Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Rethinking Leadership in the New Testament

Rethinking Leadership in the New Testament

Last updated on: May 20, 2018 at 12:20 pm by Frank Viola

Rethinking Leadership in the New Testament 2018-05-20T12:20:43-04:00 Frank Viola

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In my book, Reimagining Church (2008), I crafted a detailed exposition on what leadership in the first-century church looked like and the revolutionary principles that were clearly articulated by Jesus and Paul.

The second half of my book is entitled “Who is Your Covering?” (a title I created in the 1990s), and it goes into great depth on the issues of accountability, submission, and authority.

The Appendix of Reimagining Church answers every objection I’ve ever seen about my views on this subject along with my responses.

In this connection, Jon Zens has just released a powerful new book. It’s called 58-0: How Christ Leads Through the One-Anothers

If I had one book by Jon Zens to give to people, it would be this one.

It contains Zens’ best thinking on the subject of leadership from a New Testament perspective, and it also contains chapters by other writers — some past and some contemporary.

Here is the chapter I contributed to the book.

Is the New Testament Hierarchical?

For centuries, certain texts in the N.T. have been mishandled to support hierarchical/positional leadership structures in the church. This mishandling has caused no small damage to the body of Christ.

The notion of hierarchical/positional authority is partly the result of mistranslations and misinterpretations of certain biblical passages. These mistranslations and misinterpretations have been influenced by cultural biases that have cluttered the original meaning of the biblical language. Such biases have transformed simple words into heavily loaded ecclesiastical titles. As a result, they have eroded the original landscape of the church. Thus a fresh reading of the N.T. in its original language is necessary for properly understanding certain texts. For instance, a look at the original Greek yields the following insights:

“Bishops” are simply guardians (episkopoi), not high-church officials
“Pastors” are caretakers (poimen), not professional pulpiteers
“Ministers” are table-waiters (diakonos), not clergymen
“Elders” are wise old men (presbuteros), not ecclesiastical officers

Thankfully, a growing number of N.T. scholars are pointing out that the “leadership” terminology of the N.T. possesses descriptive accents denoting special functions rather than formal positions. Caring/serving in N.T. is non-official, non-titular, and non-hierarchical.

Doesn’t Acts 1:20; Romans 11:13; 12:4; and 1 Timothy 3:1, 10, 12 speak of church “officials”?

The word office in these passages is a mistranslation. It has no equivalent in the original Greek. Nowhere in the Greek N.T. do we find the equivalent of office used in connection with any ministry, function, or leader in the church.

The Greek word for office is only used to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ in His high priestly office (Heb. 5-7). It’s also used to refer to the Levitical priesthood (Luke 1:8). The King James Version mistranslates Romans 11:13b to be, “I magnify mine office.” But the Greek word translated “office” means service, not office. So a better translation of Romans 11:13b is “I magnify my service [diakonia].” Similarly, Romans 12:4b is better translated “All the members do not have the same function [praxis].” The Greek word praxis means a doing, a practice, or a function rather than an office or position. The NIV and the NASB reflect this better translation. Finally, 1 Timothy 3:1, says the following in the KJV: “If a man desire the office of a bishop…” But a more accurate translation puts it this way: “If anyone aspires to oversight…”

Doesn’t Acts 20:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17; and Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 say that elders have “the rule over” the church?

The words “rule” and “over” in these texts are a poor fit with the rest of the New Testament. And there’s no analog for them in the Greek text. This is yet another case where certain translations have confused the modern reader by employing culturally conditioned religious terminology.

The word “rule” in Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 is translated from the Greek word hegeomai. It simply means to guide or go before. In his translation of Hebrews, N.T. scholar F. F. Bruce translates hegeomai as “guides.” This word carries the thought of “those who guide you” rather than “those who rule over you.”

Similarly, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, the word “over” is translated from the Greek word proistemi. It carries the idea of standing in front of, superintending, guarding, and providing care for. Robert Banks and F. F. Bruce explain that this term doesn’t carry the technical force of an official designation, for it’s used in the participle rather than the noun form. It’s also positioned as the second in the midst of two other non-official participles. Bruce translates 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 as follows: “Now we ask you brethren to know those who work hard among you and care for you in the Lord and instruct you, and esteem them very highly in love because of their work.”

The same word (proistemi) appears in 1 Timothy 5:17. It, too, is incorrectly translated “rule” in the KJV and NASB. In addition, in Acts 20:28, the Greek text says that the elders are “en” (among) the flock rather than “over” them (as the KJV puts it). In a similar vein, Paul’s statement that overseers must “rule [proistemi] their own houses well” in 1 Timothy 3:4-5 doesn’t point to their ability to wield power. It rather points to their capacity to supervise, manage, and nurture others. Incidentally, managing the household didn’t envision managing the nuclear family. It involved much more than that. It involved managing married and unmarried relatives as well as servants.

In all these passages, the basic thought is that of watching rather than bossing; superintending rather than dominating, facilitating rather than dictating, guiding rather than ruling. The Greek text conveys an image of one who stands within the flock, guarding and caring for it (as a leading-servant would). It’s reminiscent of a shepherd who looks out for the sheep—not one who drives them from behind or rules them from above. Again, the thrust of apostolic teaching consistently demonstrates that God’s idea of church leadership is at odds with those conventional leadership roles that are based on top-heavy rule.

Every physical body has a head. Therefore, every local body of believers needs a head. If it doesn’t have one, it will be chaotic. Pastors are the heads of local churches. They are little heads under Christ’s headship.

This idea is born out of the imaginations of fallen humans. There is not a shred of biblical support for such an idea. The Bible never refers to a human being as a “head” of a church. This title exclusively belongs to Jesus Christ. He is the only Head of each local assembly. The church has no head under His own. Therefore, those who claim to be heads of churches supplant the executive headship of Christ.

Doesn’t Hebrews 13:17 command us to obey and submit to our leaders, implying that church leaders possess official authority?

Again, a look at the Greek text proves useful here. The word translated “obey” in Hebrews 13:17 is not the garden-variety Greek word (hupakouo) that’s usually employed in the N.T. for obedience. Rather, it’s the word peitho. Peitho means to persuade or to win over. Because this word appears in the middle-passive form in Hebrews 13:17, the text ought to be translated “Allow yourselves to be persuaded by your leaders.”

This text appears to be an exhortation to give weight to the instruction of local overseers (and possibly apostolic workers). It’s not an exhortation to obey them mindlessly. It implies persuasive power to convince and to win over rather than to coerce, force, or browbeat into submission. In the words of Greek scholar W. E. Vine, “The obedience suggested [in Hebrews 13:17] is not by submission to authority, but resulting from persuasion.”

Likewise, the verb translated “submit” in this passage is the word hupeiko. It carries the idea of yielding, retiring, or withdrawing, as in surrendering after battle. Those who occupy themselves with spiritual oversight don’t demand submission. By virtue of their wisdom and spiritual maturity, they are to be accorded with respect. Christians are encouraged to be uncommonly biased toward what they say. Not because of an external office they hold, but because of their godly character, spiritual stature, and sacrificial service to the people of God. In the words of Hebrews 13:7, we are to “imitate their faith” as we “consider the outcome of their life.” By so doing, we make their God-called task of spiritual oversight far easier to carry out (v. 17).

Don’t the seven angels of the seven churches in the book of Revelation represent the presence of a single pastor in each local church?

The first three chapters of Revelation constitute a flimsy basis upon which to construct the doctrine of “single pastor.” First, the reference to the angels of these churches is cryptic. John doesn’t give us any clues about their identity. Scholars are not sure what they symbolize. (Some believe they point to literal angels. Others believe they are human messengers.)

Second, there’s no analog for the idea of a “solo pastor” anywhere in the New Testament. Nor is there any text that likens pastors unto angels. Third, the idea that the seven angels refer to the “pastors” of the seven churches is in direct conflict with other N.T. texts. For instance, Acts 20:17 and 20:28 tell us that the church of Ephesus had multiple shepherds (pastors), not one. This is true for all 1st Century churches that had elders. They were always plural.

Therefore, to hang the “sola pastora” doctrine on one obscure passage in Revelation is sloppy and careless exegesis. The fact is, there is no support for the modern pastor in Revelation or in any other N.T. document.

Note: I answer many more objections in the Appendix of Reimagining Church.

The Mess We Find Ourselves in Today

The primary reason why our ideas on church leadership have strayed so far from God’s will can be traced to our tendency to project Western political notions of government onto the biblical writers—reading them back into the text. When we read words like “pastor,” “overseer,” and “elder,” we immediately think in terms of governmental offices like “president,” “senator,” and “chairman.” So we regard elders, pastors, and overseers as sociological constructs (offices). We view them as vacant slots that possess a reality independent of the persons who populate them. We then ascribe mere men with unquestioned authority simply because they “hold office.”

The N.T. notion of leadership is markedly different. As previously stated, there’s no biblical warrant for the idea that church leadership is official. Neither is there any scriptural backing for the notion that some believers have authority over other believers. The only authority that exists in the church is Jesus Christ. Humans have no authority in themselves. Divine authority is vested only in the Head and expressed through the body. Good leadership, therefore, is never authoritarian. It only displays authority when it’s expressing the mind of Jesus Christ.

The basic tasks of biblical leadership are facilitation, nurture, guidance, and service. To the degree that a member is modeling the will of God in one of those areas, to that degree he or she is leading. It’s no wonder that Paul never chose to use any of the forty-plus common Greek words for “office” and “authority” when discussing leaders. Again, Paul’s favorite word for describing leadership is the opposite of what natural minds would suspect. It’s diakonos, which means a “servant”—a person very low on the social totem pole in the 1st Century.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 14, 2014

This Post Has Expired

Next Post

January 21, 2014 Wish You Could Read A Ton of Books, But Don't Have the Time? This is an AMAZING Solution

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the consequence of David’s sin with Bathsheba?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David was exiled His kingdom was taken away Their first child died Bathsheba was taken from him