Despite the current egalitarian ethos in our culture, neither consensus nor opposition within a group is biblically determinative of a leader’s effectiveness. Neither are they an assessment of whether or not the leader is exhibiting character and integrity as he follows the Lord in his calling. Absalom won the hearts of the people over against the Lord’s anointed David. Moses, Paul, and Jesus all faced widespread and unjust opposition. Why would we think we won’t?! Yet today, a leader’s effectiveness is often not judged by their faithfulness in the face of opposition but rather on their ability to operate based on consensus or (as they say) to “win friends and influence people.” 

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. – 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13

Introduction

I recently read about a pastor who used his platform to rebuke a man for sexual sin in the church. In the same address he corrected women for their immodesty. In another public statement, he cited the names of two women within a local body for their quarreling. In another instance, this pastor called out another brother-in-Christ as being worldly. He is, in fact, no stranger even to publicly calling out other pastors. Perhaps most shocking was the time he unapologetically used a derogatory reference for a whole people group.

In the midst of all this, people in the church called him a deceiver, accused him of lawlessness, made allegations against him of financial exploitation, and of being one who used his public platform in a manner inconsistent with his personal presentation. His public disagreements with brothers-in-Christ are well known because he himself has made them known. This is not to mention how he routinely stirred up unbelievers in the culture and was accused by them.

What are we to make of a pastor who exhibits this pattern of behavior and has this sort of reputation in the Church and the community? If I gave you his name, would you send a request for investigation to his presbytery? What if I told you that I was referring to the Apostle Paul? If you’re confused, see the following passages of Scripture: 1 Corinthians 3:1-4; 5:1-5; 11:6; Titus 1:11-13; 2 Timothy 4:10; Galatians 2:11-14, Philippians 4:2-3; Acts 21:27-28; 2 Corinthians 6:8; 7:2; 10:10; 12:16-18; 13:1-3; Acts 21:41; 24:5.

While it is true there is a distinction between Paul’s Apostolic authority and a modern-day Teaching Elder’s authority, pastors still have a derived authority that stands on the shoulders of the message once for all delivered by the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20; 4:11-16). The pastor’s authority is rooted and grounded in God’s Word, and the Scriptures have much to say about its nature.

Is Servant Leadership a Submissive Leadership?

We live in a time where the prevailing paradigm for leadership is that of Servant Leadership. It is true that magistrates don’t exist for their own profit, but for the good of the people. Husbands and fathers are there to provide and protect for those in their household. Elders aren’t there for spiritual preeminence, but to lovingly keep watch over the souls of those the Lord has entrusted to them.

Of course, the model comes from our Lord who out of love for His people, disrobed, donned the clothes of a servant and washed his disciples’ feet (John 13). May we all do likewise! But, that’s not all He did. Our Savior then got up and taught, prayed for, rebuked, and instructed those he served and they obeyed, or at least were obligated and expected to (John 14:15).

However, this twofold approach to leadership is not the kind of leadership for which many proponents of the Servant Leadership model advocate when they point to the foot-washing as the paradigm for leadership. They are heavy on the “servanthood” while actual leadership is only to be exhibited to do the will of those whom the leader is ostensibly serving. If there is a disagreement with a decision the leader has made or if the leader does not agree with the opinion or view of those under him, the assumption is—at a minimum—that he has not listened well enough. He may even be called a bully or heavy-handed if he goes against the wishes of those he’s there to serve.

Read More