13 Concerns About the American Church
As Nadya Williams has said, we shouldn’t be nostalgic and idealize the past. I agree. The early church had its problems and its cultural Christians.[1] Yet, as we see from the New Testament, we must always pursue healthy Christians and churches. Eventually, the church will be completely holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:27). But until then we work for its maturity and health. It’s not idealistic to work towards the ideal; it’s biblical.
Here are 13 general concerns I have with the American Church:
- Consumerism and Entertainment Focus: The church growth model often prioritizes entertainment, convenience, and consumer satisfaction over discipleship, leading to superficial faith and anemic disciples.
- Structural Weaknesses: The typical American church structure, with its emphasis on buildings, branding, and professional clergy, often weakens the church body and individual believers.
- Misplaced Priorities: Churches often aim for “butts in seats” rather than “feet on mission,” focusing on numerical growth and branding instead of authentic discipleship and Kingdom-building.
- Isolation and Lack of Relationships: Many churches fail to foster deep, intergenerational relationships, contributing to loneliness and disconnection among members.
- Competition Among Churches: Churches often compete for attendees rather than collaborating to advance the Kingdom of God.
- Overemphasis on Buildings: The focus on church buildings and facilities can detract from investing in the church body and being on mission where we work, live, and play.
- Complexity Over Simplicity: The traditional church model is often too complex, making it difficult to replicate and hindering the rapid multiplication of disciples and churches.
- Artificiality Over Authenticity: Churches sometimes prioritize staged experiences and curated appearances over genuine, messy, real-life Christian community.
- SuperPastor Culture: The emphasis on charismatic leaders and professional clergy can overshadow the ministry of the church body and lead to pastoral burnout and scandals.
- Neglect of Shepherding: Pastors are often elevated as performers or managers rather than shepherds who deeply know and care for the flock.
- Fad-Driven Practices: Churches sometimes chase cultural relevance and trends at the expense of being historically and spiritually rooted.
- Charisma Over Character: The church often values charisma and influence over Christ-like character, leading to moral failures and scandals.
- Jesus as Savior, Not Lord: The church sometimes emphasizes Jesus as Savior without fully embracing His Lordship, resulting in a lack of obedience and whole-life allegiance. Discipleship is often about knowledge acquisition, not obedience.
We need a radical reformation of the church, focusing on discipleship, authenticity, simplicity, and Kingdom collaboration rather than consumerism, competition, and superficial growth.
What if church were different?
[1] See Nadya Williams, Cultural Christians in the Early Church: A Historical and Practical Introduction to Christians in the Greco-Roman World.
A Diffrent Church Culture: Character instead of Charisma
What if we constructed a different church culture? What if we valued character over charisma? What if we had less scandal and pastoral burnout? What if church were different?
We don’t come out and say that charisma matters more than character, we don’t say that performance is the preference over pastoring, but that is often our modus operandi. Character takes a back seat to packing the seats. “The celebrity syndrome destroys accountability… The strong leader who builds a large and successful church is often not held to strict account.”[1] Too much is riding on the good name of the performer. So, coverups happen for the “good” of the church.
What if so much weight and expectation were never meant to be on one pastor? What if we have so many scandals and moral failures, partly because the pastorate was never meant to be what we’ve made it? “We expect the pastor to be a shrink in the pulpit, a CEO in the office, and flawless in every area of his life.”[2] Is this sustainable? Especially when he is also often called to be a celebrity.
It would seem that Christian leaders are especially under attack by the enemy.
One poll showed that nearly 40 percent of the pastors polled had had an extramarital affair since beginning their ministries. And the divorce rate among clergy is increasing faster than in any other profession. The statistics show that the divorce rate among the Protestant clergy in the United States is higher than the national rate 65 percent as compared with 50 percent.[3]
The reality is every pastor is tempted by power, pride, and pleasure. So, it is vital for pastors to have character and accountability, and not be unduly put on a pedestal. If they are put on a pedestal at all it should only be to say with the Apostle Paul: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
Yet, sadly, we essentially incentivize hypocrisy through social media. An unwritten role is that pastors have a good social media presence. Actual presence and character have been downplayed and what is seen on the screen is what is valued. The world has been turned upside-down and Satan is having a field day.
Along these lines, Mike Cosper shared that too many of his friends “threw themselves whole-hog into the creation of a persona and devoted all of their energy (and often, the energy of several staff members) into the maintenance of the mask they wore. This left the rest of their life and the rest of their soul unattended, and the darkness they ignored or avoided or pretended didn’t exist eventually shipwrecked their lives, their careers, and in many cases, their families.”[4]
Paul David Tripp astutely points out that the desire and obtainment of fruitful ministry and success can be pursued and obtained for the wrong reasons. One can easily desire more baptisms, a bigger budget, and more buildings not for the glory of God and Kingdom growth, but for the fame and self-worth/identity of the lead pastor. The human heart is fickle, even the pastor’s heart.
“A leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue those other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority, and trust to get those things. Every leadership community needs to understand that ministry can be the vehicle for pursuing a whole host of idolatries.”[5]
Continued Christian character must be a qualification for leadership, not charisma alone. It is easy to use the right things to the wrong ends. Vance Pitman once pointed out that every man that has an affair in ministry, had an affair with ministry first. Paul David Tripp gives invaluable counsel regarding leadership within the church in his book Lead.[6]
Leaders and teachers can “profess to know God” and yet “deny Him by their works” (Titus 1:16).[7] That’s partly why Christian leaders need to meet the biblical qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-9). It is easy to want to teach for shameful gain (Titus 1:11). Yet, those who teach must do so out of love for Christ and others; and have character that commends the message (v. 6-9).
Christians, especially Christian leaders, should demonstrate love, joy, kindness, impartiality, mercy, faithfulness, reasonableness, gentleness, goodness, grace, patience, purity, peace, sincerity, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23; James 3:17). Christians should never be characterized by quarreling, conceit, hostility, gossip, jealousy, rivalry, anger, envy, enmity, slander, strife, dissensions, divisions, or disorder (2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19-21). In Exodus, we are told that those who were to be placed in leadership were those who feared God, were trustworthy, and hated bribes (Ex. 18:21). Christian leaders who are fit to lead are those who care for the flock and not just for themselves; who feed the flock and not just themselves (Ezek. 34:1-10).
Christian leaders should be motivated to serve out of love of God, and love of people. Not money, not fame, not power. The Apostle Paul said, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Christian leaders have a weighty calling. They are to care for the precious people Messiah Jesus purchased with His very own sacrificial death. That is not something to take lightly. Christian leaders are to shepherd the flock of God that is among them, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have them; not for shameful gain, but eagerly (1 Pet. 5:2). Christian leaders “will have to give an account” of their leadership (Heb. 13:17).
So, in evaluating a Christian leader, we should ask: “Does this person demonstrate strong Christian character? Does this person show compassion and concern? Is this person motivated by love of God and neighbor?” We should not merely ask: “Does this person have charisma and influence?”
Notes
[1] Colson and Vaughn, Being the Body, 332.
[2] Ibid.,332.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Mike Cosper, Recapturing the Wonder: Transcendent Faith in a Disenchanted World, 83.
[5] Paul David Tripp, Lead, 109-110.
[6] “Every leader needs to be the object of ongoing discipleship, every leader needs at moments to be confronted, every leader needs the comforts of the gospel, every leader needs help to see what he would not see on his own, and every leader needs to be granted the love and encouragement to deal with the artifacts of the old self that are still within him. If this is so, then we cannot be so busy envisioning, designing, maintaining, evaluating, and reengineering ministry that we have little time to care for the souls of the ones who are leading this gospel work. A spiritually healthy leadership community participates in the ongoing personal spiritual growth of each one of its members” (Tripp, Lead, 86).
[7] Healthy doctrine is vital (1 Tim. 1:10; 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13) and so are good works (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:8; 2:3, 14; 3:1).
What if Sheep had a Shepherd?
When Jesus saw the masses He had compassion on them because they were like sheep without a shepherd (Matt. 9:36). Jesus cared about people, and He was very adamant that pastors care too. Yet, often people are left to face the world on their own.
What if church were different? What if sheep had a shepherd? What if pastors weren’t elevated on the stage or locked behind the closed doors of the office? What if shepherds “smelled like their sheep” and knew and spent time with people? What if the proportion of pastors to people allowed for pastoral care? What if we valued pastoral practice over eloquence and business acumen?
Jesus said shepherds will give an account for their shepherding or non-shepherding of the sheep entrusted to their care. Yet, sadly sometimes churches focus on the brand, building(s), and performance, and not on the church body being shepherded and equipped. But Jesus cared about shepherds shepherding.
A pastor is a “shepherd” or “one who cares for a flock or herd.” That’s why “pastor” sounds like the word “pasture.” The two words are connected. All over scripture, God refers to leaders as shepherds, with God Himself being the ultimate shepherd. When God’s people are not rightly cared for, He is upset. God says, “Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture” (Jer. 23:1-4)! And Ezekiel 34 shows that God takes the failure of His under-shepherds very seriously. He pronounces judgment on them (Ezek. 34:1-10). He promises He Himself will care for them (Ezek. 34:11-31).
God’s word says, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). What a high, precious, and important calling! Pastors are to care for what Jesus bought with His very own blood. If it is that important to Jesus, how can it not be important to us?
Paul himself provides a powerful example of pastoral care. Paul visited people to “see how they are doing” (Acts 15:36)[1] and his letters showed his shepherding care. Paul made disciples and cared for disciples. These are complementary callings of church leaders. Paul taught Timothy and Timothy was genuinely concerned about the welfare of the people of the church (Phil. 2:20).
Paul had pastoral concern for God’s people. He wrote “I have you in my heart” (Phil. 1:7) as well as “being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:8). Scripture would have us see the importance of ministry both “publicly” and “house to house” (Acts 20:20).
Peter cared about leaders caring for people too. He passed on what he heard from Jesus: “shepherd the flock” (John 21:15-17). Peter relayed the command that leaders are to shepherd the flock of God (1 Peter 5:1). And Peter reminds us of our motivation: When the chief Shepherd appears, He will give the unfading crown of glory (v. 4).
Further, Acts 6:1-7 shows us shepherding must be intentional. We must make plans, delegate, and ensure the practical needs of people in the church are taken care of. Shepherding God’s people must be taken very seriously. King David, before he was king, risked his life for mere sheep (1 Sam. 17:34-36). King Jesus gave His life for His sinful people. He’s the Good Shepherd that lays down His life for the sheep (Jn. 10:11). And His under-shepherds are to lovingly and practically care for those for whom He gave His life (Acts 20:28).
Thus, in summary, King Jesus, the Great and Sovereign Shepherd, laid down His life for the sheep and calls pastors to care for His sheep. Under-shepherds must not spurn what the Over-Shepherd has called them to. If Jesus is the Pastor par excellence then under-shepherds must strive to emulate His loving, relational care.
Notes
[1] John also longed to see his people “face to face.” He was not satisfied with letters. He wanted to visit. Actual pastoral presence matters.
Empowering the Church Body: Beyond the SuperPastor
What if church were different? What if we emphasized the ministry of people instead of a “SuperPastor”? When we say, “I follow Paul,” or, “I follow Apollos,” we are being merely human. What then is Apollos? What is Paul? We are all God’s fellow workers (1 Cor. 3:4-9).
What if we emphasized the ministry of the church body instead of one “professional”? The early church leaders valued the ministry of the church’s people, the ministry of the “non-pastors.” We see this, for example, in all the people Paul greeted in his letters. He knew them and appreciated them. And part of this was valuing the ministry of women. Romans 16 mentions 29 people and 10 of them are women.[1]
Church as event communicates that the special people on the stage are equipped to do the work of the ministry. The people who sit in the audience are simply passive and not gifted to do ministry. That is exactly backward. God has given leaders to equip the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12), God has already given the people of the church various gifts (Rom. 12:6-7; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).
Even though Paul was the church planter par excellence, he practiced partnership and co-leadership, which Jesus Himself established (cf. Mark 6:7). Jesus turned the world upside down in part through the hands of 12 ordinary men who had clearly been with Him (Acts 4:13).
Paul followed this same pattern. He was almost always with a colaborer[2] and always desired to be with them. When Paul was separated from his colaborers he said, “Come as soon as possible” (Acts 17:15 cf. 2 Tim. 4:10-12; Titus 3:12-13) and he waited for them (Acts 17:16). Paul mentions his fellow shepherds—Timothy, Titus, Silas, and Barnabas—all over the place.[3] From his first church-sponsored “mission trip” (11:30 cf. Gal. 2:1) to his last (notice “we” in Acts 28) he sought to be with fellow laborers. We also see Paul “appointed elders [pl.] for them in each church” (Acts 14:23; cf. 11:30; 15:2; 20:17-18; 21:18; Titus 1:5), which also establishes the importance of co-leadership.[4]
Pastors are important. Pastors ensure attention is concentrated in the right place—on Christ. No pastor should ever be the focus. Jesus should ever be everyone’s focus. Jesus is central. Everyone else plays a supporting role. But everyone must play their role. The church is a body and Jesus is the head. Every part of the body must be engaged and functioning properly for the body to flourish (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:16).
The church is the body, and each member is to do their part for the body to function as it is supposed to (1 Cor. 12:4-31). Each member is equipped with gifts from the Spirit (Rom. 12:3-8) and is to employ them for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7). Sadly, but not surprisingly, a Gallup survey found that only 10% of church members in America are active in any kind of personal ministry.[5]
The church is supposed to be the furthest thing from fans sitting in the stands. The church is more like the football team on the field. The church gathers once a week in a huddle to remember and carry out the play. The church works together to hold tight to the gospel and move it forward. Sideline Christianity is not biblical Christianity. Every single Christian—not a special breed of Christian—is to be on the field, whatever that particular field is, loving Jesus and loving others. We all have a part to play, and when we aren’t doing our part gospel movement is hindered.
May pastors stop building fans and equip the saints. And may the saints stop sitting in the stands and get on the field. The war is raging. The time is now.
Notes
[1] The New Testament, in contrast to the literature of the time, knows the inestimable worth of women. Here is the list of the females mentioned: Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2), Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5), Mary (Rom. 16:6) Junia (Rom. 16:7), Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Rom. 16:12), Rufus’ mother (Rom. 16:13), Julia and Nereus’ sister (Rom. 16:15). Women were valuable colaborers in the early church. Here are some other women Paul mentions in his letters: Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21), Priscilla (Acts 18:25; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Apphia (Philemon 1:2).
[2] See Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2, 13, 42-43, 46; 14:1 [“they”]; 15:2, 25-27; after a disagreement Silas goes with Paul v. 40; 16:3, 25; when he went to Corinth he connected with Aquila and Priscilla 18:1-3; when he went to Antioch he took them with him v. 18; in ch. 19 he found other believers; 20:4-5.
[3] For Timothy see Acts 16:1, 3; 17:14, 15; 18:5; 19:22; 20:4; Rom. 16:21; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:1, 19; Phil. 1:1; 2:19, 22; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2, 6; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:2; Philemon 1; Heb. 13:23. For Titus see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13-14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18; Gal. 2:1, 3; 2 Tim. 4:10; Titus 1:4. For Silas see Acts 15:22, 27, 32, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:1, 4, 5, 10, 14-15; 18:5; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12. For Barnabas see Acts 9:27; 11:25; 12:25; 13:2; 15:2, 36-41; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 13.
[4] Even in Paul’s address to churches, he often includes his colaborers. For instance, 1 Thessalonians 1:1 says, “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church…” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philemon 1). Also, from the time of his conversion Paul realized the importance of discipleship since he was taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), Ananias (Acts 9:17), Peter (Gal. 1:17), and heard from Peter about Jesus’ own emphasis on discipleship.
[5] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, 365-66.
10 Leadership Principles and Dangers
Leading is dangerous. It always has been, and it always will be. Yet, leading is required. Someone will lead. But will they lead well, and will they lead with the right convictions? Let’s look at 10 leadership principles and dangers…
1) Leading requires deep conviction
There have, however, been many successful leaders that led vast amounts of people astray. Leaders must have deep conviction; why else would you lead? Especially with how dangerous leadership is?[1] Why lead at all unless you have the dire conviction that something must be done about something, even if you’re the someone that must do it… But it is vital that that something that we have conviction about is the correct conviction. If not, we not only risk and waste our life, if we’re an effective leader, we also risk and waste other’s lives too.
So, leading is dangerous because it requires the correct convictions. If we have the wrong convictions, we can do a lot of wrong (especially, ironically, if we’re “good” at leading). When you have conviction you lead, even if it means leading with a limp.
2) Leading requires talking well
People respect you when you can talk well, whether or not you have the character or maturity to back it up. So, talking well is important. Who’s going to follow someone that is uninspiring and doesn’t make sense? Yet, someone can talk well and amass a massive following and yet have nowhere to go, no ability to actually lead, or is only heading to a very shallow, empty place. Talking well is a blessing but can be the fancy shell that hides the hollow emptiness inside.
So, if you talk well, make sure you live well too.
3) Leading is lonely
Leading is often quite lonely. In the same way that it can be lonely once you summit a great and difficult height. It’s lonely by the sheer difficulty of the journey. But the reality is, it’s also more dangerous at the summit. So, as hard as it is and as much as you may not think you need help, if you lead, you especially need help. You need it in a way that you’re not even aware of and it’ll be harder to find than for others.
So, as lonely as leading is, you need to find people to travel with you and traverse the trails. Leading is dangerous no matter what, but it’s doubly so if you don’t have someone to help you when you fall.
4) Leading is hard, it requires leading
Part of what leading entails is setting the pace, being in front. This can be the case when it comes to work ethic, creativity, dedication, knowledge, or really all of the above. Leaders can’t and don’t know it all, and shouldn’t think they do or can, but leaders do lead. So, if they’re not always in front they’re knowledgeable and encouraging to those that are “in front” in their specific expertise. Yet, to even be competent and relevant in many fields is difficult.
So, leading is hard because it requires diligent work in various fields. It also requires wisdom to navigate what needs to be worked on and when.
5) Leading requires leading and learning
Leading requires audacity but never ignorance. It requires a type of confidence but never arrogance. It takes boldness but must never be blind. Learning must always be a part of leading and if it’s not, leading is very likely to go the wrong way. Humility should also accompany leadership. If not, followers should and hopefully won’t accompany you very far.
So, as you lead, make sure you are also learning; even from those you’re leading.
6) Leading becomes easier, letting character and integrity slip becomes easier too
As leading becomes more natural and second nature it’s easy to let character and integrity slip. When it’s more and more possible to cut corners, it becomes easier to cut corners. When the wake of your own name can carry you and you can drift on what you’ve done in the past, it can be hard to continue to deserve that name in the future.
So, as you become more competent in your leadership, don’t neglect your character. “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches” (Prov. 22:1).
7) Leading requires delegation, not dictatorship
As a leader you can’t do everything. You can’t even do a lot of things. If you’re going to actually lead you have to get people to do things. Yet, what the leader is called to is wise and loving delegation, not dictatorship.
So, carefully and humbly lead others to contribute. Without them, you would not be a leader. You have the honor, steward, and privilege to lead them. It’s not about you.
8) Leading from the front is where the bullets are
To lead is to be in the front of the fight. It is to be at the front of the fray. To lead is essentially to die daily. It is to make the hard decisions, even the wrong decisions, and it is to own it. Leading means being first out of the foxhole and on to the field. Leading is difficult and costly.
So, remember when you’re in the front you are liable to get “bullets” from the front as well as “friendly fire.” The “bullet”, however, does not mean that you are a terrible person or that it was even specifically meant for you. It’s partly just that a lot of times people direct their rage at leaders.
9) Leading is failing but having the conviction to do it again and again
I’ve heard it said that “Leading is disappointing people at a rate that they can endure.” That truth resonates. Leaders don’t always get it right, but they have the conviction to continue, to endure, and to do it again until they get it right. Where the leader is leading is that important. Conviction for the cause, propels the mission.
So, have no false illusions about what leadership is. But also realize that it’s hard for every leader. So, when you fail it’s no surprise. It’s what happens when you lead. The thing is to get up again and do it again.
10) Leading effects all of life
Leading is not contained within the “9 to 5.” Leading doesn’t just happen at work. Leading is who you are and so leading goes with you.
So, ensure that as you lead at work or your organization, you’re leading and loving well at home too. If you say “yes” to something, know that you’re saying “no” to something else. Make sure you say “yes” to the right things: your faith commitments, your family, your friends.
___
[1] Notice that non-leaders get murdered and killed but leaders get assassinated. That is, people kill other people on accident and people murder people for money or as a result of someone’s rage. But leaders get assassinated because they led. Leaders literally put themselves into harm’s way in all sorts of ways.
*Photo by Mathias Jensen
Helpful takeaways from Paul David Tripp’s book Lead
I really enjoyed Paul David Tripp’s book, Lead: 12 Gospel Principles for Leadership in the Church. There were a lot of good takeaways. Here are some of my highlights but you should read the book for yourself, especially if you are in church leadership.
“The gospel of Jesus Christ is meant to be your life hermeneutic, that is, the means by which you understand and make sense of life” (Paul David Tripp, Lead, p. 12).
“Every human being is a meaning maker, a theologian, a philosopher, or an anthropologist, always taking things apart to understand what they mean. As a ministry leader, you are doing theological work not just when you preach, teach, or lead but also in the ways that you think about yourself, understand your ministry, and relate to fellow leaders” (Tripp, Lead, p. 12).
“If sin blinds, and it does, and if sin still remains in us, and it does, then, even as ministry leaders, there are pockets of spiritual blindness in us. So it is vital that we all forsake the thought that no one knows us better than we know ourselves. If there are places where we still suffer from spiritual blindness, then there are inaccuracies in the way we see ourselves and interpret our words and behavior. If, as a leader, you deny the possibility of personal spiritual blindness and trust the accuracy of your self-view, you are not humbly open and approachable to fellow leaders whom God has placed near you to help you see what you won’t see on your own” (Tripp, Lead, pp. 67-68).
“Leaders must push the gifts of others forward, willing to listen and willing to submit to the wisdom of others who are gifted in ways that they are not. Humble leaders surround themselves not with ministry clones but with leaders who have gifts that they do not and are therefore smart in ways they are not and strong in areas they are weak. This kind of community will always produce a quality and longevity of fruit that won’t ever be produced by a domineering leader” (p. 75).
“Every leader needs to be the object of ongoing discipleship, every leader needs at moments to be confronted, every leader needs the comforts of the gospel, every leader needs help to see what he would not see on his own, and every leader needs to be granted the love and encouragement to deal with the artifacts of the old self that are still within him. If this is so, then we cannot be so busy envisioning, designing, maintaining, evaluating, and reengineering ministry that we have little time to care for the souls of the ones who are leading this gospel work. A spiritually healthy leadership community participates in the ongoing personal spiritual growth of each one of its members” (p. 86).
“A leader whose heart has been captured by other things doesn’t forsake ministry to pursue those other things; he uses ministry position, power, authority, and trust to get those things. Every leadership community needs to understand that ministry can be the vehicle for pursuing a whole host of idolatries. In this way, ministry leadership is war, and we cannot approach it with the passivity of peacetime assumptions” (pp. 109-110).
“If ministry leadership is your identity, then Christ isn’t… Ministry leadership identity produces fear and anxiety and will never produce the humility and courage that come with identity in Christ. Looking horizontally, as a leader, for your identity, meaning, purpose, and internal sense of well-being asks people, places, and position to do for you what only your Messiah can do. This will produce either pride in success or fear of failure but never the kind of humility and courage of heart that results in humble, willing, confessing approachability. Ministry as a source of identity will never result in healthy gospel-shaped relationships in your leadership community, the kind of relationships in which candor is encouraged, confession is greeted with grace, and bonds of love, appreciation, affection, understanding, and respect grow strong” (p. 156).
“If identity in ministry is a battleground for every ministry leader, and if the exchange from identity in Christ to identity in ministry is often subtle and usually takes place over an extended period of time, then it is important to identify some of the symptoms you will see when a leader is looking to get from his ministry leadership what he was meant to get from Christ” (p. 168).
“Because of the dynamic of spiritual blindness, we don’t always see ourselves with accuracy, so we all need instruments of seeing to help us. We must not let ourselves think that we’re grace graduates or that no one knows us better than we know ourselves. Because we as leaders have been welcomed by God’s grace, we can be humble and approachable, thereby protected and able to grow” (p. 204).
“If we are not living with the presence and glory of God always in focus and always as the primary motivator of all we say and do, what we say and do will be driven by the glory of self. Every human being is glory oriented, because that orientation is meant to drive us to God. So we are all always living for some type of glory” (p. 214).
How to Evaluate Christian Leaders?
Recently, I’ve seen a lot of Christian leaders be criticized or criticize, and even call other Christian leaders names because of disagreement on such things as politics, the pandemic, and policies regarding justice. And not surprisingly, those who are not leaders are also jumping into the fray and lobbing grenades too.
How many people, however, actually think through the appropriate way to evaluate Christian leaders? And how many people know what reasons Scripture gives for concern? How many Christians have a sort of theological triage they use to evaluate and make these important decisions?
There are doctrines of “prime importance and great weight” that we must insist on.[1] “There is a time to fight. There are certain hills that must not be surrendered, even if the cost is losing our lives.”[2] Some of the hills that we must be willing to die on are the deity, life, death, resurrection, and Second Coming of the Lord Messiah Jesus.
Other doctrines, beliefs, and convictions are, or should be, a little further down the list of importance. Just as a doctor would jump to help the patient with a gunshot wound to the chest before she would help someone with a broken pinky finger. It is not that the pinky finger is not important; it is that the gunshot wound is more important and dire.
So, let’s look at some biblical criteria by which to evaluate Christian leaders. It should be understood that these criteria do not have the same weight. The criteria of “Christology,” for example, should be given more weight of importance than “Clarity.”
1. Christology (& sound doctrine)
Christian leaders have the duty to communicate God’s transforming truth, exalt Jesus Christ, teach the Bible so that people understand and apply what God has said, and encourage conformity to Christ (see e.g. Neh. 8:7-8; 1 Tim. 3:2). Faithfulness to the revelation of God and preaching Christ are paramount (Col. 1:28). If the word of God and Jesus the Messiah are not being preached then you have reason for concern.
If false or unhealthy things are said or taught about God, His word, or Jesus the Messiah then you have great reason for concern and should share your concern and likely leave that individual’s leadership. It is important that we are aware that leaders sometimes don’t preach the truth. Peter told us that there will be false teachers among us, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought us (2 Pet. 2:1).
“If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions” (1 Tim. 6:3-4).
So, in evaluating a Christian leader, ask yourself:
- “Does this person preach/teach true, healthy doctrine? Does this person preach/teach the goodness and glory of Messiah Jesus?”
Don’t ask:
- “Do I like the style etc. of the person?”
See also: Deut. 13:1-5; 1 Jn. 4:1-3; 1 Cor. 12:3; Col. 1:28; 2:8 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13.
2. Character
The leaders own life should be in order. That is, the leader should have Christ-like character. Leaders and teachers can “profess to know God” and yet “deny Him by their works” (Titus 1:16). That’s partly why it’s so important that Christian leaders meet the biblical qualifications (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:1-9).
Q&A: Many churches adopt confessions, why then do leaders and laypersons often stray from orthodoxy? What lessons can we learn from this?
Q. Many churches adopt confessions, why then do leaders and laypersons often stray from orthodoxy? What lessons can we learn from this?
A. Confessions are good and have biblical precedent. Humans, however, are fallen and as 1 Timothy 4:1 says, “some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” People are lovers of self rather than lovers of God (2 Tim. 3:2-4). That is why there are problems with heterodoxy and heresy, even where there are solid confessions in place. Confessions may not keep false teaching from emerging but it is helpful to have them in place to quench the spread (like gangrene) of unhealthy teaching.
One lesson we learn from the prevalence of unhealthy belief and teaching is the importance of qualified leaders. It is vital that pastors/elders be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2) and correct opponents of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). We also see the important place of church discipline. The church is set apart as the light of the world and the “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) if the truth is not proclaimed and protected by the church how dark will the darkness be?!
The second lesson is that churches must work hard to be watchful and stand firm in the faith (1 Cor. 16:13). If someone is contradicting orthodox teaching and causing division then they should be removed from the church community (1 Tim. 6:20-21; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10). The church is to be the set apart people of God (Eph. 1:4; 5:27). Thus, Paul writes “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
Church Leadership
“The synagogue was under the management of “elders” (Luke 7:1–5) who seem to have had disciplinary and administrative authority as well as religious…Because of their heritage, New Testament leaders likely knew and used the synagogue models for the organization of the church… This might explain the fact that the New Testament gives no historical record of the institution of the eldership as it does with the Seven (Acts 6). Much of the church’s organization is assumed in the New Testament rather than argued… However, development in the church’s organization is found in the New Testament.Christian elders are first mentioned in Acts 11:30 as an existing institution. It is possible that some of the first Christians were already (Jewish) elders and continued in a similar capacity in the early church… Throughout the Book of Acts the elders are seen to be leaders of the church (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17, 21:18).”
in X 