In society, we obviously need leaders so that their peoples/ subjects/ voters can be governed and guided. I'm Not trying to be too cynical when it come to leaders(especially political leaders) just so that I can sound like someone who is too clever by half, lofty or sanctimonious however t I wanted to emphasize the dangerously complex relationship between leaders and their subjects / voters. (Important Side Note: This might be good topic for a different post but It is also important to Note the difference between: Leaders Directly appointed by God that generally occurred Prior and During the time of the Book of Judges Leaders Indirectly(i.e with God's reluctant acceptance) and/or Directly empowered by the peoples / subjects that generally occurred After and some During the time of the Book of Judges ) However, 1 & 2 Sam, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chron, Esther & Judges (even to a lesser extent Psalms & Proverbs) are some books in the bible that should be must-read for Christians who may be interested in being part of leadership (especially political leadership) because said books emphasize the difficulties & challenges that leaders face. Leaders are tempted to engage in and/or faced with such evils like backstabbing, lying, grandstanding, deceiving, pretending, volatility of voters & supporters, egotism, pride etc. One particular aspect of leadership that is interesting is the relationship that leaders have with their peoples / constituents / voters who they lead. Leaders & their subjects / voters have a Relationship that needs to be handled with care and attention because it can become dangerously harmful if it's mishandled. Again, I want to emphasize that I'm Not trying to be too cynical but we Christians should sort of approach leaders in a sympathetic & empathetic manner because all humanity is broken and in need to help due to sinfulness The following ( 1 Timothy 2:1-2) shows us a constructive approach with good intentions when it comes to praying for our leaders: > 1 Timothy 2:1-2 > > New American Standard Bible 1995 > > First of all, then, I > urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made > on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in [a]authority, so > that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and > dignity. However, Here are some bible passages and scriptures that emphasize the dangerously complex relationship between leaders and their subjects / voters: Let's start off with bible verses that indicate the dangers that leaders themselves pose to their subjects / voters / people: -In the 1st Samuel 8 chapter, Prophet Samuel makes a speech of Warning to the Israelites. The aforementioned speech is about the powers and actions of Leaders Indirectly ( i.e with God's Reluctant acceptance) empowered by the peoples ( i.e the establishment of Israelite monarchy ). Prophet Samuel tells the Israelite peoples that the Israelite Kings would for the most part use the peoples as laborers & military personnel , and use the land of the nation for king's own farming, & take a percentage of their crops, flocks and cattle. Essentially, Samuel tells the Israelites that a king would view Israel as his own personal fiefdom. King Saul gave into the fleshly desires of the people in 1 Samuel 15 by allowing them to take the choicest of spoils of the Amalekites instead of obeying God's command that ordered Saul to utterly destroy all the Amalekites,and everything belonging to the Amalekites.(which is very similar to modern day elected politicians in democracies who might give into fleshly desires of the voters based on opinion polls for specific political issues even though their desires are wrong) -The Proverbs 23:1-3 bible verses suggest that we should Not be too dependent on sustenance of rulers probably because the rulers might find out that they have leverage over you, and therefore, can possibly bully/oppress you: > Proverbs 23:1-3 23 > > When you sit down to dine with a ruler, Consider > carefully what is before you, 2 And put a knife to your throat If you > are a man of great appetite. 3 Do not desire his delicacies, For it is > deceptive food. -Even a man after God's own heart, King David,takes advantage of his powers as king in 2 Samuel 11 by sinfully committing adultery with a married woman, and then goes on to kill her husband. Now, it's certainly Not one-sided because the bible also indicates the faults of the subjects / voters / people: -The Judges 9 chapter's narrative is a good example of the volatile nature of the peoples / subjects behaviour towards their leaders. Judges 9:2-4 show how Abimelech convinced the people of Shechem to follow him, but then as time goes by, it mentions in Judges 9:23 that Shechem's people later turned against Abimelech. -Absalom's handsome features are referenced in the 2 Samuel 14:25 bible verse, and with his charisma he (2 Samuel 15:6) "stole away the hearts of the men of Israel". The use of the word (2 Samuel 15:6) "stole" has a negative connotation that suggests how the people can mistakenly be so enamoured by the image of their leaders as opposed to the leader's actions and policies which is the actual substance. -Furthermore, 2 Samuel 15:10-11's recounts the events just before Absalom's attempted coup against King David which states that the followers of Absalom "went innocently, and they did not know anything." Essentially, 2 Samuel 15:10-11 is evidence that the people can easily be swayed to do the will of a leader who is handsome, charismatic and charming. Acts 12:21-23 is a great example in the New Testament that shows the dangerously complex relationship between leaders and people because the people mistakenly say that King Herod was a god, and King Herod Fails to give the Glory to God, and therefore, an angel of God killed King Herod. To conclude, as (1 Timothy 2:1-2) states, it is important for people to pray for their leaders but at the same time people should cautiously view their worldly leaders. (As a side Note, an interesting leader who showed some good leadership qualities was Queen Elizabeth II who worked behind the scenes to fight the South African government's apartheid which sugges that she did Not do it for the popularity or fame: ----------------( Credit Reference: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/crown-season-4-did-queen-elizabeth-ii-margaret-thatcher-get-n1247289 )----------------- > Nonetheless, Elizabeth has been credited with using her influence to > pressure the South African government over its institutionalized > racist segregation. Former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, for > instance, has described her as a "behind-the-scenes force" in helping > to bring an end to South African apartheid."Did she work behind the > scenes in the case of South Africa to offer encouragement to Nelson > Mandela? Yes," Smith said. "But she did it by using her soft power. > She never was in a confrontational situation with Margaret Thatcher." ----------------( Credit Reference: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/crown-season-4-did-queen-elizabeth-ii-margaret-thatcher-get-n1247289 )----------------- To conclude, as (1 Timothy 2:1-2) states, it is important for people to pray for their leaders but at the same time people should cautiously view their worldly leaders. Would the aforementioned evaluation be correct?

There has been much publicity about the 'Head of the Church of England' praying with the Pope in Rome. But I have not (yet) seen any support for this from the laity of the Anglican communion or from the vicars of the Church of England or from the bishops. Is the 'Head' of the Anglican communion acting on their own (possibly ideological) account or are they acting as representing the whole body ?

How are Christian leaders supposed to deal with verses that talk of God's increased judgement on church leaders? Such as: > James 3:1 "We who teach will be judged more strictly" > Hebrews 13:17 "Your leaders... must give an account" How can people step into church leadership and willingly put such a 'sword of Damocles' over themselves? In fact, I see most people in churches do exactly the opposite. When asked to take a responsibility or a leadership role, they run away fast. And who can blame them if God has promised to smite them if they lead, but then inevitably make mistakes? Put another way, what bible verses can encourage those who are afraid of the consequences of the above two verses, yet still feel called to some form of leadership?

I assume the Jehovah's Witnesses church has structure and organization for its membership. Who are the leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and what is their role? From whom do members receive guidance and counsel?

From my understanding, women play a huge role in the LDS church, e.g. The Relief Society (which was established in 1842 and has about 6 million members). Even though they don't have the priesthood and as such don't serve as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., they still give talks and say prayers in Sacrament Meetings and are in charge of Primary, Young Women's, etc. But I don't understand why LDS women are not able to be Sunday School Presidents. They can be teachers, but not the presidents? What is the LDS doctrine behind that? Why must a Sunday School President be a priesthood holder if they are not overseeing priesthood ordinances? When anyone receives a calling in the LDS Church, they can receive inspiration for their stewards -- regardless of what their gender is, so I don't know why must a Sunday School President be a male, especially if priesthood activities are not involved. Is is mainly based on tradition? Or is their doctrine behind this?

**Formalized Ministry** The constituency of the Early Church was listed as **saints, elders, and deacons** in Philippians 1:1. And we know that the early Christians were familiar with the Synagogue style of congregating with a leadership of **archisynagogos, hazzars, and almoners**. So they would have considered some type of formal spiritual leadership necessary in the fledgling Church. And we see in Ephesians 4:11 a list of ministers given by the Apostle Paul "that were for the edification of the congregations." **Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastor/Teachers** But were ministries formalized into leadership roles by this time in church history? Or were these, as some contend, just descriptions of ministering done at that time? If they were "formalized" in New Testament times and functioning in those churches, do Evangelical Protestants consider them as also legitimate ministry **with a leadership role** in modern Local Congregations? Do they consider the N.T. listing ***a pattern for modernity***? Should the modern local church, or denominations, expect there to be room for all of these ministries to exist and flourish---or just the pastor? >*Jesus Christ has abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the **Evangel** whereunto I am appointed a **Herald, an Apostle, and a Teacher** to the nations.* (2 Timothy 1:10,11) >*And He (God) gave **some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers**, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ.* (Ephesians 4:11-12)

I'm relatively new to attending a Baptist church and one key difference is the idea of the Church Meeting, whereby members vote on important issues including appointment of a minister/elder. My understanding is that this is an expression on Congregationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregationalist_polity , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregational_church) Does this mean that in real terms, a church's leadership (pastors, ministers, elders) are not the main authority - if we drew a hierarchy diagram we would see the congregation at the top, directly above the church leaders? Does this in turn have any implications for the role of women in the church - assuming the church holds to traditional complementarian views of course? For instance, one common view of "a woman should not have authority over men" allows a woman to preach under the authority of the (male) elders (I do not know if this idea has a specific name?) If the congregation is actually the highest authority, then logically it sounds like this argument could be extended to allow female elders because actually, even the elders are under the authority of the congregation.

I specifically want to know what educational qualifications are required for someone to be qualified for each of the roles mentioned in the title. Priest Bishop Archbishop Cardinal Pope If there are no specific educational qualifications, would you mind clarifying on what exactly is required?

I understand that the Eastern Orthodox Church has some kind of leadership structure that (maybe?) can decide on doctrine for the entire church. How is this leadership structured and what can the leadership decide to do (can they declare doctrine, define disciplines, ect?)

Are there still leaders of these households or are they obsolete? 1. Reuben: 46,500 2. Simeon: 59,300 3. Gad: 45,650 4. Judah: 74,600 5. Issachar: 54,400 6. Zebulun: 57,400 7. Joseph: - Ephraim: 40,500 - Manasseh: 32,200 9. Benjamin: 35,400 10. Dan: 62,700 11. Asher: 41,500 12. Naphtali: 53,400 13. Levites: ?

(This question seems to especially apply to modern western societies) I’ve come across renown preachers (MacArthur, Bachmann, et al) that the man is the provider according to **God’s** design of the family Granted the Scripture does say that the man is the leader/head of the family > *“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, **the head of a wife is her husband**, and the head of Christ is God.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:3* However a leader does not by extension also have to be the provider in order to lead. One can lead without also providing. Leaders give guidance, instructions, direction and they can do all these without also having to provide. Or put differently, if a man is in between jobs does he stop being the leader? No, obviously not. Or if the man becomes physically handicapped or is already handicapped, is he excused from being a leader in his family just because he cannot provide? No, of course not. ‬ ‭ There is a passage that comes to mind which seems to be misapplied and misinterpreted. >“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭5:8‬ ‭ This text assumes many things. Among which are the obvious, he has living relatives, they are in need, he has the ability to provide and is not in need himself. In essence it refers to someone who has resources but refuses to help, such a man has denied his faith. But a man that would help yet barely has enough should not help a relative at the expense of his own family. Or would help but is handicapped. Or as it sometimes happens the wife earns significantly more than the husband and paying childcare for strangers (Christian or not) to raise the children seems like an abdication of responsibility as a parent contrary to other Scriptures that Instruct parents to teach their children. Or settling for less income so the man can provide puts undue and unnecessary stress on the family. Or more pointed, how is the man leading if his pursuit of providing is getting in the way of him spending time with the family? > Hypothetically If the father is home and teaching his children, focusing on the spiritual health of his family while the wife has a well paying job beyond what he could manage on his education path, is he not a leader? And if he chooses to distribute the income to help relatives and those in need though he didn’t earn the pay check has he denied the faith? ### So can someone explain why some Christian leaders insist that the man must be the provider? What text are they basing this teaching on? https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1947/gods-pattern-for-husbands-part-2 John MacArthur in the link above goes along these lines > So if you want your marriage to be blessed, you take care of your wife. When you know she has a need, you seek to meet it. When you know she has a secret longing in her heart and it’s certainly reasonable and will add to her virtue and her wellbeing and her happiness and her ability to fulfill her role, you do everything you can to meet that need. Something is seriously wrong when a man sees his wife as a cook and a clothes washer and a babysitter and a sex partner and that’s it. **Something is seriously wrong when he puts her in the place of the breadwinner**. She is a God-given treasure to be cared for, to be cherished, to be nourished, to be your loving helper, to fulfill your need for companionship, for the fulfillment of physical desire, for the fulfillment of love and partnership and friendship and to produce children in a home. Another excerpt from John MacArthur >She is not the nourisher. She is not the provider. You’re to do that. That is the man’s responsibility. And if a man doesn’t do that, according to 1 Timothy 5:8, he is denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. **Throughout Scripture, the man is always the provider as Christ is the provider for His church**. That’s key. We provide nothing. The church provides nothing. We just receive Christ’s provision, protection, preservation, His care, His nourishing, His cherishing. It comes to us. In a sense, it’s very one-sided. Men, we are to provide that in our homes. You say, “Well, I’d have to sacrifice my career to do that.” Then sacrifice it. Maybe you can’t climb as fast and as far up the ladder as you would like, but in the end you’re going to be so richly rewarded in the bliss of that home that it will be far worth every sacrifice. Christ provides everything for us, to nurture us, to warm us, to provide the security for us.

Could anyone explain to me why some groups of Christians call their leaders "Father"?

I am part of a high school small-group discussion at church. When neither the adult normally leading it nor his substitute could make it, one of the students started leading. The discussion quickly became distracted; one student was constantly doing something on his phone, and even the leader was on the phone with someone. He later let me take over, but the discussion was now so off-topic that I couldn’t get it back on topic. I did not have the attention of the entire group at any one time. What should I do the next time that happens?

I'm a member of an Evangelical Free church and one of the members of my Sunday school class made an impassioned plea for us to nominate several women to be elders. Currently our church has no women elders and never has as far as I know. I also am certain that the denomination does not allow women in pastoral or board of directors positions. But the only statement I can find is from [Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)](http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/our-mission-and-history): > **Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA)** www.ecfa.org > Women may not serve as pastors, elders, or deacons. Men who are not ordained and women who would like to be involved in ministry may be granted the "Christian Ministry License." > —"US Denominations and Their Stances on Women in Leadership" \[[PDF](http://www2.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2007/07spring/denominations%20first%20installment--FINAL.pdf)\] The trouble with this is that I our church _does_ have women deacons. I'd like to know what the official policy is and what arguments are made for the denomination's position.

Next week will be the first general conference where [President Nelson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_M._Nelson) is the president of the Church. Does any special procedure or meeting occur because of this, or it is just a normal general conference?

The [Willow Creek Community Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Creek_Community_Church) has long had a policy of both men **and women** in leadership roles - which was (and is still) counter to what many other churches teach. From [their site](http://www.willowcreek.org/beliefs) : > **We believe churches should be led by men and women with God-given leadership gifts.** This includes the concepts of empowerment, servant leadership, strategic focus, and intentionality ([Nehemiah 1–2](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%201%E2%80%932&version=NIVUK) ; [Romans 12:8](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012:8&version=NIVUK) ; [Acts 6:2–5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%206:2-5&version=NIVUK)) . I'd really like to know how they came to this view and *especially* their Biblical basis for this belief (beyond the verses quoted above which, while they are about leadership, do not mention women specifically).

Of those Churches what is their form of governance that allows them to run smoothly lacking fulltime ecclesiastical professionals? How does one ascend into a leadership role in the Church?

In the books of Joshua and Judges the leaders of the Hebrews are old men like Joshua himself or Judah. In particular the following verse made me wonder something: Judges 1:3 (ESV): > And Judah said to Simeon his brother, “Come up with me into the territory allotted to me, that we may fight against the Canaanites. And I likewise will go with you into the territory allotted to you.” So Simeon went with him. When I first read this verse I understood that Judah himself went to battle against the Canaanites, but he should have been very old at this time. Then I realized that Judah was also very old when leading the Hebrews. The Hebrews battled against a lot of countries at this time and I had always thought that the leaders engaged themselves in battle. Now I want to try to understand this and looking at different versions of the bible I found that the same verse of the NIV version is very different: > The men of Judah then said to the Simeonites their fellow Israelites, "Come up with us into the territory allotted to us, to fight against the Canaanites. We in turn will go with you into yours." So the Simeonites went with them. Reading this, I understand that Judah and Simeon didn't fight but instead the (presumably younger) members of their tribes were the ones who battled against the Canaanites. How do Catholic Christians explain this? Did the older men fight themselves or were they just the leaders of the Hebrews, but didn't engage in battle?

No, this is not the start of a joke about a bunch of people walking into a bar. Rather, I thought it would be helpful to clarify various titles that people give to leadership roles in churches.

What I mean by this is a little beyond "Wives submit to your husbands." In Joshua 7:22-25 Joshua stones and burns the entire family of Achen, including his children, after he sins by keeping back some of the loot from Jericho when God commanded it all be destroyed. Was Joshua in sin because he did this or was this a right response? God certainly blessed them right after this with victory over Ai. Also Exodus 20:5-6 (NJKV) states: >...For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. On a more practical note according to a study reported in Baptist Press : > [If] a child is the first person in a household to become a Christian, there is a 3.5 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow[.] > > If the mother is the first to become a Christian, there is a 17 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow. > > But if the father is first, there is a 93 percent probability everyone else in the household will follow. Does this point to a leadership of a father that goes beyond simple moral or financial and moves into the distinctively spiritual?