The Shepherd’s Passion

If the Distinctives of Christian Leadership is the criteria or functions of leadership as a matter of definition or performance, they wouldn’t always stand very well in a secular setting or context across various situational conditions. For example, a Christian leader couldn’t very well lead others in a mosque, abortion facility, or an illegal trafficking organization. There are often transferable leadership characteristics, but not always. I know the author says it’s applicable within reason, but it seems to me that it just depends on the circumstances.

Distinctives:

• A Christian Leader is a Christian
• A Christian Leader is a Committed Christ-Follower
• A Christian Leader’s Source of Truth Is Divine Revelation
• A Christian Leader Emphasizes Godly Character
• A Christian Leader Understands the Importance of Motives
• A Christian Leader Serves through the Power of the Holy Spirit
• A Christian Leader Practices Godly Servant Leadership
• A Christian Leader May Have the Gift of Leadership

The author doesn’t likely mean that all of these distinctives are necessarily and concurrently present with full proficiency at all times. So, there are some fields of vocation or context where some distinctives are evident in the character of believers. The author’s definition of Christian leaders and leadership appears in keeping with the book’s direction.

“First, Christian leaders are servants with the credibility and capabilities to influence people in a particular context to pursue their God-given direction. The second builds off the first. Christian leadership is the process whereby servants use their credibility and capability to influence people in a particular context to pursue their God-given direction” (pg. 10). – I would also simply add that Christian leaders and leadership are about the fulfillment of God-given kingdom objectives. Where there’s no overlap, the interests of God outweigh the interests of people, the church, culture, or society.

The responsibility and authority as “pastor” are commensurate with that of shepherd. With respect to the use of “pastor” (NIV) as a term corresponds to human leaders of the church (Eph 4:11). When compared to the use of the term in Acts 20:28, its meaning corresponds to overseer. An overseer is an overall church leader who watches over, directs, and is accountable for an assembly of believers.

Malphurs further explains, “The term overseer (ἐπίσκοπος) is found in such passages as Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1–2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 5:2. The term elder (πρεσβύτερος) is used in such passages as Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 22; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1.”

To further compare definitions:

Elder (BDAG):

πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
①        pert. to being relatively advanced in age, older, old ^[1]

Elder (Louw-Nida):

53.77 πρεσβύτεροςb, ου m: a person of responsibility and authority in matters of socio-religious concerns, both in Jewish and Christian societies—‘elder.’ ‘he sent a message from Miletus to Ephesus asking the elders of the church to meet him’ Ac 20:17. In some languages πρεσβύτεροςb is best rendered as ‘older leaders,’ but in other languages the more appropriate term would be the equivalent of ‘counselor,’ since it would be assumed that counselors would be older than the average person in a group as well as having authority to lead and direct activities.²

Overseer (BDAG):

ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ
Generic. ‘one who watches over, guardian.’
②        In the Gr-Rom. world ἐ. freq. refers to one who has a definite function or fixed office of guardianship and related activity within a group – Contradicts Malphurs (pg. 23).
       •  The term was taken over in Christian communities in ref. to one who served as overseer or supervisor, with special interest in guarding the apostolic tradition (Iren., Orig., Hippol.).
       •  Acts 20:28 ³

Overseer (Louw-Nida):

53.71 ἐπίσκοπος^b, ου m: one who serves as a leader in a church—‘church leader.’ δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον ‘since he is in charge of God’s work, the church leader should be without fault’ Tt 1:7. For ἐπίσκοπος in 1 Pe 2:25, see 35.43.

In translating ἐπισκοπή^b (53.69), ἐπισκοπέω^c (53.70), or ἐπίσκοπος^b, it is important to try to combine the concepts of both service and leadership, in other words, the responsibility of caring for the needs of a congregation as well as directing the activities of the membership. In some translations, an equivalent may be ‘helper and leader.’ ⁴

I’m confident about the definition accuracy of intended meaning from the original root text to the early churches. Paul’s specific instructions about eligibility requirements concerning church leadership are very clear. Whether the office itself, or its function, it’s clear that the overseer is the pastor while the elder is an older teacher, leader, or counselor.

By separating responsibilities according to biblical eligibility of both overseers (pastors) and elders by the gifts given to individuals, some specific roles and responsibilities correspond to their duties commensurate with the great commission to include support and protection of the church.

The biblical inference is that the overseer held more formal authority. Assuming matters concerning faith and practice while involved in teaching or shepherding, the overseer was more likely a pastor. Interestingly, the etymology of the term pastor concerns the shepherd who guides and guards sheep while they feed. And the shepherd would lead in terms of direction, gathering, and well-being. Conversely, the term and meaning “elder” suggests that it is subordinate to the overseer. As a person who holds the office of elder is of the church, his/her overseer would stand in authority. Overseers and elders are separate terms intentionally used within the biblical text to evoke differentiated meaning between them. Not to suggest that they are mutually exclusive to one another, but that there is viability to their roles as free-standing and separate responsibilities from one another. According to gifting for delegation, load sharing, synergy, individual strengths, talents, skills, etc.

The responsibilities of the early church pastor were to protect, teach, and lead the congregation toward the fulfillment of the great commission of Christ and to develop the Kingdom of God. The methods in which that was accomplished involved spreading the gospel (Mark 16:15), preaching (1 Tim 5:17), discipleship (Matt 28:19-20), church formation (Acts 20:28), the appointment of elders (Acts 11:29-30, 14:23, Jas 5:14), raising of funds (Acts 11:29-30), and the performance of God-given gifts (1 Cor 14:23).

The ESV’s use of the term “manage” (1 Tim 3:1-7) makes it clear that an “overseer” (3:2; ESV) is a male leader of the church who shall keep his household and children well managed (i.e., in proper order). The inference is that the character of an overseer who manages his home well will manage God’s church with due care.

As “manage” is also a modern practice, the first-century meaning of the idea does not translate well with the conventional functions of “management” that consist of leadership, control of resources, organization, and planning of a business or corporate organization. To further place the activity of the early church into modern terms and concepts, Malphurs made an effort to identify additional church functions as strategic thinking, goal setting, and vision casting familiar to first-century elders and overseers. The early church’s priority centered on Christ’s charge to make disciples of all nations and teach them all He commanded. In addition to the traditions of faith and practice involving fellowship, prayer, charity, teaching, and missions, there were explicit teachings that Jesus spoke to His followers. In addition to living in grace to walk by the Spirit, there were specific behaviors and actions (commands) that Jesus gave.

“Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you”  – Jesus, Mt 28:20

A pastor of a church is a leader who is kingdom minded. Pastoral care should be a function of responsibilities that maintain the church’s well-being. Later in the Malphurs reading (pg 79), he makes a strong case about a pastor’s leadership qualities that include pastoral care, but there are additional necessary and important responsibilities as well. The pastor’s passion is the underlying thread of all functions, responsibilities, and kingdom-minded endeavors. The pastor is always about shepherding, including the growth and care of the church as well.

numerous examples of historical figures who were identified as servant leaders. Moreover, it is necessary to take the entire corpus of Scripture to get a full picture of what servant leadership is. Of particular interest is the New Testament through various examples, but Christ Jesus is the best to more closely understand it.

Two passages stand out in terms of Christ’s explanations. Matthew 20:25-28 and John 13:1-17 are highlighted by Malphurs to bring attention to the characteristics of a servant leader. Specifically, humility, service, a focus on others, and love comprise biblical servant leadership that pastors and church leaders should develop within. These characteristics developed from two passages are supported by various examples and scripture references elsewhere in the life of Christ and His apostles. Furthermore, Malphurs identifies servant leadership examples by name to include:

Malphurs covers in some detail four specific misconceptions about servant leadership. They’re about doing ministry for others, being passive, focusing on the leader’s weaknesses, and ignoring the leader’s own needs. While all appear valid perspectives, servant leadership must be fully grounded in discipleship and have a biblical worldview.

I have encountered various pastors passionate about serving people, ministry, and growth opportunities but with a very shallow knowledge of Scripture. Baptism and communion had an incidental place within congregations. With some apostolic traditions entirely ignored. If pastors as servant leaders ignore the authority of God’s word, much of the work of ministry becomes subjective and a shallow form of worship.

I believe pastors should follow Christ as a model for discipleship and ministry. To know God and make Him known. Service or ministry is a by-product of what happens from discipleship to love and obey God. From a desire to glorify and serve Him in an organized and coherent manner as an outworking of Scripture and Godly counsel supports.

Due to my limited experience with churches, I know leaders and pastors who only serve and manage their ministries well. However, it has been my experience that leaders within churches of all sizes are not very accessible at significant length or depth. There is a surface level of relationship, but pastors I’ve known rely upon small groups or home groups for needed relationships among people who support one another.

Servant leaders I’ve known are more prevalent throughout the laity who have minimal leadership experience to support and develop a ministry biblically. When I’ve brought up my biblical studies coursework in conversation among pastors and leadership, there isn’t interest or curiosity about the reasons for pursuing biblical studies or theology. With volunteer work I’ve done, tithing and the initiative to communicate a desire to serve, results are mixed. Most times, pastors and leaders merely want congregants to sign up as per an announcement, show up, and help out where an opportunity or pressing need presents itself. It’s been my experience that the relationships formed must come from your initiative and persistence.

Servant leadership is a rarity from what I’ve observed and experienced. I’m sure it is present within churches, but I’m pretty sure it’s selective because it’s safe or comes with less risk. I have seen the same circumstances with new believers and people who want to get to know leaders within the church. Most often, unless you’re in an inner circle, you need to make an appointment to have a conversation. Or be close to someone close to leadership. Servant leaders get one-to-one time over coffee or personal time together, but the practice is narrow and insulated as a socially wise effort. At times, when I introduce myself to a leader or someone by phone, or if I reach out by other means, follow-up is avoided simply as there isn’t an apparent common interest aside from church (kids, golf, money, work, etc.).

This time of study on biblical servant leadership is very enlightening as I’m learning what challenges pastors face and their limitations compared to others.

Credibility is essential to people who want to trust leadership. For leaders to establish, form, and maintain a following among believers, there must be some level of Godly character and ministry competency at a bare minimum. Regardless of vision, experience, or some degree of wisdom, leadership needs to know what it’s doing from a biblical perspective.

Low credibility believers are those who do not accept or live by the full authority of Scripture. The whole counsel of God from His word must be accepted. Believers who are leaders that understand God’s word but do not accept all of it or abide by all of it have little to no credibility. I would not follow a pastor or teacher who picks and chooses what’s socially acceptable to believe and follow. It is unwise to follow any Christian leader who does not follow Christ, His apostles, or New Testament authors about the character, behavior, or the church. Moreover, leaders with a low view of Scripture, worship, and moral imperatives would have low credibility. Leaders are those who Scripture specifies as eligible to serve and exert biblical authority.

People given authority and leadership responsibilities without qualifications that assure competency will not satisfy expectations when it comes to duties and the role of the leader. It isn’t enough to have intelligence and experience in leadership. It is critical that leaders maintain “composure” (according to Malphurs), but more importantly, emotional intelligence if the fruits of the Spirit are less than fully developed or evident from a believer.

It occurs to me that where there is a contradiction of interest, there is the possibility of losing trust and confidence in leadership. For example, Scripture clearly specifies that the pastorate is not to be held by females. Yet, I’ve had pastors that would appoint females as “pastors,” and continue to expect me to abide by what Scripture expects of a believer in biblical decision-making principles. Even with the acknowledgment that such an appointment isn’t biblical according to proper hermeneutical principles, pastors that make decisions contrary to what is understood are unreasonable to expect further loyalty as a leader. Depending upon the circumstances, I would no longer follow a pastor or stop listening altogether.

I’ve held numerous leadership and management positions of authority within secular companies. Principles of leadership within corporations do not translate well to church organizations because of the profound differences in the spiritual nature of trust and how it relates to performance and corresponding expectations. What it means or what it takes to trust the leadership in secular business is nothing whatsoever like the church. I reject assertions to the contrary because corporations are not a spiritual body of believers with different functions and responsibilities.

Why do I think that it’s so hard for people to trust others? Why is it so hard to trust leaders in particular? People are generally unreliable, forgetful, and have significant limitations. Incompetent leaders tend to cast harmful expectations that can drain followers of time, resources, and energy. Regardless of age or standing, inexperienced or uneducated people in leadership positions for interpersonal or social reasons wouldn’t likely have the authority that inspires or supports people.

Qualified leaders still must earn credibility and trust to carry out leadership responsibilities with authority by formal or informal consent among followers or subordinates.

Many people have significant character issues, including low emotional intelligence. When leaders are rude, indifferent, or condescending, bad experiences can transfer to others in leadership positions. As ministry leaders choose not to submit to God and His word, they are also not inclined to follow the servant leader model Malphurs writes about.

Malphurs wrote that it takes about 5-years, in general, when it comes to pastors. More specifically, it’s his view that as pastors join a congregation, they are first chaplains. Then afterward, they become ‘the’ pastor, and finally, after a long while, they might become ‘my’ pastor.

Aside from a new pastor joining a church, trust in a leader depends on the circumstances. For example, a person might have gained trust and credibility as a congregation member before becoming a pastor. Or from among peers, the recognition could come much earlier. It depends on the circumstances, such as a young pastor compared to an older and more seasoned pastor with a favorable reputation.

Character is the top priority when it comes to developing credibility. Malphurs wrote that character is the sum total of a person’s distinct qualities. Character is foundational as a leader is expected to keep promises, remain honest, tell the truth, be authentic, accept responsibility, and so forth. Without the integrity of character, Malphurs’ other areas of development (competence, clarity of direction, communication, conviction, courage, care, and composure)  have no grounding.

In terms of leadership competence, Malphurs wrote that “competence is the leader’s capability to perform well in a specific context, having the expertise and ability to get things done.” Following a person in a leadership capacity beyond their capability is an exercise in futility. Even with an attempt to compensate for limited capabilities, the risk can become very high with unacceptable entanglements. A more significant concern is where and how incompetent leaders are selected, appointed, or hired without properly evaluating capabilities before joining a church or organization.  

If faced with following an incompetent leader, it would eventually become necessary to withdraw support or move on from the person who holds the leadership role. Not from error or missteps in direction, decisions, or action, but simply from the leader’s inability to know what to do or carry out sound courses of action.

Clarity of the leader’s direction is so important to building credibility. It is sometimes necessary to get buy-in through influence, persuasion, or interpersonal communication that comes from existing credibility. Depending on the group, the direction isn’t often at a leader’s sole discretion (such as with elders or board members). It is necessary to communicate directives from strategy or opportunity, but they can involve initiatives formed to execute and meet specific objectives. Executed directives affect budgets, staffing, facilities, and resources that shape projects or programs. Those initiatives involve methods from followers that may sometimes have a say in what direction the organization is going. Clarity is necessary, but it isn’t always exclusive to a single leader. The leader can guide, set initiatives, and develop plans, but they typically must include followers or those affected. If only to inform and get feedback or input.

On the other hand, it is vital for leaders to clearly communicate what they are internally thinking in terms of creative action, direction, vision, possibilities, etc. I’ve reported to leaders who held director and vice-president positions within companies who didn’t fully grasp their core responsibilities. I once reported to a director who lost control of an organization where the business dissolved. The director was put in the position by a more senior person of responsibility who thought he knew what he was doing but didn’t. He did not survive the organization and took many people with him at a significant loss.

People among congregations want their leaders to communicate with them. Leaders or pastors who communicate solely in a broadcast format through automated means (one-to-many) are disconnected from the congregation. Communication to the system has the advantages of leveraging time through automated means, but it is just too easy to ignore what is otherwise informative. Even if pastoral communication is delegated to people in groups with interpersonal interaction, that is a far better approach to reaching people with meaningful interaction. Not all methods of communication to inform congregants need to be in announcement format.

Speaking to people through a system where it’s obvious the person speaking to an impersonal system is easily dismissed as what is communicated carries less weight. Online internet sessions like Zoom are okay as there’s an opportunity for interaction, but live and in-person connections are at times necessary. Even with sessions closer to people who are heard with mutual expression, eye contact, mood, understanding, body language, etc. As Malphurs wrote, it is necessary to over-communicate to properly and thoroughly inform people, give status, update and listen. How communication is accomplished is just as important as what is communicated.

Conviction, passion, enthusiasm, and sincerity have an enormous bearing on leadership. If a leader feigns conviction, followers will know or find out. Conviction and passion are easily testable for authenticity, so the leader’s heart about a matter has to be consistent with messaging. Leaders who are disinterested in their role or duties will communicate an absence of passion or conviction in the manner by which they speak, write, or act. Scripted communication to manage a message for people at a distance is poisonous to the church. Worse than passively indifferent communication leaves followers without an interest in the message, as it’s an opaque way of communicating that can appear deceptive, evasive, or with hidden intent. The method, authenticity, and conviction of communication have a bearing on whether a leader and the message are trusted or not.

Leaders within churches today need a lot of support, encouragement, and gratitude. In addition to courage to face hardships and trying circumstances, leaders also need resilience to withstand the struggles people face, interpersonal drama, and contradictions of interest that are certain to arise. Leaders must know their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations as church members are largely influenced by culture and have unique needs or struggles. The same goes for elders or more seasoned members of influence who are accountable for the church’s health.

Malphurs notes that the relationship between courage and strength is that “courage supplies the strength to lead in difficult circumstances.” I would also add that character, conviction, and loyalty to God’s calling in life are of paramount concern to a leader who doesn’t readily resign from a church with a “younger, increasingly cynical generation.”

Malphurs is correct in his view that leaders must demonstrate concern for the well-being of followers and that concern must flow from love for them. When followers recognize that leaders have their best interests at heart, they naturally accept their views as credible. Leaders who take a sincere interest in people’s hurts, needs, and fears communicate that they care for the well-being of followers they love.

It is not surprising that church leaders must conduct themselves with an attitude of healthy, positive emotion. Masculinity is necessary within the church and needs to be more elevated among congregants and leaders in general. Malphurs’ use of the phrase “toxic masculinity” to degrade the naturally aggressive tendencies of some alpha males is unhelpful, counter-productive, and an attitude partly responsible for the withdrawal of male leadership and followers’ participation in the church. There can be no blurred distinctions in this regard. Often, male leaders in the church need to follow their balanced convictions as expected.

Male vulnerability doesn’t equate with weakness or a lack of emotional intelligence and composure. Men must be assertive, active, and masculine with appropriate emotions in their approach to ministry and leadership. If congregants or followers are overly sensitive to the God-given masculine traits of a male leader, that’s an issue with them. To expect males to take on a neutral posture between masculinity and femininity is very costly regarding leadership quality and credibility.

At times I refer to the work of Daniel Goleman I’ve read for more helpful material concerning male emotion within leadership roles:

• Emotional Intelligence
• Social Intelligence
• Working with Emotional Intelligence

While Malphurs doesn’t write that maleness or masculinity is all about anger or emotional outbursts, I hope he would concede that stereotyped male emotion isn’t useful in a negative sense to make a point about composure. Male potential to inspire, provide, lead, and pour their strength and hearts into God’s people is not to be squandered. Negativity is sometimes necessary, and it takes courage and conviction to spell it out with clear communication toward congregants who rely on strong and effective leadership, more positive than negative as necessary. The church has a dire situation of the absence of men or male participation among weaker congregations throughout evangelicalism. Churches need to throttle back on the indirect influences of feminist ideology.

It is impossible for some in the church to regain credibility or even attain forgiveness. More so for leaders. If mistakes are forgiven, they’re not forgotten and with that goes an erosion of confidence. To rebuild or counter-act lost credibility, refer to Stephen Covey’s book as follows:

• The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

This book I’ve read twice has an emotional bank account section of the reading that is most pertinent concerning credibility and status between leaders and followers.

Comparatively, Malphurs outlined five ways of regaining lost credibility.

1. Admit the Mistake
2. Acknowledge Responsibility
3. Apologize
4. Accept Consequences
5. Act to Correct the Situation

Malphurs’ approach to regaining credibility through all five means is reactive, while Covey’s approach is proactive and reactive. It is better to build up an account or reservoir of credibility (positive account balance) with trust, confidence, accomplishments, competence, and care so that when a withdrawal (account debit) happens from a mistake or falling out, there is enough of a balance to support recovery. With a positive balance, it is more feasible to correct a situation after necessary admission, acknowledgment, apologies, and acceptance of consequences.

Citations

__________________
¹ William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 379.
² Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 541–542.
³ ibid. BDAG.
⁴ Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 541.