Being a Church leader: Is everyone a leader?

[Frame1520]

I had a discussion the other day with a member of our church. He said that everyone who is In Christ is a leader. I agree that we are to lead by example, yet I do not believe that everyone is a born leader.

If someone meets the biblical requirements of Elder or Deacon, does that alone mean that they are leadership material? Past experience has proven that not everyone who professes that they believe, and are biblically qualified, does not always make for good leadership.

What do you think?

[HeyHomie]

If everyone was a leader, then who would be the followers?

[eldermike]

I had a discussion the other day with a member of our church. He said that everyone who is In Christ is a leader. I agree that we are to lead by example, yet I do not believe that everyone is a born leader.

If someone meets the biblical requirements of Elder or Deacon, does that alone mean that they are leadership material? Past experience has proven that not everyone who professes that they believe, and are biblically qualified, does not always make for good leadership.

What do you think?

The basic requirment for leader is they have followers. The bible tells us that elders are teachers, teachers have students. So beyond the biblical basics look for followers, if there are none you are not looking at a leader.

[WesWoodell]

Everyone is a minister, but not everyone is a shepard. :)

[Frame1520]

All very good points. I agree with all of you. I think sometimes people don't understand the function of elders. They rely on the minister to be the sheperd to the flock. In my previous church, we had weak leadership more concerned with how sharp the preacher dressed, and making everyone feel good that they lost site of their purpose. We had an elder who kind of took over, and was a smoozer. The other two just followed. It was a sad situation, and ultimately destroyed the church. Yet God has blessed us with strong leadership at our current church. I am thankful for that.

Just wanted to share my experience with everyone.

[laterunner]

I agree with Weswoodell---->
to lead; under the covering & authority & DISCPLINE of Christ, you have to stay in servant mode.
But all who have some knowledge & relationship with Jesus have ; as part of the package that is Christ, all that is God. BUT dosen't our flesh restrict the full use of that wonderful gift in so many ways.
WE are told to go & make disciples, & we should be humble enough to be discipled by others. All in a circle blessing the in in front of us. Each respons-able for each other INCLUCING thoses that lead us I the way I first stated.

[aggie03]

If someone meets the biblical requirements of Elder or Deacon, does that alone mean that they are leadership material? Past experience has proven that not everyone who professes that they believe, and are biblically qualified, does not always make for good leadership.

What do you think?

I think that if you have someone who meets all of the qualifications for an elder as they are established in the New Testament then they will be a good leader. Often times there are only a couple of things that people look at before deciding if someone should be an elder:

1. Does he have one wife?
2. Have at least one of his children been baptized?
3. Has he taught a Bible class

People like to look at these things because they can form a checklist without having to know the person in question. However, there are great deal of things that go far beyond this simple checklist.

First, the scriptures say that they must be apt to teach, not that they have stood in front a group before. There is a difference between those two things. The Scriptures also say that the man must be temperate and sober minded. Those are some pretty serious things.

Probably the qualification that ought to rule out most people is that he is beyond reproach. IF someone complains that the man isn't temperant and that is just a ridiculous claim, then they are beyond reproach. If you hesitate and consider the accusation or think there may be some basis for it, then he is not above reproach.

I think that if more people would get away from the checklist mentality and spend more time with men before appointing them elders, then more people who are really qualified would become elders.

As a note, spending time with someone must be done outside of "regularly scheduled worship". I have a great fear that we have a tendency in our society to be much less inimate than the Christians in the first century were...

[Frame1520]

I think that if you have someone who meets all of the qualifications for an elder as they are established in the New Testament then they will be a good leader. Often times there are only a couple of things that people look at before deciding if someone should be an elder:

1. Does he have one wife?
2. Have at least one of his children been baptized?
3. Has he taught a Bible class

People like to look at these things because they can form a checklist without having to know the person in question. However, there are great deal of things that go far beyond this simple checklist.

First, the scriptures say that they must be apt to teach, not that they have stood in front a group before. There is a difference between those two things. The Scriptures also say that the man must be temperate and sober minded. Those are some pretty serious things.

Probably the qualification that ought to rule out most people is that he is beyond reproach. IF someone complains that the man isn't temperant and that is just a ridiculous claim, then they are beyond reproach. If you hesitate and consider the accusation or think there may be some basis for it, then he is not above reproach.

I think that if more people would get away from the checklist mentality and spend more time with men before appointing them elders, then more people who are really qualified would become elders.

As a note, spending time with someone must be done outside of "regularly scheduled worship". I have a great fear that we have a tendency in our society to be much less inimate than the Christians in the first century were...

I agree with what you have said. Well put! I believe that personal interaction with people in the church (especially those up for leadership positions), is the best way to get an idea if they are qualified beyond what the "basic requirements" are.

If more churches used this approach, and got away from being "sunday morning sitters", then Christ's church would not have nearly the issues that it has. Thanks or the response!

[aggie03]

I agree with what you have said. Well put! I believe that personal interaction with people in the church (especially those up for leadership positions), is the best way to get an idea if they are qualified beyond what the "basic requirements" are.

If more churches used this approach, and got away from being "sunday morning sitters", then Christ's church would not have nearly the issues that it has. Thanks or the response!
No problem! :) Being a "sitter" is one of the things that I struggle with the most. This is something that we have to better at encouraging each other against.

[ynric]

I had a discussion the other day with a member of our church. He said that everyone who is In Christ is a leader. I agree that we are to lead by example, yet I do not believe that everyone is a born leader.

If someone meets the biblical requirements of Elder or Deacon, does that alone mean that they are leadership material? Past experience has proven that not everyone who professes that they believe, and are biblically qualified, does not always make for good leadership.

What do you think?
I would have to agree with you, I am sure that many of the people of the nation of israel were qualified to be King such Saul, but it was only David who was anointed. Likewise a leader in the church should be anointed, a good leader in a church will know what that means and will make sure it happens.

Ric Garcia

[ynric]

I think that if you have someone who meets all of the qualifications for an elder as they are established in the New Testament then they will be a good leader. Often times there are only a couple of things that people look at before deciding if someone should be an elder:

1. Does he have one wife?
2. Have at least one of his children been baptized?
3. Has he taught a Bible class

People like to look at these things because they can form a checklist without having to know the person in question. However, there are great deal of things that go far beyond this simple checklist.

First, the scriptures say that they must be apt to teach, not that they have stood in front a group before. There is a difference between those two things. The Scriptures also say that the man must be temperate and sober minded. Those are some pretty serious things.

Probably the qualification that ought to rule out most people is that he is beyond reproach. IF someone complains that the man isn't temperant and that is just a ridiculous claim, then they are beyond reproach. If you hesitate and consider the accusation or think there may be some basis for it, then he is not above reproach.

I think that if more people would get away from the checklist mentality and spend more time with men before appointing them elders, then more people who are really qualified would become elders.

As a note, spending time with someone must be done outside of "regularly scheduled worship". I have a great fear that we have a tendency in our society to be much less inimate than the Christians in the first century were...
I do not know why you quote the New Testament, the new testament does not hold the right answer, but the Old Testament does, in the Old Testament is where Jesus, and all of his disciples studied and meditated, they did not meditate on the New Testament, but rather lived it. I do not believe that what Paul was saying their was considered to be law only suggestion from one believer to another, granted it was probaby true, but it seems to me that you are mixing in a litte bit of yourself with a few segments of scripture. Please tell me if I am wrong.

[Mrs. Enigma]

I had a discussion the other day with a member of our church. He said that everyone who is In Christ is a leader. I agree that we are to lead by example, yet I do not believe that everyone is a born leader.

If someone meets the biblical requirements of Elder or Deacon, does that alone mean that they are leadership material? Past experience has proven that not everyone who professes that they believe, and are biblically qualified, does not always make for good leadership.

What do you think?


Well, I don't think my hubby is a "church leader" type. It almost seems like you have to be pushy or arguementative, or like having people talk about you behind your back to be in a position like that.
Plus, I think you have to be a people person.

[Frame1520]

Well, I don't think my hubby is a "church leader" type. It almost seems like you have to be pushy or arguementative, or like having people talk about you behind your back to be in a position like that.
Plus, I think you have to be a people person.

Being an introvert and a church leader don't usually make good combinations. I agree with you there. I don't know that you have to be pushy or argumenative, but I do think that you must be able to contend for the the faith. You have to stand firm against wrong teachings, and stand behind the bible thru everything.

As for people talking behind our backs, I think everyone has had that happen at one point or another. Leadership cannot, and must not be pleasers of men, but followers of Christ who don't give in to criticisms and people who have nothing better to do than talk. Satan wants nothing more than to derail our leaders thru gossip and backbiting...To a large degree, unfortunately, it does happen all to frequently. Thats where they must be leaders and confront people. It takes a special person to be able to confront someone about something they are doing that they shouldn't be, that's for sure.

[Mrs. Enigma]

Being an introvert and a church leader don't usually make good combinations. I agree with you there. I don't know that you have to be pushy or argumenative, but I do think that you must be able to contend for the the faith. You have to stand firm against wrong teachings, and stand behind the bible thru everything.

As for people talking behind our backs, I think everyone has had that happen at one point or another. Leadership cannot, and must not be pleasers of men, but followers of Christ who don't give in to criticisms and people who have nothing better to do than talk. Satan wants nothing more than to derail our leaders thru gossip and backbiting...To a large degree, unfortunately, it does happen all to frequently. Thats where they must be leaders and confront people. It takes a special person to be able to confront someone about something they are doing that they shouldn't be, that's for sure.


Well, I guess my hubby could be a quiet leader by example.
He does not give in at all, and does not waver, but he does not like argueing over issues etc.

But he does what he believes in, so if you count that as leading?

[Frame1520]

Well, I guess my hubby could be a quiet leader by example.
He does not give in at all, and does not waver, but he does not like argueing over issues etc.

But he does what he believes in, so if you count that as leading?

Certainly. I think sometimes people can lead by silent example better than being out there argumenative, or very vocal. Too many churches spend time argueing over stupid things. I agree with you on that for sure, and wish it would stop. I mean what are we here for anyway? Some people just don't get it. Maybe if they cracked open their bible, they might. But that's between them, and God. :)

[aggie03]

I do not know why you quote the New Testament, the new testament does not hold the right answer, but the Old Testament does

I quote the New Testament because it is the New Covenant for those who have clothed themselves with Jesus (Galatians 3:27).

Previous to talking about clothing oneself with Christ, Paul talks about the Old Testament and its place in the life of a Christian:

Galatians 3:21-27 ESV

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. (22) But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (23) Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. (24) So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. (25) But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, (26) for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The was in place and was the guardian of those who sought after and loved God until faith came, faith in the Christ of God, and he having now come law is no longer in place. This is the same thing that is said in the letter to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 8:6-13 ESV

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. (7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. (8) For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, (9) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (11) And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." (13) In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The Old Covenant has been replaced by a New Covenant with Christ as the high priest - which means that there must be a new covenant for the old said nothing about priests coming from the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14).

This doesn't mean that the Old Covenant is useless and that it should not be studied - there are many wonderful things that we can learn from studying the Old Covenant, but it does mean that Christians are no longer bound by it or the laws that it contains.

in the Old Testament is where Jesus, and all of his disciples studied and meditated, they did not meditate on the New Testament, but rather lived it.

Jesus didn't live under the New Testament, but under the old. He lived his life according to the Old Law. When he died, his blood was shed to sanctify the New Covenant, just like Moses had to shed blood to sanctify the Old Covenant.

The Apostles did spend a lot of time teaching from the Old Testament because it contains the prophecies about the Christ of God. People could not know who Jesus was without the Old Testament. While they were alive, they were writing the New Covenant Scriptures. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 14:37 that he was writing the commandments of the Lord. Paul was writing Scripture. Scripture for what, the Old Covenant or the New? Certainly not the Old, for that passed away, but rather for the New Covenant.

When one seeks to become a Christian they do not seek entrance into the Old Covenant, but into the New. As such, the "constitution" for that person seeking entrance into this new relationship with God is not the Old Testament, but the New.

I do not believe that what Paul was saying their was considered to be law only suggestion from one believer to another, granted it was probaby true, but it seems to me that you are mixing in a litte bit of yourself with a few segments of scripture. Please tell me if I am wrong.

Respectfully, you are wrong. Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 14:37 that he was writing the commandments of the Lord. Most of the things that Paul wrote were understood by early Christians to be commandments from God. There are a few places where Paul states that he writing an opinion, but those are clearly designated in the text.

I also do not believe that I have placed any of "myself" in the response that I offered. There are places in the New Testament where Paul specifically outlines the qualifications for those who are to be the leaders in the church. Using these we can tell exactly who is authorized to be a leader in the church, and what kind of leadership they are to have.

[SEA89]

I think we are all like pieces of a puzzle and if we were leaders then the picture wouldn't be right. everyone has a role to play.
god can use anyone he can get like, followers, leaders , and teachers.

[annie1speed]

Like it or not, I believe we all are influencing someone. It may be our husband or wife or just some child who is watching us when we least expect it :eek: . So in that way we are all leaders. So be carefull little mouth what you say ... as the song goes. ;)