Ouch this is a thorny subject. Its one I have resisted for so long, for fear of detracting from my primary objectives. Even so, it is something to be handled with care. I am referring to "Titles". I regularly get FB or Twitter connection requests from people with all kinds of assumed titles ... and I have to ask why? What intrigues me most is that it is evidently not helpful, often divisive, almost always repressive and it is also out of kilter with biblical and contemporary thinking on leadership.
Jesus, deserved significant respect, but New Testament writers still generally called Him "Jesus". Paul, another significant leader, never called himself, "The Apostle Paul", but sometimes appended his vocation. Peter was Peter and James was James.
Jesus even argued against titles in Matthew 23:8, saying: "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. "And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."
One of the big problems with titles is that it is the weakest and most insecure form of leadership. The highest form is legitimate leadership, which happens when a leader comes into his or her own by "proving" a ministry and being recognised. That alludes to "Apostolicism", which does not refer to a senior rank, but to a foundation-laying and missional role that gives context and relevance to other ministries.
The best qualification is a ministry that has proven itself and come to enjoy public recognition from respected leadership. The best way to do that is to fulfil a ministry locally and then be recognised in and beyond that context so that the emerging ministry is not a misfit, island or loose cannon, but a vital part of the whole.
The ministries in Paul's day were guided by his apostolic leadership to rove between churches and add the vital dimension for which they were gifted and recognised - Phillip went to areas that needed to be opened up by his evangelism, Barnabus exhorted or inspired churches that needed his prophetic gift and James, though somewhat bound to the Jerusalem church, brought sound teaching. Paul's vital role was in coordination, discipline, direction, pioneering and reinforcement of doctrine.
Locally churches were administered by elders, so that ministries could be released to the wider body of Christ. My own observation is that less than 1% of all believers are blessed with an Ephesians 4 ministry, so they are precious and rare gifts that need to be made available to the wider context. Pastors were included in that list, but were never, as such, defined as office bearers, so they also do themselves and the wider church a disservice when they settle and “own” a local church. I know of one "pastoral" ministry that leads many other leaders in an apostolic context, but that benefit would never have accrued to the church had he localised himself and settled into a narrow role.
Titles are a throwback to the clergy-laity models of Catholocism, which suppressed other vital ministries and frustrated the church as a living organism or body of believers. That has badly hurt the power and vitality of the church, by robbing it of diversity and the resources needed for dynamic growth.
(c) Peter Eleazar @ http://www.4u2live.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment