Could the governing body of your church be described as the Mandatory Leadership Model?

Introduction

Writing about the topic of “Abuse of Trust,” I thought about how some readers might find it boring, perhaps thinking that an issue such as “being more than a conqueror” or “I can do all things through Christ” would be more appealing. However, I believe that you’ll find this study fascinating.

Some churchgoers who attend a gathering of the saints, wherever it may be, use it as a time to socialize, hear the message, and then go home. For others, it’s just one of many engagements they’ve chosen to participate in, along with group prayer, visitation, taking Bible classes, etc. Usually, getting involved consistently in such church activities is encouraged and sometimes mandated.

But there’s a big difference between encouragement versus mandate in terms of participation, and the leadership model that’s embraced by the theology of the believer’s church undoubtedly determines these differences in approach. Why is this important? It’s because the leadership model will indicate the relationship between those in authority and those who are not.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

One should be aware of the leadership model you’re participating in because it has everything to do with your walk with God, the goal or objective of which should be to become conformed to the image of His Son.

Such conformity relates to a process known as sanctification, whereby the saint is transformed to resemble the Lord Jesus. How does this take place? The leadership model will determine the manner in which it happens, and we’ll examine two types in this study.

The first I’ll call the mandated leadership model, in which those in the hierarchy make all decisions that, according to them, are for the benefit of the attendees. It’s expected that teachings from the pulpit be received as truth and responded to as such. There’s little or no dialogue between the hierarchy and the attendees in regard to church theology, church decisions, church behavior, church participation, etc. This model is especially desirable for attendees who need others to make decisions concerning their spiritual walk. Everything a believer needs to do to please the hierarchy, satisfy God, and receive favor for entrance into heaven upon physical death is delineated.

I’ll call the second leadership model the tested leadership model, in which input is encouraged from the attendees relating to church theology, church functions, church participation, etc. The assembly is expected to examine whatever is taught from the pulpit.

I’d first like to provide sections of Scripture that serve as the foundational basis for each model, and you might ask, “for what purposes?” So that each member of an assembly should be able to distinguish between these two leadership models for themselves, and Scripture would assist them in determining which would be more beneficial in their progression toward the ultimate goal of their walk with God, i.e., to be Christlike.

We’ll begin by looking at sections of Scripture that will unveil characteristics of the mandated leadership model. Then, we’ll look at attitudes from the tested leadership model generated by answering pertinent questions pertaining to the relationships between the leaders of a church and the assembly of believers. This will be followed by a rebuttal response from the traits found in the mandated leadership model. Since the mandated model can use Scripture from anywhere in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, I’m not saying that such responses are interpreted correctly, and neither am I saying that every subscriber to this model will use the passages of the Word of God in this manner.

And finally, near the end of the study, we’ll provide a contrast between these two models and attempt to address the question, “are those in leadership positions in the church above reproach in their teachings and conduct?” Enjoy.

























1

Scriptures Serving as the Foundational Basis for the Mandated Leadership Model - Part I

To review, in the mandated leadership model, all decisions are made by those in the hierarchy that they believe are for the benefit of the attendees, who are expected to receive and respond to whatever is taught from the pulpit as truth. There’s little or no dialogue between the hierarchy and the attendees regarding church theology, church decisions, church behavior, church participation, etc. Scriptures in the New Testament that reflect these tendencies will have their basis in the Old Testament theology. Are you ready to find out about some of the qualities that are contained in the theology of the churches that follow this model? I am. Please turn in your Bibles to the book of Exodus.



Suggested Reading: Exodus 1:1:15-16; Exodus 3:1-4:12

Jacob’s son, Joseph, was the food commissioner of Egypt. During a period of famine, his family was allowed to come to this place and dwell in the land of Goshen. While there, their ancestors increased in population. Years later, a new king of Egypt, Seti 1, tried to reduce their number by using them as public enslaved people who were employed in the construction of various buildings. This didn’t produce the desired effect, so another method was tried.

Hebrew midwives were told to kill any Hebrew sons in their care. Still, this edict wasn’t rigidly enforced, so Pharaoh decided to make a new one, stating that the civil authorities were to cast any Hebrew male child they found into the Nile River. During this time, Moses was born.

Aware of this decree, his mother placed him in the Nile River in a floating device, knowing it was near where Pharaoh’s daughter would come and wash. She, indeed, discovered the child, hired a midwife to care for him, and when the time was right, brought him to the royal palace as the adopted son of the princess.

Some believe that Moses’ first twenty years of life were enveloped with education, and his subsequent twenty years were spent in military service. At the age of forty, he witnessed the oppression and bondage of his people and, on one occasion, observed an Egyptian beating a Hebrew. He avenged the man by killing the Egyptian. Subsequently, Ramses II, the new Pharaoh, was made aware of this crime and sought to slay him, but Moses fled from Egypt to Midian and remained there for forty years.

2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

10 Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.

18 …unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.

Moses was tending his father-in-law’s sheep in Midian when suddenly he saw a burning bush and heard a voice calling him. This sound was that of the angel of the Lord. The angel told him that He’d seen the affliction of His people and would like him to bring them out from their slavery in Egypt to a land flowing with milk and honey. For this to happen, Moses would need to go to Pharaoh and ask for a release of three days so that they could go into the wilderness and sacrifice to their God.

16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

The angel also instructed him to go before the elders of the children of Israel and convey to them His name, His mission, and His plan for deliverance.

These verses, along with many others in the Old Testament convey the following characteristic of the mandated leadership model.



Mandated Leadership Model Characteristic

Those in the leadership positions in the New Testament church believe that they have the same authority as Moses. As Moses heard the words that he would convey to Pharaoh and the elders of Israel directly from God, so do the leaders of the New Testament church claim that they receive instruction directly from God through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. This infers that the assembly should receive whatever instructions from leadership convey to them as being God’s Words, whereby obedience is to be rendered without hesitation. (Exodus 3:1-4:12)

Is this surprising? I think many churchgoers are ignorant about why their church denomination or leadership believes as they do. The more informed we are, the better we can recognize the why behind the what is taught.

Another quality of this model is found in the same verses that we just looked at.



Suggested Reading: Exodus 4:1-9, 31

1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee.

Moses, instead of rejoicing that God was going to use him in this endeavor to bring forth the children of Israel out from their captivity in Egypt began to reason that the elders won’t believe what he has to say.

3-9 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: That they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. And the Lord said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.

So, God gave to him three signs that would convince them that this mission was of divine initiation.

31 And the people believed: and when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.



Mandated Leadership Model Characteristic

The children of Israel were convinced by the demonstration of the Lord’s miraculous signs to follow Moses without reservation. In other words, Moses was God’s man. Whomsoever God calls to be His representative on earth should be followed without reservation. (Exodus 4:1-9)

Another feature of this model that we’ll look at is derived from the book of Numbers. Please turn there in your Bible.



Suggested Reading: Numbers 16:1-49

8-10 And Moses said unto Korah, Hear, I pray you, ye sons of Levi: Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them? And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?

Korah, a Levite, the son of Izhar, the brother of Amram, and an ancestor of Moses and Aaron, came before Moses along with two hundred fifty men, complaining that the office of the high priesthood should be made available to the entire congregation. According to them, Moses had no right to bestow this to Aaron and his sons. Moses responded by saying that this decision was the Lord’s and wasn’t made from his mind.

Exodus 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

When the Israelites left Egypt, they still observed the ancient manner of worship, which meant the eldest son of each household inherited the priest’s office. At Mount Sinai, the first change in this ancient practice was made. A hereditary priesthood in the family of Aaron was instituted.

Numbers 16:13 Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether a prince over us?

Korah and his men also questioned Moses’ authority over them, believing that he was a self-appointed ruler.

Numbers 16:28-30 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the Lord hath not sent me. But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord.

Moses told Korah and his men to meet him the following day before the door of the tabernacle of the Lord. When they arrived, Moses told the congregation to separate themselves from Korah and his men, advising them that if what Korah and his men had said was true , then no harm would come to them, but if untrue , God would consume them.

Numbers 16:32-33 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.

As soon as Moses was finished speaking, the ground opened up and consumed Korah and his men. When the rest of the congregation saw what happened, they fled in fear.

Numbers 16:41 But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord.

On the following day, they approached Moses and complained about the death of their brethren.

Numbers 16:46-47 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them: for there is wrath gone out from the Lord; the plague is begun. And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people.

In response to the people’s complaints, the Lord sent a plague among them. Moses instructed Aaron to make an atonement to the Lord to prevent the plague from continuing. Aaron took a censer, put fire in it from the altar, added incense, and then ran into the congregation’s midst with it, but not before fourteen thousand seven-hundreds of them had perished. Here’s another characteristic that exemplifies this model.



Mandated Leadership Model Characteristic

New Testament leaders aren’t to be criticized or questioned. If they’re in error doctrinally and, subsequently, in their decisions, then God will deal with them directly. This view allows those in leadership to promulgate doctrinal statements and make subsequent decisions that are considered to be absolute, meaning that their teachings and decisions are God-sanctioned, and aren’t to be debated. To disagree with leadership is in effect not following God’s man, and thus not obeying God. (Numbers 16:1-49)

The next aspect of this model is found in the book of Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 11:26-28

Entrance of the Israelites into the Promised Land of Canaan is at hand. After listening to Moses restating the important events of the past forty years in the wilderness and the Law that was given to him by God, he makes an alarming statement.

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

From which we can deduce the following facet of this model.



Mandated Leadership Model Characteristic

Moses told them if they obeyed the commandments set before them that their works would be blessed. Conversely, if they disobeyed, they’d be cursed to go after other gods and in effect lose their salvation. Likewise, if believers obey leadership, they’ll be blessed. If they choose to disobey, they might incur ill health, financial ruin, and possibly lose their salvation. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28)

Moving forward, the next distinctiveness of this model is found in the book of Joshua.



Suggested Reading: Joshua 2:1-24

The Lord chose Joshua to lead the Jews out of the wilderness by crossing the Jordan River into the land of Canaan, the land that God promised as an inheritance, which would become theirs through conquest. The first place that he set out to conquer was Jericho. He sent two spies, who eventually stayed at the home of a prostitute named Rahab. It was probably their mission to obtain information from her about this fortress - its gates, fortified towers, military force, and the morale of its people.1

6 But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

The king of Jericho, somehow made aware of the Israelite spies, decided to send messengers to her house to apprehend them. Aware that the two spies’ lives were in danger, she asked them to hide under the stalks of flax fibers on the roof, which were laid out in heaps to dry so they could be woven into linen cloth.

5 And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.

When the messengers of the king arrived at her house, she told them the spies had already left, but it’s obvious that she didn’t tell the truth.

According to this model, the situation was such that lying or committing sin was the appropriate response. Therefore, because the result was beneficial (saving the spies’ lives), sin could be weighed as an acceptable alternative to be committed by those in leadership as long as it promotes the kingdom of God. This view opens up all sorts of opportunities for those in leadership to make decisions that, while knowingly sinful, are considered tolerable because they promote their church while claiming they’re doing God’s will.



Mandated Leadership Model Characteristic

This quality is that of justifying sinful behavior as long as the intent of the actions is for the benefit of the kingdom of God. (Joshua 2:1-24)

Are you surprised by these characteristics? I was and still am.

I won’t say that every church will formulate the same ones from these particular Scriptures under the mandated leadership model. Still, some will, so we should be aware of how these verses could be used by leadership to justify their actions. It’s inconceivable to think that in some churches, known sinful actions by those in authority are purposely kept hidden under the guise that such knowledge would cause more harm than good. It’s also mind-boggling to think that when sinful behavior by those in leadership is uncovered, time and time again, the congregation is told to forget about it because God will deal with them. With that said, I’d like to leave you with a pertinent story.

In the late seventies, I worked on staff for a particular branch ministry church. Each Wednesday, I’d accompany the pastors on a trip to the headquarters for a day of listening in the studio to live radio, watching a softball game, browsing the bookstore, sitting in on a Bible class, attending evening worship, etc. Immediately following worship, it was time to head home, as the trip took about two hours. I was asked to drive the staff vehicle back to the branch ministry, which I was glad to do.

Upon leaving the parking lot, we’d usually take a right. However, as we were departing, the head pastor said, “Take a left.” I did as he said, wondering why he’d direct me this way. After traveling for about a half mile, he asked me to turn around. Again, in my mind, I wondered what’s going on.

He told me to pull over just before the main parking lot where evening worship was just held. I did as he said. He got out of the car, proceeded down a hill, and entered a building. I asked the other pastors what this building was used for. They said that this was the girls’ dorms. I proceeded to get out of the car, determined to go inside to ensure that nothing inappropriate was going on. They told me that if I attempted to enter this building, they’d have to physically restrain me. I decided to stay put, but in hindsight, I should’ve gone ahead with my original intent.

Years later, this pastor who had been married to a young lady he met when he began a ministry in the city where I was born, got divorced. He left the church and decided to quit the pastorate. I can’t be sure if there was a connection between a possible indiscretion in the girls’ dorms and the decisions that were made later on in his life with respect to his marriage and calling. I’ll probably never know whether anything inappropriate did occur. However, I regret not having acted upon my initial sense.

Some might argue that it was none of my business what he was doing late at night in the girls’ dorms, but I think there are times when a fellow believer projects an appearance of evil by the decisions they make. In this instance, I don’t believe it was correct for any male pastor to enter a girl’s dorm alone, especially late at night; it’s interesting to think about why such a response was forthcoming by the other pastors. They didn’t seem to have any reservations about this visit to the girls’ dorms. I wonder why. Did they already know something that I didn’t? I’ll never know.

Would you agree that the type of leadership that was exhibited in these instances indicates that this church operated under the mandatory leadership model?

Believe it or not, there are still more of them to be uncovered in the following chapter.

Endnotes

1Bible Knowledge Commentary/Old Testament, 2000, 01 November 2014 ˂http://www.biblesoft.com>.



Amazon: https://amzn.to/2ITJ1wj

Website: http://bit.ly/1RQnYJ8