I’m busy
working my way through the so-called “Pastoral Epistles” in preparation for a
course I’m teaching in April. While working
through this passage, I’ve noticed that within much contemporary preaching and
teaching on the topic of leadership, or at least what I’ve experienced, there
has been an emphasis on certain elements within this “list of qualifications.” What usually gets discussed or debated is the
“one woman man” phrase; whether or not all elders have to be “skilled teachers”;
and then “managing one’s household”. It
is also taken for granted that those in leadership should not be addicted to
alcohol. But what of the other elements
in this passage?
Firstly, the
passage mentions that those who want to be leaders should be people “against
whom no charge can be brought” (Barrett, 58).
This indicates someone of impeccable character with no obvious defects
in their behaviour. Then the double
whammy of “self-controlled” and “self-disciplined.” The first word refers “to being restrained in
conduct, self-controlled, level-headed,” while the second is a cardinal
virtue in the Graeco-Roman world, a characteristic of those who are in control
of their faculties and their responses to stimuli or situations. Such people evoke confidence in their ability
to handle crises and make difficult decisions.
Then we have the word “respectable” or “dignified” which was often used
as an epithet for honourable people.
Then,
the one I’ve learnt the most about recently, is “not given to violence.” The word has a wide meaning, including
bullying, verbal abuse and physical acts of violence. To the contrary of this negative aspect of
character, leaders are called to be “gentle” and those who “create peace,” as
opposed to those who cause “fighting”.
Gentle, “as a human virtue can almost subsume all virtues into
itself, coming to mean a “virtuous equilibrium” that expresses itself in a
balance between honesty, tolerance, and gentleness” (Towner). And those who “create peace” or are “peaceable”
are those who do not stir up fights, both physical and non-physical, but bring
healing and restoration. It is the exact
opposite of what is described in Titus 3:9 and 2 Tim 2:23-24.
I wonder what
would happen if we restored the balance and gave as much attention to these
elements of character and life as we did to the other elements. I wonder what kind of leaders we would
produce by focussing on such elements. I
wonder if those who are in leadership positions shouldn’t spend a bit more time
reflecting on these elements of their biblical “job description.” On a final note, Jesus embodies these virtues
perfectly, and it is by implementing his character and concern for others,
empowered by the Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), that we will be able to be such leaders
in God’s household.
1 comment:
Well argued. I agree. The eternal subordination of the Son presents unacceptable implications for male/female relations. "The Holy Trinity" by Robert Latham does this, and argues against Gilbert Bilezikian, who argues for the eternally equal status of the Son and hence for equality in male/female relationships.
By the way, what is Common Ground?
Post a Comment