Pastoral Leadership

Biblical Leadership and Authority

by Ron Flurry

Answering a question at a Bible Conference (E3 Bible Conference, Woodlake Baptist Church, Carrollton, TX; April, 2007), Dr. Jimmy Draper, retired President of LifeWay, stated; (Quote) that probably the greatest problem in churches today, centers around power struggles, or the question of who is in charge. (End Quote) In many instances there is one family who assumes that role and through many different ways causes the members to give in to that assumption and so by their actions and methods, they are the family to whom everyone else capitulates.

In many Baptists churches, as well as others, the belief and practice is that Deacons should be “in charge.” This feeling may have come about because of several different reasons. One, there are times in the life of a congregation when there is a lengthy absence of a pastor, and the natural leaders, whom the church have set aside as Deacons, steps up and takes care of the things that need to be handled. The place they take becomes comfortable to them and members in the church get used to accepting this role as belonging to them. So, when a pastor is called, it becomes difficult to surrender this role to the one God has called, equipped, and commanded to function in this capacity. Two, there have been times when pastors have not been the kind of persons God wants them to be. It may be they are not “God Called” ministers, or it may be they have allowed sin to destroy their relationship to God and thus with the church. Always, when this happens, Deacons and other Leaders in the church must step up and be Stalwarts of Faith. When situations like this do occur, the church becomes “skittish” and tends to “mis-trust” future pastors.

So, does the Bible give clear teaching about who has the right of leadership and authority? The answer is yes!

Let’s look at this from the following angles:
1. Who has the call of God upon them for this role?
2. What is the Bible’s meaning about rule and authority of the pastor?
3. Who makes final decisions?

1. The first question is: Who has the call of God upon them for this role?

Beginning in the Old Testament, God has always taken a very strict position against followers complaining or plotting against those He has set in position of leadership and authority. The twelfth chapter of Numbers describe how God viewed Aaron and Miriam for opposing their brother Moses because they didn’t feel it was right for Moses to marry whom he did. This wasn’t just a matter of what God had told them about worship. The pretext of their complaint was about what they considered ethically and sociologically correct for their brother since he taught them about the things of God. The real issue was their jealousy over Moses’ leadership role. God did not agree with Aaron or Miriam. God’s discipline came on Miriam in the form of leprosy, which was the most feared disease in the world, and lasted seven days. Read with me Numbers 12:4-8.

Suddenly the Lord said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, `Come out, you three, to the tabernacle of meeting!’ So the three came out, Then the Lord came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. Then He said, `Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?’

Listen to what the commentator of the Believer’s Bible Commentary says about this situation.

(Quote) Numbers 12:4–8 God summoned Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, rebuked Miriam and Aaron, and reminded them that Moses held a position of nearness to God that no other prophet ever held. He might speak to others indirectly, by visions and dreams, but He spoke to Moses directly, face to face. (The word plainly in v. 8 means “directly,” i.e., without a go-between.) The form of the Lord means some manifestation or visible representation. Although Miriam herself was a prophetess (Ex. 15:20), the Lord made clear the difference between His relationship with Moses and other prophets. The only other thing recorded about Miriam after this incident is her death (Num. 20:1) (End Quote).

There may be some questions as to why Aaron was not disciplined, and the same commentary states:

(Quote) Numbers 12:9, 10 – 16 The Lord was angry with them, and He departed. As punishment for her rebellion, Miriam was smitten with leprosy. Since Aaron was not punished, some suggest that Miriam was the ringleader. They point out that the verb in verse 1 is feminine singular. Others believe that Aaron’s punishment was to see his sister become a leper. Aaron was the high priest, and he would have been unable to function on behalf of the people if he had been made leprous. His position might have saved him from the humiliation that Miriam had to go through. Aaron confessed his sin to Moses and asked that Miriam should not be “like a stillborn child, which comes into the world half decomposed.” (End Quote)

Later, Korah, of the tribe of Levi, (part of the lay servants of this ministering tribe whose task parallel in many ways the work of those set apart in the New Testament as Deacons) said to Moses: You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the congregation of the Lord (Numbers 16: 3)? One can see from their complaint, jealousy over leadership in the community of God is not a new thing. Yet, in this, God was also prompted to act in order to reveal His will and calling upon the one He had chosen to be their spiritual and governmental leader. The following comments are made by Warren Wiersbe, one time president of Moody Bible Seminary.

(Quote) Korah was a Levite who was not content to assist in the tabernacle; he wanted to serve as a priest as well (v. 10). Of course, this attitude was a direct rebellion against the Word of God as given by Moses, since it was God who made the tabernacle appointments. Not content to rebel alone, Korah gathered 250 princes of Israel, well-known men (most of them probably Levites), as well as three men from the tribe of Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son. In name, number, unity, and attitude, those rebels seemed to have a strong case against Aaron and Moses. It appears that Korah and his followers defied Aaron, while Dathan, Abiram, and On (being descendants of Reuben, the firstborn) questioned the authority of Moses. However, they were united in their plot.

Rebels rarely give the real reason for their attacks; in v. 3 the men argued that all of the nation was “a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6), and therefore Moses and Aaron had no right to take the places of leadership. Of course, this rebellion was based on self-seeking and envy. These men wanted to “lift themselves up” before the congregation. Certainly the whole nation was holy to God, but He had placed some people in positions of leadership as He willed. The same is true of the church today: all saints are beloved of God, but some have been given spiritual gifts and spiritual offices for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:15–16; 1 Cor. 12:14–18). We are encouraged to “desire spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 14:1) but not to covet another person’s spiritual office. If a believer wants a place of spiritual leadership, let him prove himself worthy of it by his character and conduct (1 Tim. 3:1ff). The church must heed Paul’s warning in Acts 20:28–31 [worth reading]. (End Quote)

Jealousy over leadership is specifically what the Apostle John was referring when in 3 John 9–12 we read:
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. Demetrius has a good testimony from all, and from the truth itself. And we also bear witness, and you know that our testimony is true.

Nothing else is much said about this person, but what is said is explicit. Preeminence means, loving to be in first place. Gaius may have been the pastor of this church John is writing. One can not say for certain. He may have been the same Gaius, a faithful companion of Paul who late in the first century may have become the Bishop of Thessalonica. At any rate, he was a man to be commended for standing faithful against this sinful person. Listen to what John McArthur says about 3 John and this desire for preeminence by Diotrephes.

(Quote) 3 John 9, I wrote to the church. John apparently had written a previous letter to the church, perhaps on the subject of hospitality, but it was lost. Perhaps Diotrephes never read it to the church because he rejected John’s authority (cf. vv. 9,10). Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence. In the second part of his epistle, John condemned the violation of hospitality toward faithful ministers of the Word. The word “preeminence” has the idea of “desiring to be first.” It conveys the idea of someone who is selfish, self-centered, and self-seeking. The language suggests a self-promoting demagogue, who served no one, but wanted all to serve only him. Diotrephes’ actions directly contradict Jesus’ and the NT’s teaching on servant-leadership in the church (cf. Matt. 20:20–28; Phil 2:5–11; 1 Tim. 3:3; 1 Pet. 5:3). does not receive us. Diotrephes modeled the opposite of kindness and hospitality to God’s servants, even denying John’s apostolic authority over the local congregation, and as a result, denying the revelation of God that came through that authority. His pride endeavored to supplant the rule of Christ through John in the church. Diotrephes’ character was the very opposite of the gentle and loving Gaius who readily showed hospitality.

10 if I come, I will call to mind his deeds. John’s apostolic authority meant that Diotrephes had to answer for his behavior. The apostle did not overlook this usurping of Christ’s place in the church. Verse 10 indicates that Diotrephes was guilty of 4 things: 1) “prating against us.” The word “prating” comes from a word meaning “to bubble up” and has the idea of useless, empty jabber, i.e., talking nonsense. The charges against John were completely unjustified; 2) “with malicious words.” Not only were Diotrephes’ charges false, they were evil; 3) “does not receive the brethren.” He not only slandered John but also deliberately defied other believers; and 4) “putting them out of the church.” The original language indicates that Diotrephes’ habit was to excommunicate those who resisted his authority. does not receive the brethren. To accept John’s authority (v. 9), as well as being hospitable to the traveling ministers, directly threatened the authority that Diotrephes coveted.

11 do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The verse begins the introduction to the commendation of Demetrius in v. 12. Gaius was to imitate Demetrius as the correct role model for his actions. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God. John’s statement indicates that Diotrephes’ actions proved that he was never a Christian. This is a practical application of the moral test (see notes on 1 John 5:2,3).

12 Demetrius. As with Gaius, Demetrius was a very common name in the Roman world (Acts 19:24,38). Nothing is known of him apart from this epistle. He may have delivered this letter, which also would serve to commend him to Gaius. has a good testimony from all. Like Gaius, Demetrius’ reputation was well known in the region. from the truth itself. Demetrius was an excellent role model preeminently because he practiced the truth of God’s Word in his life. (End Quote)

Abundant evidence is available that would keep a person busy forever proving God’s feelings against those who desire to “have the first place” in churches.

Apostle Paul, writing to young Timothy, pastor at Ephesus, spoke firmly and clearly regarding actions of the church relating to the pastor’s responsibilities. He said:

1 Timothy 5:17-21, Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, `You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,’ and, `The laborer is worthy of his wages.’ Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels, that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.

Pastors are not above reproach. But, to accuse or stand against a pastor because he does not do things the way someone else thinks, or because of what and how he preaches, is placing one’s self in a dangerous position with God. John MacArthur states the following regarding the accusation of a pastor.

(Quote) Serious accusations against elders must be investigated and confirmed by the same process as established in Matt. 18:15–20 (see notes there). This process for the whole church also applies to elders. This demand does not place elders beyond successful accusation, but protects them from frivolous, evil accusers, by demanding the same process of confirmation of sin as for all in the church. All discipline of elders is to be done fairly, without prejudgment or personal preference, according to the standards of Scripture. (End Quote)

2. The second question raised by this message is: What is the Bible’s meaning about rule and authority of the pastor?

Before this question is answered, a statement of what this pastor understands as to the meaning of rule. Pastoral leadership or authority does not convey dictatorial attitudes. Only God has the right to dictate His will to us. Pastoral leadership is best described from the stand point of a shepherd. This image of a shepherd is not one of a young boy who lays care free in the grass or walking casually along tossing stones, rather it is seen in Jesus. Jesus called Himself the good Shepherd and we know through the Gospels what a strong, vibrant, and sometimes forceful person He is. The very word, pastor, comes from the word shepherd. This word in its basic meaning is to tend. This tending is to be understood as covering all areas of the church. The shepherd looks over the flock. He always positions himself to know what is going on with his charge. The shepherd feeds his sheep (preaching the Word); protects them (prays over them); provides for them (takes care of practical things); and, loves them(be a part of their lives).

The Bible uses several words to describe the role of this shepherd. Pastor, which has just been mentioned. Bishop, which comes from two words, epi = over, and skopos = a watcher. The word bishop does not in itself convey any authority, but the very work described in the word pastor. Elder or Presbyter comes from the word presbytero, which means one of older age or of experience. In the New Testament, when used in reference to the role of a pastor, it carries the idea of a senior pastor still functioning as pastor. It may have been a veiled reference to the Apostles.

The Apostle Paul gave a distinct understanding of the calling of God upon pastors when he stated in Ephesians 4:12-16:

(That Jesus) gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

The following is taken from the Believers Study Bible. It gives the best and concise teachings of the role of pastor this pastor can find. This pastor is not ignorant of the fact there are different interpretations of these roles. These are, however, the same beliefs I hold and under which I conduct my life. These thoughts are taken from pages 1718, 1771, & 1755, and refers to 1 Tim. 3:1-13; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; & Heb. 13:7,17:

(Quote) 3:1 In the N.T. the terms “bishop” (“overseer”), “elder,” and “pastor” all refer to the same position (cf. Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5,7; 1 Pet. 5:1-4, note). [1 Pet. 5:1-3 Three terms are employed in the N.T. to depict the role of the pastor. All three are used in this passage, though here two are used in verb form: (1) “Elders” (presbuteros, Gk.) is a term generically referring to a fully mature man. The respect accorded to an elderly man is transferred to the office of the pastor. The use of the word “elder” indicates profound respect and esteem for the office. (2.) “Shepherd” the flock of God employs the Greek verb poimainō. The nominal form of the word is poimēn, which is rendered “pastor” or “shepherd.” The word describes the spiritual ministries of the leader of the church. As pastor or shepherd, he is to feed, protect, guide, and pray for the flock of God. (3.) “Serving as overseers” is a translation of episkopountes Gk.). The noun form episkopos is usually translated “bishop.” The emphasis is upon the administrative responsibilities of the chief officer of the church. The terms are all synonymous in that they refer to the same office. They differ only in emphasis. These responsibilities are to be discharged willingly as an example (tupoi, Gk.) to the flock, and they are not to be rendered due to constraint, due to the desire for inordinate gain, or due to the ambition to be lords over God’s people. The term “bishop” indicates strong leadership but not dictatorship (cf. Heb. 13:7, note). {Heb. 13:7 Both here and in v. 17 one finds mentioned “those who rule over you.” The Greek word employed is not the one which is generally used to mean “to reign” as king or governor. The word found here (hēgeomai, Gk.) has meanings such as “lead,” “preside,” “govern,” or “rule.” The best approach is to understand that those who occupied the office of pastor (elder) in the early churches were held in esteem and reverence. The Hebrews are cautioned to remember them continually and to obey and submit to them. Their faith is to be followed because of its evident results in their lives. Those who are members of the local churches are to see that the pastor’s duty to “watch out for your souls” can be discharged “with joy” rather than “with grief” (v. 17). The two verses together portray the God-ordained leadership of the elders or pastors in the early assemblies.} ]. It was customary to have more than one person in each local church who was responsible for spiritual leadership (Acts 14:23), but with one ruling elder having primary leadership as the pastor. Verses 1-7 [1 Tim. 3:1-7] make it clear that God is especially concerned with the character of those men who lead the churches. Functionally, it is the responsibility of the pastor to shepherd, direct, teach, and protect the flock of God entrusted to him. (End Quote)

Nowhere else in Scripture is there given to any other person the right to rule or care for the church of Christ. In Paul’s instruction to Timothy regarding the qualifications of pastors and deacons, the pastor is the only one implied to rule over the church. This particular role is not included in the qualifications or roles of the deacon.

Now as to practical things about a pastor’s role as Pastor/Leader of the church. Most churches in the world are small churches. Small churches have a number of different personalities, just as different as people do. Some have the family chapel personality, whereby the only thing they want of a pastor is to visit, preach (devotionalize), and always be at their beckoned call. Other’s have a social ministry personality. They are into promoting mission centers where the down and out or poor can be clothed, fed, and sheltered. These churches want a pastor to be a Chaplin.

There are churches who consider themselves The Church in an area. They are a little better than all the other churches, and their pastor must present himself as the Reverend of the area. These churches are more inclined to be very religious, and want the recognition of being well organized and all members must have a place of leadership. Pastors of this kind of church is to be only a figure head, not the catalyst of leadership.

Even in larger churches of 200-400, many of the same attitudes prevail among some of the members, but because of practical issues of just getting things done, the staff (pastors and secretaries) usually see to the mundane things which are daily occurrences.

Should a pastor visit, preach, always be available, present himself well to the community, and represent the church well? Yes, absolutely! In fact, all these things fit into the calling he has under God. But the pastor/leader is more. He is a change agent; a catalyst of growth, organization, and information about many things in the life of a church.

Most pastors have worked in the secular world in many different fields as they prepared for ministry. Some have come into ministry from the business world and have good skills relating to the business of a church. While in school, both in undergraduate schools and in Graduate schools, they study subjects as: Sunday School Organization, Committee Structure, Church Business Administration, Personnel Policy, Church Policy, and many other could be named. What this means is that most pastors who come to a church with a degree from a Bible College and or Seminary, come equipped to LEAD/rule the church. In other words, they come to a church knowing a thing or two about practical matters relating to a church.

It is safe to assume, many preachers to not want to be tied down making all decisions for their church. Most would prefer having what organizations/committees the church needs enabling them to function practically. Problems sometime arise when theses organizations/committees feel they make the “rules” in their area of their interest, and must do all the work in that area regardless as to the pastor’s leadership advice given or asked. The best decisions a church makes usually comes when enough discussions (not arguments) are held and then come to a consensus deciding the best way of doing things. This should be done before problems arise, but can be effectively done afterwards if all involved will come together in agreement. No one person’s opinion should be sought more than anyone else. No one is more important than another.

If a church is organized on a committee plan, that committee should paint the broad strokes for getting done what they envision the church doing in their specific area. Coming then to the pastor, or in meeting with the pastor, make final decisions to present to the church their plan of action. As the dates arrive for action, all involved, should be conscience of making sure every thing is in order for the ministry to be accomplished.

One thing is a vital must for a church to be healthy and at peace with one another. On all matters reflecting ministry, the pastor’s guidance should be wanted, sought, and asked. If God called this man to be the pastor, He also equipped him to guide, suggest, lead, and generally oversee the ministry of the church. In areas he might not have training, or skills, he will be wise to delegate to someone else for suggestions and thoughts, but he should never be left out of the loop. Churches must always remember God equates Christians to sheep. And, sheep never go out to pasture without a shepherd. When and if they do, they generally find themselves in danger. From a Biblical stand point, that is when Satan (the wolf) will come in (usually in the form of someone who wants to be Diotrephes) and cause friction between the pastor and church. Why would Satan want to do this? Because being The Most Important Individual/power of the church makes this person think more highly of himself than he should. Remember, this person loves to have the preeminence in the church. If a pastor is walking with Christ Jesus, then he, as the church’s under-shepherd will know the direction the church needs to go. It is also, an experienced shepherd who knows where the dangers lie and how best to avoid them.

To simplify the practical even more, if the broad strokes have been painted in any area of the church, and something needs to be done to effect the desired end, then what difference does it make who actually does what it takes to get to that end? For example, all the tolit paper is out, and the pastor picks up the phone and orders a supply, has the desired end been met? Yes! If the lights are left on in the Worship Center and a deacon comes by and sees it on. Should he stop and turn them off or continue home and then complain to everyone that someone had left them on, or call the pastor to “run up to the church” and cut them off? You know the answer! If a problem exists with a HVAC system, and the pastor calls a reputable technician, is he automatically wrong to do so? In each of these, the broad strokes are there. It’s the end result that’s important. The end result is, the church is functioning in love with each other. The good of the body is being accomplished. It doesn’t matter “who” gets it done.

Pastoral Leadership means just that. The pastor is the leader of the church. He is the leader in all things, ministry, spiritually, and practically. He should be given that leadership by the church. He should be supported in his leadership by the lay-leaders of the church. The pastor, by right of God’s call on his life, should never have to “earn” the right to lead. Sheep do not pick their shepherd. I know someone will say; the church does pick their pastor when they call him for that task. However, their call comes through the leadership of the Holy Spirit and should be viewed as their following God’s will for their church. A pastor’s leadership direction should be viewed as God’s new direction for their church, and follow him unless it is Non-Scriptural, Immoral, or Illegal. Just because it ain’t never been done that way before does not give the church the right to oppose their pastor. Remember, God chose him and called him. If he is not leading the church the way God wants, God will deal with him. Pastors are human, and not perfect. Pastors do make mistakes, but again, unless it is unbiblical teaching, immoral or illegal behavior, you are to follow him with a prayerful heart. If you disagree with him, pray about it until God gives you an agreement with him or affirms to you through your spirit he is wrong, and then go directly to the pastor and talk to him about your feelings. God may be dealing with him but because no one has come to him, he assumes it is God’s will. When a church member rises against the pastor in an ungodly or unbiblical way, he places himself in a place of judgement. In the first part of this study, we saw what God thinks about one rising up against God’s called.

3. The final question is: Who makes final decisions?

Many people in churches confuse Congregational Policy, with Congregational-Led Churches. As Baptist, most agree church members must be involved in all decisions made. Biblical examples abound revealing this great truth. In matters of church discipline, the whole assembly is to take part (Matthew 18: 15-20; 1 Corinthians 5: 4-5). The restoration of a disciplined member (2 Corinthians 2:5-11). The priesthood of all believers can be appealed to supporting congregational policy (1 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 10:19, 22; John 16:13; & Matthew 28:19-20). All believers have at least one spiritual gift, and Scripture reveals Holy Spirit Gifts are to be used through the Body of Christ, the church (1 Corinthians 12:4-27). When the early church elected their leaders and servants, it was the church gathered, that did so (Acts 1:15-26; Acts 6:1-6; Acts 13:2-3, 14:26-27).⁶ However, there is a difference between congregational rule and congregational led churches. The New Testament does not give evidence of a congregational led church. The pastor is given this responsibility. He may delicate matters so he will not be taken away from the more weighty matter of preaching and teaching, but leadership is his by Divine calling. Dr.Gerald Cowen, professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina states:

(Quote) It is true that congregations do not always follow godly pastors. That is one of the risks of congregational polity. That is why Scripture gives this admonition: “We urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:12-13).

Dr. Cowen concludes stating the following:

The New Testament church operation is to be a cooperative effort between the pastor (elder) and the congregation. He is to lead and oversee the work, but it is his duty to keep the congregation involved and bring the people along with him by appealing to the Word of God. (End Quote)

Having grown up at the feet of many generations of Baptists, and for more than forty years a student of the Word of God; the best of my ability and understanding of Scripture, the following organizational chart is the Biblical Model of a church.

Head = JESUS

Undershepherd = Pastor

Body = Church

Servants =Ministry Leaders, Deacons & Committees

No other structure is Biblical. There are a lot of other models in other belief systems, but this is the Biblical model Baptist have used historically. It gives autonomy to each local congregation, but unity as to association with other churches of like faith and order. It gives room for different paradigms of organization, but unity in Biblical perspectives. This model also denotes the most important of truths about a church. The church is about relationships. If the pastor does not have a living and abiding relationship with Christ, he will not function well with the members. In the same stream of thought, if the members do not have a living and abiding relationship with Christ, they will not function well with the pastor nor ministry leaders, deacons, or committees. The key to understanding and functioning as the Body of Christ in any locale, is one’s living and abiding relationship with Jesus. If that is hindered in any way, through neglect or sin, then the church is always going to be in turmoil with broken, and dis-functioning relationships.