Back to Page One
Return to Pastoral
series
The development of MLTs and other forms of collaborative ministry in the Church of England represents a development of the ministry in two directions: First of all, a move from leadership focussed on an individual, to a more corporate responsibility for the life of the local church. Secondly, it is generally seen as beneficial that at the same time this will enable local people to have more of a say in the affairs of the church, rather than relying on the inclinations of an imported 'expert.'
Pragmatic reasons for the development of leadership teams
One reason for the encouragement of MLTs is undoubtedly pragmatic; it is hard to see
how else to respond responsibly to the current state of the local church life. Though
there are some churches which are shining exceptions, the fact is that most
congregations are declining at the kind of rate that, if continued, will make it
impossible for them to support a full-time stipendiary incumbent on a reasonable
wage in the next generation. Inherited assets can provide only limited subsidies; and
larger churches are rightly seeing the need to limit the amount of cross-subsidy that
they can responsibly offer, without inhibiting their own effectiveness.
In the short term, the sharing of professional ministry between two or more congregations is of course the most obvious option; and this is already well underway, especially in rural areas. However, if the underlying understanding of ministry as emanating primarily from a paid individual is not altered, then this strategy seems likely to see decline accelerate as each parish is able to call on less and less professional time.1
Another alternative would be for the church nationally to concentrate resources on maintaining a smaller number of buildings and congregations. However, the responsibility for maintaining listed church buildings may not be easily shed; and where churches are closed, members often show a marked reluctance to transfer their allegiance elsewhere. Even in urban areas, where there may still be a church within a mile of every dwelling, the closure of a church building, particularly if it must be left standing, can contribute significantly to the outsiders' perception of decline. This may indeed make it harder for the churches that are left to thrive.
For many smaller churches therefore, the local ministry movement seems to provide the only viable alternative. In some cases it might be hoped that the sharing of ministry and leadership would result in the re-invigoration of church life and finances. However, even where numerical decline, sadly, continues, the development of local ministry can be seen as a responsible preparation for the future, seeking to re-invent the local church as a organisation that is primarily run by volunteers, and so can continue unburdened with the need to provide a professional stipend. This is of course a very difficult transition; but there is nothing inherent to the Christian faith about leaders being paid; and it is surely right for the church at a diocesan and national level to at least allow local churches the resources and the permission to attempt this transition.
Despite this undoubted pragmatic imperative, most of the literature also attempts some kind of justification of the development of MLTs on biblical and theological grounds.2 The most sustained thinking, though, either in synodical debates and official reports, or in individual writing, has focussed on the development of ordained local ministry; with the underlying question of the desirability of a more corporate leadership either ignored or simply presumed to be self-evident.
Return to Pastoral series
Greenwood's Trinitarian Approach
The most heavyweight and influential recent theology which touches significantly on
this question is Greenwood's 'Transforming priesthood,' which is distinctive in
seeking a trinitarian basis for the future of the church.
An ecclesiology for a church which is a sign and a foretaste of God's final ordering of all things in Christ will be informed and nurtured by a social trinitarianism.3
This leads to many conclusions with which the present writer would agree wholeheartedly. Greenwood is clear that the type of Anglicanism that sees church membership solely as a private means to securing God's blessing is a severe distortion. For a key part of the divine plan is the creation of a church community, as a reflection of the supremely relational nature of the trinity. Furthermore Greenwood offers a robust refutation of models of ministry which dominated the Church of England during the twentieth century, which saw the priest as possessing an ontological priority over the laity.
However if a truly biblical trintarianism were applied to the relationship between clergy and laity, then the willing obedience of the son displayed in the garden of Gesthemene narrative4 or in John 6:385 would in fact offer considerable support to the 'father knows best' style of ministry.
There are two reasons why Greenwood is not led in this direction. Firstly, the twentieth century Trinitarian theologians on whom he depends for his undergirding theology present a more equal version of the trinity than was produced by the patristic writers. Boff for instance is quoted with approval as follows:
There is a complete circulation of life and a perfect co-equality between the persons, without any anteriority or superiority of one over another.... This is the source of utopia of equality - with due respect for differences - full communion and just relationships in society and history.6
By contrast the Cappadocians, for example, whilst firmly rejecting the subordination of most pre-Nicene theologians, nonetheless felt constrained by the biblical texts to present the distinction between the members of the trinity as more than just a matter of neutral difference, but also of order. Kelly's summary makes this clear:
While all subordinationism is excluded, the Father remains in the eyes of the Cappadocians the source, the fountain-head or principle of the Godhead… So Gregory of Nyssa … speaks of 'one and the same person (prosopon) of the Father, out of Whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds'7
This leads to the strong suspicion that the twentieth century trinitarian theology, upon which Greenwood's approach relies so heavily, is not the fruit of detailed biblical exegesis; but rather a reflection of a contemporary egalitarianism which is frightened of any notions of authority.
Furthermore Greenwood's style of argumentation from undergirding trinitarian principles into a supposedly 'trinitarian ecclesiology' seem to be so imprecise as to permit almost any conclusions to be reached.
But Christian belief in the Trinity means that differences must be accepted for what they are. Unity is not to be equated with the denial of difference or the reduction of them all to one, but speaks of the mutual intercommunion and interpenetration of elements of difference. How far contemporary Britain is from such a vision may be observed for example in terms of public architecture. We are surrounded by supermarkets, shopping malls, tourist information centres, schools, petrol stations, and restaurants more notable for their identity than their imaginative difference.8
There may be many reasons why the uniform architecture of petrol stations and supermarkets is a bad thing and the celebration of difference something to be encouraged; but it would surely be possible to sustain an identically opposite argument from the identity of the trinitarian persons. One is left with the conclusion that Greenwood's trinitarian ecclesiology represents no more than an impressive theological veneer to legitimate convictions about collaborative ministry which are, in fact, held on a rather different grounds.
Return to Pastoral series
Biblical patterns of ministry
Other attempts at a theological undergirding of MLTs draw helpfully on the many
strands of New Testament thought that emphasise the principle that ministry belongs
to the whole body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12:3-8 are particularly
significant in correcting an understanding of Christian ministry which was almost
exclusively focussed on the work of the ordained person, who in most local church
contexts was an isolated individual. For writers of a more Catholic persuasion (or
seeking to appeal to that constituency), 1 Corinthians 12:13 is seen as of central
importance in the argument that baptism, rather than ordination, represents more
fundamental commissioning for ministry. However such texts, important though they
are, do not provide the justification for two significant aspects of MLTs.
The first of these is closed nature of a ministry team; by definition there will be some church members who are not part of this grouping. Therefore, if there has been a danger in the past that the ministry of the ordained is to be seen as coterminous with Christian ministry, it is surely just as possible that the appointment of a ministry team might be seen to exclude its non-members from exercising their God-given gifts in Christian ministry.9
Part of the reason why an MLT is a closed grouping is that its role is likely to include at least some aspects of leadership and authority. However a second clear limitation of seeing the body metaphor as providing the main biblical basis for an MLT is that taken on their own, they do not provide an adequate theological basis for shared leadership. If anything the body metaphor, as it is developed in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12:3-8 would suggest a single individual taking much of the decision making and co-ordination role, much as a single organ, the brain, does in the human body.10
The quest for a biblical undergirding of the leadership role of MLTs therefore requires an exploration of models of leadership in scripture, despite this exercise being fraught with difficulties. This is not however a result of the bible writer's indifference to this issue. On the contrary, as Croft helpfully points out the right ordering of ministry and leadership among the people of God is a central theme of the Old and New Testaments.11 However some of the principles that the scriptures are most keen to stress - such as the ultimate leadership of God; or the servant nature of leadership, do not actually help to determine the rights and wrongs of individual or shared leadership. And even on a question as broad as this, there is a real difficulty in trying to deduce a coherent view from very diverse collection of data.
Return to Pastoral series
Eldership in the Old Testament
One line of enquiry often used to buttress the contemporary developments of MLTs is
to point to the pervasive biblical references to Elders.12
This seems to be a fruitful line
of enquiry, as even when the term 'eldership' is deliberately avoided today, there are
strong parallels between MLT members and elders in the bible.
This is particularly true in regard to Eldership in the Old Testament; the first parallel being in regard to the plural nature of eldership. It is extremely striking that in the OT all but one reference is to the group as a corporate body.13 Significantly, the term is never formally defined in the biblical material, and undoubtedly the role of the elders varied considerably in different periods of Israel's history. Nonetheless both Bornkamm and Reviv see the eldership as an identifiable institution, rather than as a generic term for those who were considered to be of seniority and standing in the community.
The second parallel with MLT members today is the sense that, in the earlier part of Israel's history, the eldership is a ground level leadership. The elders represent the people; and to communicate with them is to communicate with the people.
The Biblical material suggests that role of OT eldership was at its strongest during the settlement of Israel before the ascent of the saviour-judges; then later in the immediate pre-monarchical period. According to the biblical accounts, the creation of the monarchy was at the elders' behest; although this did not prevent continual attempts to reassert their own leadership rights in both northern and southern kingdoms. Furthermore the resilience of the institution was demonstrated after the Assyrian conquest, when the collapse of the nation's other power structures enabled the elders to resume their earlier dominance.
To this straightforward reconstruction, Noth and Reviv add an important extra claim in regarding the elders of Israel as the foremost leaders in the pre-settlement Era. Noth indeed goes further in presenting the elders as the real leaders of the people in the departure from Egypt.14 The suggestion here is that the elders' actual role is obscured by the biblical historiographer's desire to present the Israelites as a united people, which is achieved by creating a towering role for Moses as their undisputed leader.
Reviv's argument is given detailed linguistic support, which the present author is not qualified to evaluate. However it is hard to see how such a reconstruction, even if accepted, can make a significant contribution to the theological debate about leadership. This is because the role of the elders is simply presumed from that in contemporary Ancient Near Eastern societies,15 and therefore is not accompanied by any divine approval or reprobation; on the contrary Reviv's methodology appears to preclude the possibility of such an evaluation being made.16
By contrast an approach which accepts the Old Testament canon as scripture - whether or not it can be considered proven to be strictly historical - must surely record that God's leadership of his people in the Old Testament more often than not is presented as being mediated through a single individual. The pervasive presence of the eldership furthermore confirms that this is not because of the non-existence of more collaborative and democratic forms of leadership, but in spite of them.
In the Exodus narratives for example, the elders' role is always subordinate to that of Moses; when they are granted formal roles17 it is as his subordinates and not his equals. Similarly in the book of Judges, the people's prayers to God for help and salvation are seen as answered in the raising up of individual leaders,18 rather than in strengthening the existing corporate leadership structures.
The kingship represents the supreme example of the role of individual leaders in God's plans. 1 Samuel 8 taken on its own seems to suggest a strong divine hesitation over the institution of the monarchy. However, given the overwhelmingly positive treatment of the kingship (although not of course of the behaviour of individual kings) in the rest of the Deuteronomic History, the psalms and the prophets, the OT as a whole does seem to present a strong divine endorsement of the monarchy.
It is important to note that the king's authority is severely circumscribed both by the requirement that he subject himself to the law in order to experience God's blessing on his rule,19 and by the presence of other divinely approved institutions, most notably the prophets and priests. Furthermore though these groupings are not a democracy,20 they are corporate.
Nonetheless, taken by itself, the Old Testament provides significantly greater endorsement for individual leadership of God's people than for collective models of leadership. Indeed, it could be seen as providing a significant buttress for a papacy or a monarchical episcopacy as much for maintaining the distinctive authority of an incumbent in a parish. However inevitably a Christian view of ministry, whilst noting the Old Testament perspective, will not see its conclusions as in any way definitive.
Return to Pastoral series
Leadership in the New Testament
In the New Testament, despite encompassing a far shorter time span, the situation is
no less complex. In previous centuries each denomination was inclined to see their
own structure of ecclesiastical government as explicitly legitimated.21
However more
recently the prevailing critical orthodoxy has taken an exactly opposite approach; to
see such a confused multiplicity of models emerging in different parts of the New
Testament that each church is considered free to make its own judgement on
pragmatic grounds about what model will best resonate with its prevailing culture.22
At the heart of the problem of interpreting the New Testament understanding of Christian are two key terms for Christian leaders; episcope ( overseer) and presbuteros (elder)
The basic facts are these:
The Pauline Material
Sohm and Von Campenhhausen's view, which was followed by most 20th century
Protestant scholarship, was to see the uncontested Pauline epistles as reflecting and
authenticating a purely charismatic form of church organisation in which the
possession of appropriate spiritual gifts were the sole criteria for the exercise of
leadership. On this understanding the pastoral epistles and other later biblical material
are seen to represent a serious declension from Paul's charismatic ideal, caused
mainly by the malevolent introduction of the more institutional Jewish elder system.
Acts too is seen in a very negative light, as simply an attempt to back-project this later
understanding into the history of the Pauline period. A recent exponent of this view is
Dunn,26 who argues that, if there was an established leadership in the Corinthian
church, Paul would surely have included some mention in 1 Corinthians of the
leaders' role in sorting out the problems that had been referred to him.
However, Sohm and Von Campenhhausen's view is open to serious criticism as to whether it takes full account of the limited degree of fixity about leadership that the cited references seem to imply.27 For myself a more important problem is in the underlying hermeneutic which effectively de-canonises the later biblical material. On the contrary it could well be argued that these should be given greater weight than the earlier material, because they represent a more mature reflection on how churches can balance the tension between the ministry of the whole body and the need to prevent anarchy. More importantly, though it is because they represent a necessary development of local church leadership as the apostles' potential for direct influence in local congregations is diminishing.28
This role of the apostles seems to me to be a hugely important component, which is often omitted from discussions of Pauline leadership patterns. In the Corinthians correspondence, Paul does not view the church as an egalitarian utopia. On the contrary, the most obvious reason why he does not appeal to the role of local leaders is because he is still trying to exercise a direct control over the life of the church, despite the problems of distance.
It is of course beyond the scope of this dissertation to attempt an exact reconstruction of the patterns of leadership that are reflected in the different New Testament documents. Nonetheless, once this apostolic component is acknowledged, then I would contend that it is possible to detect a definite consistency in regard to the main question with which we began this investigation, namely the relationship between individual and corporate leadership over local churches. For in all the NT documents it can be argued that both are present, in creative tension.
The gospels
The gospels provide an important starting point for this thesis, as Jesus' preparation
for the church's ministry after his ascension is portrayed in all 4 gospels as envisaging
both a corporate role for the twelve, and a distinctive individual leadership role for
Peter.
In Mark's gospel, as Schillebeeckx helpfully points out, 'Mark is not interested in the structural forms, nor even in the theology of the ministry, but in the ethics and spirituality of the ministers of the church.'29 Passages such as the rebuke of Peter in Mark 8:31-33 and Mark 14:66-72, and of James and John in Mark 10:35-45 serve as a critiques both of the convictions and behaviour of the original disciples and of any contemporary church leaders who might retain such unreconstructed attitudes. However, though the post-Resurrection life of the church is seldom in view, the attention given to the twelve,30 and specifically to Peter,31 would be hard to comprehend if they were not widely believed by both the author and his readers to have held a important subsequent role in the life of the Christian community.
In Luke-Acts, this role is made explicit by the continuation of the story beyond the ascension. Though the majority of the 12 are subsequently not centre-stage (even Peter is not mentioned after Acts 15), in the early chapters of Acts they take the lead in ministry and mission - both to outsiders32 and among other believers.33 Furthermore alongside this corporate Apostolic leadership, Peter exercises a particular individual leadership role.34
In the material unique to Matthew's gospel, there is a re-iteration of Mark's concerns relating to the status of leaders.35 However, alongside this, the subsequent leadership roles of Peter and the 12 are explicitly legitimated in Peter's individual commission (16:13-19) and in the Great commission ((28:16-20).
The fourth gospel has comparatively little material that could be seen as explicitly preparing a small group for collective ministry and leadership after Jesus' departure. The distinctive role of Peter in the leadership of the community is however plainly endorsed in John 21:15ff. The commissioning of John 20:19-23 is significant too; though not explicitly limited to the 12, the confined setting suggests a small group being entrusted with a ministry both of founding, and of ministry within the early church.
Acts
In the Acts of the Apostles, we have already observed how the corporate leadership of
apostles and the individual leadership of Peter fade as the book progresses. However
the two most prominent forms of leadership which take over seem to reflect this
combination of individual and corporate dimensions. The first of these is the Gentile
mission, which originally was led by Barnabas,36 but subsequently comprised of 'Paul
and…' …Barnabas (11 times), …Silas (9 times), …his companions (2 times)
… the rest of us (2 times).
More tendentiously perhaps, Schillebeeckx (following Schille) sees this combination of individual leadership alongside collegiality in mission as implied also by the first mention of Stephen in Acts 6:5, Sopater in Acts 20:4, as well as Romans 16:21- 3,16:6-12, Colossians 4:7, Philemon 23-4, Titus 3:12-13 and II Timothy 4:10ff.37
However in the Acts' account of the council of Jerusalem, we are surely on a surer footing in seeing the church's decision-making process as possessing both a corporate and an individual dimension. Here the apostles and elders meet together to consider the vexed question of admission of the Gentiles, but what might otherwise have been an impossible impasse was resolved by the individual leadership of James, whose judgement is seen as binding.
The pastoral epistles
In the pastoral epistles, as we have already noted, the situation is somewhat more
complicated.
Campbell's contention is that the consistent use of the singular for episkopos,
contrasting with the plural for elders makes it unlikely that the term are exact
synonyms. On the contrary, he sees a central purpose of the letters being to establish
the legitimacy of a monepiscopate as acting over and above a team of elders as a
replacement for apostolic oversight.38
If Campbell's thesis is rejected and the role of overseer is seen to be identical to that of elder, then at face value the Pastoral epistles might be seen to be advocating a corporate leadership of peers. However this is to ignore the significance of the purported recipients of the letters, Timothy and Titus; for their supervisory roles, though never explicitly articulated, are constantly inferred. The situation is somewhat more complicated if the letters are deemed to be pseudonymous, and 'Titus' and 'Timothy' to be mere ciphers; however at the very least the choice of named individuals as ciphers seems most likely to reflect the perceived importance of individual leadership.
Return to Pastoral series
Early Church history
Whilst the New Testament documents seem consistent in portraying a combination of
individual and collegial leadership, this balance has not been reflected in most of
church history. Even the reformation's fundamental re-definition of the role of
minister from that of a sacrificing priest to a Protestant pastor failed to re-balance the
dominant role of the individual clergyman in most local congregations - certainly in
the church of England. This declension from what we have shown to be a biblical
balance however took some time to set in.
In the second century Clement's first letter to the Corinthians and the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians continue to refer to local church eldership as a collegial body. Indeed these documents rather raise the opposite question, as to whether there is adequate expression for individual leadership. However, as in our discussion of Paul's epistles, this is to forget the position of the writer himself, whose very writing represents a significant implicit claim to individual leadership.
A second component of individual leadership may well be identifiable in the consideration of how the growing churches in large cities actually functioned. There were as yet no purpose-built buildings; and so as the numbers of Christians grew, this must initially have led to a multiplicity of house-church meetings. It is of course possible that each of these was collegially led. However both Giles39 and Campbell40 see the most natural interpretation of the available evidence as pointing to each elder/bishop as a householder having a natural authority over the meetings that took place in his (or possibly her) own property.
By contrast with the emphasis of 1 Clement and Polycarp on collegial leadership (at the city level at least), the writings of Ignatius of Antioch argue consistently for the power of the monarchical bishop. It is true that a corporate body of elders are mentioned frequently; they are even at times seen as being akin to a contemporary apostolate.41 However, as Campbell contends,42 this appears more likely to be a compliment than an indication of their present responsibilities.
There are several important questions raised by Ignatius' writings. To begin with, scholarship is divided on whether they originate from the beginning of the second century (as they claim), or the end. An even more historically significant question is how widely held was Ignatius' understanding of the authority of the monarchical bishop. It can certainly be argued that his writings' very stridency suggests that this view is fairly novel. Nonetheless, as Schillebeeckx43 demonstrates, during the third and fourth centuries, the Ignatian monarchical episcopate gradually became the norm throughout the church.
It might have been expected that concentration of power in the hands of the clergy could be traced directly to this development; perhaps the spirit of this kind of excessive clericalism which has pertained throughout most of Christian history can be seen to lie in the Ignatian episcopate. Nonetheless the Ignatian pattern contains -at least formally - a collegial element in the eldership. The direct cause of the domination of local congregations by a single cleric lies in a subsequent development that was more gradual and attracted far less recorded opposition. This was the practice of permitting a presbyter to celebrate the eucharist in the country region surrounding the city where the bishop ministered, as a 'visitator'.44 As the churches in these country areas grew, this visitator eventually became resident- in time evolving into the role of 'parish priest.'
This may be seen as a legitimate development in itself; the problem came with the failure to create any kind of collegial leadership in the newly created parishes, akin to that which had previously existed (and to some extent still did exist) in the diocese. Indeed, as the number of parishes proliferated, the bishops' inability to exercise a significant day-to-day leadership or oversight at a parochial level meant that the parish priest was to become an even more isolated leader than the bishop had ever been.
An awareness of this historical process surely provides a reply to any who see current attempts to re-establish collegial patterns of ministry as threatening the historic three- fold order. For as, Croft helpfully points out, in many ways such developments represent a return to the kind of collegiality that the threefold order originally enshrined.
Return to Pastoral series
Contemporary leadership theory and models
The need for individual leadership, even in enterprises and teams that are intrinsically
corporate, is also reflected in much secular thinking. There is shown in the
considerable volume of recent writing on how to be an effective individual leader;45
leading Adair to conclude:
It is now widely accepted that the most important role in a small work group is that of a leader ... The role is to help the group achieve its common task, to maintain it as a unity and to ensure that each individual contributes his best.46
In practice too, a very wide variety of contemporary organisations display this balance between individual and collective leadership. In the political sphere, though systems of democracy differ, they all include an identifiable individual leader. The standard model for managing a company similarly involves decisions being taken not by a board of directors acting as equals, but led by a chairperson. In the sphere of public service, especially in education, the potential for a single individual leader to effect change is widely acknowledged. The church therefore should think very carefully before taking on board - either consciously or subconsciously - an egalitarianism which denigrates the role of individual leadership
One of the most helpful analyses of the way leadership and power is exercised in churches was provided by Rudge in his seminal Ministry and Management. He begins by describing 3 types of leadership styles which, in different ways, allow leadership to focus on a single individual.47
However this is seen to be inadequate at providing cohesion and leadership, and instead Rudge's work aims, from first to last page, to promote a fifth option, which he labels the systemic or organic model. This model is characterised by flexibility, and by a plural leadership in which decision-making and control is shared; as it is recognised that expertise does not rest with a single individual at the top of the tree. Nonetheless, unlike the human relations model, there is a clear need for an individual leader whose primary role is to help the organisation to adapt to changes in its environment, whilst maintaining its purpose and vision.
More recent writers on church leadership, such as Finney and King, while resting heavily on Rudge's basic analysis, have recognised that most real life churches defy such simple categorising, frequently containing elements from several of the models. In addition they have questioned Rudge's unqualified endorsement of the systemic model; whilst they generally admit that it is the preferred ideal, they see other models as more appropriate at different stages in the development of the life of a congregation.
For myself, I would question whether the systemic model has quite the degree of explicit biblical endorsement that Rudge claims for it. It seems to me that the biblical metaphor of the church as a body could equally well be seen to endorse the classical model, which Rudge so contemptuously rejects. Furthermore, because the systemic model is inherently fluid, it is not so tightly defined as the other four, and therefore seems to escape the kind of critical scrutiny that Rudge applies elsewhere.
Nonetheless his general line of thought is helpful in defining in more conceptual terms the need for a balance between the individual authority of an incumbent and for some kind of collegial decision making that this chapter has already argued for on biblical and theological grounds.
What kind of collegiality? What kind of balance between individual and collective leadership? How large should the collegial body be, and how should it be chosen? These are of course very important questions, and different strands of biblical material, and different periods in the life of the early church represent very different answers to these questions. We need to admit that we have most decidedly not found a blueprint for church order. Nonetheless in demonstrating, from the New Testament material at least, a common thread of the importance for local churches in having both individual and collegial dimensions to leadership we have, I believe, defined some helpful parameters.
These act as a sharp critique first of all of the domination of local churches by a single cleric which has prevailed throughout much of Christendom for much of the first two millennia. However as well as this, the repeated biblical emphasis on individual leadership surely calls into question the kind of attitudes discussed in the last chapter which leave no role for individual leadership.
Return to Pastoral series
Local or imported?
Before we leave our biblical reflections, it is perhaps legitimate to comment on the
second motivation for MLTs that was mentioned at the start of this chapter; namely
the development of a truly local ministry. In some cases this is seen as a complement
to the role of the outsider; in others importance of this dimension is so stressed as to
call into question the validity of imported leadership altogether.
In the Old Testament, the Davidic Kingship ensured that a 'local' was always on the throne; and church leaders in the New Testament were generally appointed among those who were already resident in each town.48 However, by contrast, the gospels contain quite a sustained reflection on Jesus' inability to minister effectively in his home town.49 In addition to this, both Acts and the epistles of Paul; show few reservations about the role of outsiders - not only in starting churches, but in their continuing leadership.50 Gifting, maturity and fidelity to the gospel seem to be far more important that whether or not a person was local.
This pragmatism and balance seems to represent a healthy corrective first of all to a theology of priesthood prevalent in the Anglican church which saw the fact that the priest was an outsider to the community as creating a necessary mystique. However it also surely challenges a contemporary over-reaction which sees no role at all for an outsider beyond that of an enabler. This seems to ignore the potential benefit not only of this individual's potential gifting, but also of the breadth of experience of different contexts which is far less likely to be available to a person who has been born and bred in a single church community.
An outsider, particularly an incumbent, seeking to exercise significant individual leadership should nonetheless be aware that there may be aspects of the community which are far better understood by those who are more rooted within it. In addition locals may be far more able to provide credible models of Christian living and holiness than outsiders.51 This may be especially true of middle class incumbents serving in urban priority areas - and this is indeed one of the main reasons cited by Tiller in his prophetic call for the development of more shared patterns of ministry.52
Return to Pastoral series
Advisory Board of Ministry, Stranger in the Wings (London: Church House Publishing, 1998)
J Adair, Effective Teambuilding (London: Pan, 1986)
J Adair, Effective Leadership (London: Pan, 1996)
C Ashton, Church on the Threshold (London: Daybreak/DLT, 1991)
P Beasley Murray, Radical Leaders (Didcot: Baptist Union, Undated)
J Behrens, Practical Church Management (Leominster: Gracewing, 1998)
M Birchall, 'Shared Ministry in the Local Church,' in G Reid (ed) Hope for the Church of England (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1986)
G Bornkamm, 'presbus' in G Bromiley (ed), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol VI (London: Eerdmans, 1964) pp 651-680
A Bowden and M West, Dynamic Local Ministry (London: Continuum, 2000)
I Bunting, Models for Ministry (Grove Pastoral booklet P 54)
R A Campbell, The Elders: Seniority Within Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1994)
S Chalke, Making a Team Work (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1995)
L Coenen, 'Bishop, presbyter, elder ' in C Brown (ed) New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975) pp 188- 201
S Croft, Ministry in Three Dimensions (London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1999)
R Daborn and others, Draft copy of proposed 2002 Submission on OLM ministry in the diocese of Lichfield
G Dow et al, Whose Hand on the Tiller? (Grove Pastoral booklet P 16)
J Finney, Understanding Leadership (London: Daybreak/DLT, 1989)
L Ford, Jesus: The Transforming Leader (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991)
K Giles, Patterns of Ministry Among the First Christians (Melbourne: Collins Dove, 1989)
R K Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (New York: Paulist Press, 1977)
R Greenwood, Transforming Priesthood (London: SPCK,1994)
R Greenwood, The Ministry Team Handbook (London: SPCK, 2000)
C Handy, Understanding Voluntary Organizations (London: Penguin 1988;)
A E Harvey, 'Elders' JTS New Series 25 (1974) pp 318-332
G Kelly, Get a grip on the future… (London: Monarch, 1999)
J N D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London: A & C Black, 1974)
P King, Leadership Explosion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1987)
J M Kouzes & B Z Posner, The Leadership Challenge (San Fransisco: Jossey Bass, 1952)
J B Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan, 1889); accessed via www:
T Marshall, Understanding Leadership (Tonbridge: Sovereign World, 1991)
B Nanus, Visionary Leadership (San Fransisco: Jossey Bass, 1992)
H Reviv, The Elders in Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989)
P F Rudge, Ministry and Management (London: Tavistock Publications, 1968)
D Sceats and others, Implementing the Local Ministry Scheme: A Handbook for Parishes (Lichfield: Diocesan Board of Ministry, 1996)
D Sceats and others, Local Non-Stipendiary ministry in the diocese of Lichfield: a submission to the house of Bishops (Lichfield: Diocesan Board of Ministry, 1995)
E Schillebeeckx, The Church With a Human Face: A New and Expanded Theology of Ministry (London: SCM, 1985)
C Skilton, Leadership Teams (Grove Pastoral booklet P 78)
J Tiller, A Strategy for the Church's Ministry (CIO publishing: London, 1983)
M Saward, All Change (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1983)
R Warren, The Purpose Driven Church (Zondervan, 1995)
D Watson, You are my God (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1983)
Return to Pastoral series
1 The recent history of the Methodist and URC churches would seem to confirm the problems with this approachBack
2 eg Bowden & West, p 33ff; Ashton p 48-9; Watson (1978) p 271ff; Skilton p 6ff Back
4 (Luke 22:42) "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." Back
5 (John 6:38) For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me Back
8 Greenwood (1994) pp 88-9 Back
9 This point is discussed in more detail on p 23. Back
10 The development of the metaphor in Ephesians 4:15-16 and Col 1:15 and 2:19 to see Christ as the head of the body prevents the inference that a single church leader might consider themselves to be the head of the local congregation, but it does not explicitly endorse a pattern of shared leadership either. Back
13 The NIV has 131 OT references to elders, being the usual translation of the Hebrew 'zaqen.' The only one of these which is in the singular is Isaiah 3.2, which Reviv sees as referring to an old man, rather than to a member of the leadership institution. Back
14 Noth's view is summarised in Coenen, p 194 Back
16 Texts which speak of God in such a direct manner are automatically precluded by Reviv simply on the grounds that 'they present a miraculous-legendary perception of events without any signs of authentic real occurrences.' Reviv, p 28 Back
17 eg their appointment as judicial assistants in Numbers 11.26ff Back
19 eg Deuteronomy 17.14-20 Back
20 Ezekiel 13's condemnation of the false prophets makes it clear that the writer's authority as a prophet is not seen to rest on his proclamations representing a majority opinion among the prophetic class. Back
21 So, for example the preface to the Anglican ordinal contained in the 1662 prayer book states categorically 'It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons.' Back
22 eg Bunting, p 6 'In short, biblical models, divorced from an appreciation of the church context in which they are used and understood, have proved too multi-faceted to be satisfactory as a way of distinguishing precisely what we mean by the nature and purpose of the church and its ministry today.' This is also Campbell's position, although on the basis of the strangeness of the New Testament position, rather than its multiplicity. Back
24 Romans 12.8 hoi proisuamenos; Philippians 1.1 episkopois kai diakonois; 1 Thessalonians 5.12 'those who work hard (tous kopiontois) among you, who are over you (proistamenous humon) in the Lord and who admonish (nouthetountas) you'; 1Corinthians 12.28 prophetas and didaskalous. 1 Corinthians 16.15 manages to avoid any term. Even if Ephesians is seen as being Pauline, then the terms used for local church leaders in Ephesians 4.11 ( prophetas...euangelistas...poimenas kai didaskalous) do not set an established pattern of terminology. Back
25 Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2,4,6,22,23, 16:4, 20:17, 21:18. Back
26 J D G Dunn Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (2nd edition 1990 SCM) pp 109-113, cited by Campbell, pp 14-15 Back
28 This is true even if one sees the pastoral epistles and 1&2 Peter as authentic. In such a later apostolic period the geographical spread and numerical profusion of churches, together with and the probable incarceration of the apostles, would inevitably have limited their capacity to provide effective guidance for local congregations. If, as most scholars believe, the letters are pseudonymous writings composed after the apostles deaths, then their active leadership no longer exists. Back
30 eg Mark 3.13-19; 6.7-13; 10.32b;14.17. If Mk 16.14-18 were seen as admissible, of course it provides an explicit endorsement if the 12's subsequent ministry. Back
31 eg Mark 1:16-17, 3.16, 8.27-33, 9.5; 14.27-31, 66-72, 16.7 Back
34 eg Acts 1.15-26,2.14-41 etc. Back
36 Almost all commentators see the placement of Barnabas' name before Saul's in Acts 13.2,7 as having this significance Back
38 see Campbell p 176ff. On this understanding 'elders' was initially the natural contemporary terminology for heads of household who, in hosting a congregation, had previously without question assumed responsibility for the church that met in their homes. Campbell's thesis maintains that as the number of house churches in each city had grown, and as the influence of the apostles declined, this informal system had been unable to maintain a strong enough sense of cohesion, hence the need for an individual oversight role to be established. The main problem with this view is it requires Titus 1:5 to rendered as 'ordain [as overseer] an [existing] elder.' Back
41 eg The epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaens 8.1 'Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles…' Back
42 Campbell p 221 'So on the one hand Ignatius pays the elders compliments and honours, and on the other hand gives them nothing to do.' Back
45 eg J M Kouzes and B Z Posner, B Nanus and the writings of James Burns McGregor Back
47 Rudge p 23ff. Rudge's work describes these as models of ecclesiatical management or administraion, However contemporary terminology generally gives these two terms a different provenance, and the term leadership seems to fit almost exactly with what Rudge's models are attempting to classify. Back
48 eg Stephanus in 1 Corinthians 16.15-16, or Acts 14.23 where Luke records that Paul and Barnabas 'appointed elders for them in each church' Back
50 eg Acts 18.27 'When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.' Philippians 2.19 'I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you.' Back
51 This is one of the most powerful arguments for a local ordained ministry. Bowden and West document some of the early experiments in local ordination on p 6ff Back
52 After vigorously arguing that stipendiary ministers should not be withdrawn UPAs, Tiller adds 'It is their dominant leadership role which needs to disappear, particularly where their presence tends to suppress the initiatives and insight of local people.' Tiller p 44 Back
Back to Page One
Return to Pastoral series