with voting, it does not detract from the principle. People would be expected to feed back the things they feel they are hearing from God to the leadership team, who would prayerfully consider it. The leadership team won’t particularly want people’s opinions, but they will want to hear what God’s saying to them

This team of people would bring direction to the church, having tried to discern the mind of Christ through what He is saying to the church.

When it comes to authority, the model here is entirely that of the shepherd. The people follow because they trust, respect and know the leaders and recognise their gifting. They are not driven or ordered because that is not shepherding (and has lead to the abuses often referred to as heavy shepherding).

In New Testament times there would have been a single church in each place, so there would have been a single eldership, where as now we have multiple churches of various flavours. Something we are starting to see here are the leaders from various churches in a locality getting together regularly, almost acting as an area eldership team. Now certainly some of those are going back to entirely traditional backgrounds, but that does not detract from the model.

Connecting these churches in different localities together would be those with apostolic calling: those who are sent, like Paul, Barnabus, Silas etc. There’s nowhere in the west that a man like Paul could go now and say he’s building from scratch, because there will always be another man’s foundation, so the original model of an apostle planting a church that he then visited from time to time can’t happen. Instead these days churches often recognise that they are not an island, and will become part of a larger organisation with apostolic individuals. You might know examples, but to me, both New Frontiers and Salt & Light spring to mind, where churches ask to become part of the group, so they can receive input.

What about the ‘setting apart’ you mention? It’s easy to interpret setting apart through our present understanding of priesthood as worked out in the Roman, Anglican and Eastern church traditions. In the example of Paul and Barnabus, I think it meant being released from their local eldership duties and being commissioned to travel as apostles, planting new churches and spreading the gospel. I do not believe it meant that they became some new class of Christian, to found a church hierarchy structure that was separate from a laity.


I have deliberately kept this ‘scripture-light’ because it would have taken 3 times as long to write and been much more cluttered. Sorry if that’s disappointing.