Here is how Peter exhorts the Elders in 1 Peter 5:
3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock
I wonder where he got that from maybe someone who was dear to him said this:
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you.
In the ESV I don’t why they translate the word differently it is the same word “katakyrieuō” which means “to bring under one’s power, to subject one’s self, to subdue, master”. Peter repeats the exact phrase that Jesus told him back when He was talking about the greatness, servant, Kingdom stuff.
So the question is this. As leaders, how are we to get people to do what we think they should be doing? I guess this could be a two-fold discussion not that I am writing this. The first being how do we get people to obey God, the other is how do we get people to submit to our ideas? Wow, this could be a scary discussion. I guess I now have a third question. Should we expect people to submit to our ideas and if so which ideas? If anyone is up for that discussion, we can open up a floodgate of opinions on that I believe.
Anyway, back to the original program. Calvin who constructed this LEADERSHIP acrostic (I just added my flavor to it) loves pictures and illustrations. I believe he was on the money on this one (he usually is on 99% of the stuff). As we read this one chapter letter/book we are mesmerized by Paul’s writing style. He spends the first few verses encouraging and even praising Philemon for his work in the ministry, he then, with great agility, cuts to the left and says “accordingly… I could command you”. I wonder what Philemon is thinking when he reads this sentence. I bet his smile, turn into a deep curiosity of what he could be commanded to do. Then Paul says “however I appeal to you”. It is funny that Paul uses the word love three times in 8 verses, not to mention words like joy, comfort and refreshment to open Philemon’s heart. This type of communication can only come from a seasoned leader who is full of wisdom I suppose.
So Paul appeals to Philemon for what? The words that follow must have hit like a ton of bricks dropped from a 200 story building. He says “my son Onesimus”. We get from the letter that Onesimus was a slave (yes a slave Chuck), of Philemon, how he became a slave is not important for this discussion and we can only speculate anyway. We also get that Onesimus ran away and most likely stole from Philemon (Paul promises Philemon that he would repay him) on the way out the door (these equate to a pretty bad beat down if not Capital Punishment under Roman Law). So Paul appeals to Philemon not to just forgive Onesimus (and not have him punished or killed) but to accept him as a brother in the Lord and a co-laborer with the Apostle.
Just think about it, Onesimus is sitting beside Paul as he is writing this letter and Paul tells Onesimus “you must go back and reconcile this issue”. Even if Onesimus has great confidence in Paul there has to be so level of fear that Philemon may “backslide”reject Paul’s appeal and have Onesimus punished. Think about the slaves who saw Onesimus knocking on the door. What about those who were eating dinner over Philemon’s home. What about the neighbors, who hear the rumors of Onesimus fleeing. This was risky and as dangerous as a mine field and Paul says “I appeal to you”, when he could have commanded such a thing.
So what does this say to us as leaders. As Peter and Jesus says “we are not to be lords over one another”. Our method of dealing with things should be to appeal. In our top heavy churches this could be hard to put in practice. Mostly when leadership wants something done they command it, unlike Paul. Verses such as Hebrews 13:17 are quoted. Some of our heavy handed and authoritarian brothers take it a bit further ( I was in a church like this). We were taught not to question and “lording it over” was an understatement. The picture of a biblical leader and the way we deal with differences is to “appeal”. Never to lord, never to manipulate (it is funny when something needs to be built or purchased the manipulation method that is used). As a matter of fact I believe the latter (manipulation) is the more common method today. When funds are low, bring up some verses to manipulate, when we want people to buy into the vision, we manipulate. I believe the lording over may be more of an extreme pentecostal method, but none the less neither method is the way biblical leaders are to get things done.
I would add this (but will not teach this in my local assembly). I believe this method of appeal is to be used to generate consensus on all decisions in the local body. I guess I would be considered a big congregationalist with this perspective. But I believe that consensus is the the biblical model on making decisions in the local church. Even with plurality of elders or with the senior pastor/deacon model, appealing is not necessary. Why? Because the people have no say in the day to day business of the church and even if they do the “board” has full veto power. I don’t agree with this one bit. Each member of the local body has 100% stake in every decision. It is funny that most of decisions that are made are never made by the church, it is made behind closed door and if you disagree you can either deal with it or find another church regardless of the sacrifices you made to see this local assembly flourish and that is sad to me. However that goes back to the every member church, which I believe to be rare to nonexistent today.
In closing lets appeal like our brother Paul. We are not be lords but fellow brothers, and our example (1 Peter 5) should be what allows our other brothers and sisters to willing submit themselves to us. If it is done with a lording over mentality I promise you your decision, regardless of how beneficial it is, is not of God, it is not Holy Spirit driven but man centered and worldly.
Here is something I never noticed before. The church was meeting in Philemon’s house.
IIf Onesimus returned and was not treated as Paul “asked” what should the church do? Would you still meet in the home of a slave-owner who did not follow Paul’s “advice”?
I probably would not. Good thought, anyone else?
Lionel said: So the question is this. As leaders, how are we to get people to do what we think they should be doing?
I think a big problem with the unbiblical traditional church is that the so called leaders are trying to get people to do things they “think” people should be doing and ignoring what God’s Word indicates people should be doing. Grin
Here’s another interesting tidbit from Paul’s letter to Philemon. He not only addressed the letter to Philemon, but to the church that met in his house. I think Paul expected the church to join his appeal to Philemon on behalf of their mutual brother, Onesismus.
-Alan
Lionel, the thing I found most interesting about this tidbit is that Paul makes no threats. He does not say the church must stop meeting at this man’s house until he comes in line. Alan, you may be on to something though with your observation, but notice their is not command or no threat of calling Philemon a “false” brother or calling his faith into question or telling folks to even break fellowship with him.
I just see the approach as so radically different than how we approach these kinds of issues in church today.
Lionel, I am not totally convinced thought that your statement is totally accurate. You write, ” I believe this method of appeal is to be used to generate consensus on all decisions in the local body.” Let’s say a Father in the church has a problem with his Asian daughter getting married to a white man (this is a real situation I have been in). And so the whole church comes together and they decide that racial intermarriage is a sin. That is the consensus. So since there is a consensus, you would suggest the Elders act on consensus of the church, refuse the marry the young couple, and affirm the majority that racial mingling is a sin? That would be your definition of leadership for the church? Every single decision made by consensus?
Based on everything else you write, I assume you are going to say no, but I just want to try and understand the full context for what you are suggesting brother. Thanks for your patience in helping me follow your thinking.
Oh, one last question if you don’t mind. In response to my question about would you stay in that church you said, “I probably would not. Good thought, anyone else?”
But are you not then tearing apart the body over a personal issue of choice? If Paul is saying Philemon has a choice and can make either one, how would it be right to fracture the fellowship simply because you disagree? Is that not the reason we see church splits and denominationalism?
Brother Woods,
Many, I mean many, traditional Southern Baptist congregations have monthly or bi-monthly meetings to discuss, approve, and decide the “business” of the congregation. We are deliberately “congregational.”
Therefore many of them exercise full participation in the congregation’s life. Do you really think members of the congregation are interested in the day-to-day? “All” did not handle the day-to-day situation in Acts 6 – seven men were chosen to act on behalf of the whole.
Good post. I see sooooooooooooooooo many pastors voted out because the have NO concern for consensus in the local body. Might more leaders graciously “appeal.”
Joe,
That wouldn’t be a church decision, I am speaking more on discipline for sin, building expasions, supporting missionaries, things of that nature. Your example wouldn’t qualify for my take on consensus.
I would not want to submit to that leader. It wouldn’t cause a split so to say. I would leave peacably and quitely.
Smithbaptist,
These people met from house to house daily, I am sure many issues came up. I believe Luke highlights this due to its significance. I could be wrong but just because the day to day wasn’t mentioned I don’t believe that means these things weren’t dealt with. I am pretty sure there were discipline issues, the recognition of elders, the spreading of resources, collections and so forth. I would bet there are many issues that were dealt with that aren’t mentioned. Just my opinion.
It seems that we tend to equate leadership with decision-making. Why?
-Alan
If your day-to-day issues are discipline, recognition of elders, allocation of resources, then I agree with you. I misunderstood. I took day-to-day to mean more mundane routine matters.
Again, may the church have more “appealing” leaders/shepherds.
Those are the types of things discussed in monthly/bi-monthly congregational meetings.
Probably in a church I enivsion there would be little to no mundane items (mortgage, rent, salaries, buisness deals and the like) so we may be talking about two seperate models.
Alan,
Can you elaborate?
Yes, I can. It will be published Monday. 🙂
-Alan
Thanks for your clarifications and answering my questions Lionel. What you are saying more sense to me now. 🙂
Lionel,
Ok… I’ve published my “elaboration” in a post called “Leadership is not decision-making“. Its probably more than you wanted. 🙂
-Alan