I could be wrong, but I guess since I am writing this I think I am right. It seems to me in the church that we appoint leaders. You have the appointment of deacons and elders in the church. Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing, but is appointment really what should happen. Hear me out. Appointment seems to connote that the person will not be functioning as a deacon or a elder. This notes that in the past this was not the case, but now he is to be serving in this official role. The problem is that the Bible seems to note more of a confirmation. A deacon is to be tested first, 1 Timothy 3:10, and elders are to desire the work, but how can you know you desire the work if you have not worked the work. And if deacons are to be tested, how much more should an elder be tested. Most members of the church have seen men appointed, and make shipwreck of the faith and the church. It would have been wiser to mentor these individuals into the role. At Castle Rock, we use the term “shepherd’s heart” often. We look for a heart of a shepherd, but all men never make all of the best choices, but if the heart is right, there is going to be strong progress for the church. Instead of this appointment method of one day a member, the next day an elder. It would be best to slowly work people into these roles. Have a deacon work with a future deacon, can he handle the authority, the duties of a deacon. Have a man come into the meetings of the eldership, see if he can handle the topics, the work, the pastoring of the people. How does he handle himself in the church. Give the man some added authority, some added duties, and watch, and if he serves well, oversees well, confirm this talent and ability. I think we all agree on this, this is just a little more intentional of a process of selecting elders and deacons.
- Reflections On Leadership
- Review of “Tribal Leadership”
- Leadership from the Center
- Leadership Survey Results and Reflection
- Styles of Leadership