History of Church Leadership
Leadership is the process through which a party or individual, through influence, gets the cooperation of others on the verge of attaining a common goal. Leadership is an act of guiding people towards a pre-defined goal or the capability of doing so. It ensures there is coherence in a particular setting and offers a source of guidelines as to how some issues should be approached. In this text the history of church leadership will be looked into. It is so hard to look into the leadership in the church without referring to its true embodiment. From the scriptures in the Bible, Jesus was the real symbol of leadership in the church. He was the guiding factor that led people towards the love of God, forgiveness of sin and the eternity of life after life on the earth. He outlined the foundations of leadership as the character of a person, the totality of their influential power and the urge to accomplish a common purpose with the aid of supernatural realms of power. These fundamentals have evolved since then when compared to the current principles of leadership in churches today; the main focus of this text.
The New Testament Church
The New Testament form of leadership is among the most misunderstood concept among all the concepts in the Bible. The type of church leadership outlined in the New Testament is embodied in the principle of Jesus Christ as the head of the church. This principle is generally agreed to by most people but most of them do not really understand this concept. To mitigate this problem this text will outline the main guidelines of this principle. This principle dominates the New Testament but it is best outlined in the New Testament book of Colossians. From this book, the leadership of the church is seen to be dominated by three fundamental aspects of Christ’s leadership model. First, the New Testament lays emphasis on the fact that church leadership has Jesus Christ as its main source. According to Colossians chapter one verse sixteen, all the things that exist on earth and in heaven, including those that can be seen by the human eye and those that man cannot perceive with his eyes, all the thrones of leadership and authorities; they are all created through His power and for Him. This indicates that everything including the principles of leadership in the early church was meant to come from Jesus Christ and His examples (Alley, 2002). The second facet is that church leadership can only be sustained by Jesus Christ and only him. He is not just the source of leadership but also the constant source of the same; the force that sustains this leadership. Just as the molecules of a substance like water remain intact, the leadership of the church is kept intact by the force of the power and might of Jesus Christ; in the same way atomic bonds result in the formation of molecules. The leadership of the church, after being sustained by the power that is in Jesus Christ, then transfers the same unity and coherence to the church. The third facet of New Testament church leadership is that its main purpose is found in Jesus Christ (Alley, 2002). The main purpose of church leadership according to the new testament was the supremacy of Jesus Christ and it is aimed at exalting his name and his name alone since he is the head of the church body. The new testament leadership involved apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, bishops and elders but none of them were meant to feel any superior to another and the name of Jesus Christ was the pinnacle of the leadership; no one was closer to him or farther from him.
The Christian Era Church
In this era, the leadership of the church took a hierarchical approach. The role of the bishops was overseeing and this presented a platform for the development of a chain of command. This had the episkopi who were the general overseer, the presbyteroi acted as the elders and the diakonoi who were ministerial servants. The leadership in this era took a more political route hence disputes emerged from issues like the criteria followed in giving appropriate titles to the church leaders and the specificity of the roles leader should undertake. These conflicts led to the schism in most denominations since some churches could not find a unanimous way of handling the issues. The leadership of the church in this era was focused on ranks and titles and did not follow the fundamentals outlined in the new testament. Church leadership became a political position and in some churches, the leaders of the church had the final word in legislative matters; they acted like judges. The schism of most churches led to the emergence of churches like the Catholic and Orthodox churches that used the title of priest to refer to all the baptized and anointed but when looked into deeply, it is used to refer to bishops and presbyters; both of which are used synonyms to each other. Other churches abandoned the whole idea of bishops and only have elders. In later stages of this era, the concept of succession was applied; bishops succeeded other bishops after they “retired” and the role of every leader was clearly defined. The reintroduction of the role of deacons in the leadership hierarchy gave them the role of tending to the needs of the poor and the sick in the community. Towards the end of this era, the church had a defined system of leadership with very many bishops.
The Medieval Church
In this era, the church grew in numbers and ramified to almost all corners of the earth. The church and its leaders therefore gained more and more influence on the people of the world. The church continued being actively involved in the political world at that time; it played a major in medieval politics. The leadership of the church in this time was recognized as the government; church leaders were assigned legislative roles for example, the archbishop of the Canterbury played the role of the Chancellor of England. The church leaders had an amplified political say in the community then. The magnitude of this influence comes from the fact that the church represented the presence of the Sovereignty of God and his power on earth. The church had very specific rules and regulations for almost all activities and had very clear criteria for doing things. Moreover, the church was the only body or organization that had global recognition. It is the power exercised by church leaders then that made the people inclined towards following the doctrine and its laws. Disobedience of the church’s laws led to automatic exclusion from the church and/ or eternal condemnation in the society. The leadership of the church also provided the society with the only social events at that time. The church leaders were in charge of communal events like public holidays and festivals during which songs were sung by the choirs and instruments played by the members of the church. The leaders of the church acted like the government for the people were seen to owe the church “taxes” when looked at from a rational point of view even though it was referred to as tithes. The leaders of the church also created a welfare system through which it gave assistance to the poor in their times of need. Furthermore, the political nature of the church leaders was intensified by the fact that they had to pay their assistants; parish priests had to give wages to substitute priests in cases where they preached or supervised any event on their behalf. This increased the level of corruption among the church leaders since they used church structures for their personal benefits like using church lawns to graze their cattle (Alley, 2002).
The Reformation Era
The leaders during the reformation era were all very interested in the fact that the Catholic Church dominated the religious field. There was only one universal church and the leaders of this church had a very secretive life. This raised a lot of concern. The people who led the reformations were interested in making religion more relevant to the life of man since life had changed in terms of politics and technological advancements. They had a strong belief that the church had to be reformed. One of the people that led the reformations was a scholar by the name Desiderius who was very concerned by the fact that the church leaders then were very worldly and did not reflect the teaching of Jesus Christ. For instance, the church owned a third of the land in Western Europe. Being a scholar, he was not impressed by the fact that there was not a distinction between the scholars and the religious lot in the sense that the church leaders were applying their cognitive knowledge in matters of religion; they did not refer to the Bible which should have been used for spiritual matter rather, they depended on their mastery of life and doctrine and believed that what they said was wise and godly (Alley, 2002).
Martin Luther also reformed and was among the first protestant Christians. He refused to adhere to the words of the pope then when he asked him to stop attacking the church. Like any other reformer, he had a staunch belief in what his convictions gave to him; he believed in what he felt was the truth. His reformation clearly outlined the character of the leaders of the church since they threatened his life. This was contrary to what the Christian doctrine stood for; a commandment orders man not to kill. The leaders during this era were therefore not spiritually inclined but had taken the church as a political institution and they were ready to do anything to protect their reputation. The leaders of the church during this era were very selfish and deemed the members of the clergy as special and very different from the rest of the community (Carney, 2001).
Leadership of the Church over the Past three Centuries
The leadership of the church transformed into the type of leadership that does not integrate into the society. The leaders were pre-occupied by their roles in the church to the point that they did not really mind the activities of the community. This resulted to the instance where churches were full of people in the middle class of the economy but were found in lower class residential areas (Carney, 2001).
The leaders did not concern themselves with reaching out to the direct society but rather “expanding” the kingdom of God by building more and more church structures. They became money oriented a kept on preaching prosperity as opposed to the goodness and mercy of God which is the basis of the Christian doctrine. The main vision and mission of the church was totally lost and the church leaders did not even take time to pray with the congregation. Prayer was left to individuals and families; churches became all about contributions, marriages and funerals and the leadership was just a position.
Conclusion
The leadership of the church is currently trying its best to revert to where it ought to be but most of the church leaders in the church today have turned churches into businesses and tools for reinforcing social status. Most church leaders actively participate in politics and even vie for political positions during elections. They focus more on making their churches the biggest possible. However, some church leaders have stuck in the fundamental framework for church leaders as provided by the New Testament and the life of Jesus Christ on earth. They propel evangelism and preach the word of God’s love peace and sensitize their work on ministry. The future of church leaders therefore has hope in leading the church and its members the way Jesus has intended it to be.
References
Alley, J. K. (2002). The apostolic revelation: The reformation of the Church. Rockhampton, Qld: Peace Publishing.
Carney, J. E. (2001). Renaissance and Reformation: 1500-1620 : a biographical dictionary. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Greenwood Press.
Clarke, A. D. (2008). A Pauline theology of church leadership. London: T & T Clark.
McNeese, T. (1999). The Reformation. St. Louis, Mo: Milliken Pub.
Watt, D. E. R. (2000). Medieval church councils in Scotland. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
