CALLED BY GOD OR JUST SEEKING A TITLE.....

It is very sad today that there are men not living out a call placed on their lives by God to lead the church, but they are simply seeking after titles, such as elder, deacon, and yes most of all pastor.

These men do not care about the flock they pretend to lead. They only care about hearing people call them by their unearned title. Ask yourself what training they have, how have they prepared and how do they continue to prepare for their calling. Has their ministry and their lives been recognized by their peers? And most of all do their lives live up to their title? This post by John MacArthur will give us the base for our look at this problem.

Remember just because someone calls themself a PASTOR does not mean they have been called by God to that office, and if they have not been called by God to that office then quite frankly the title of pastor does not belong to them.
Pastor Charles J. Paul

If we are to be faithful to the New Testament, we must acknowledge that the Lord has established leaders in His church—pastors and elders. They are the examples of spiritual leadership for all the people, and if they are not exemplary leaders, something is seriously wrong.
The qualifications for elders and church leaders are not just for them. These qualities are especially mandated for them because they set the pattern for all. "Like people, like priest" (Hosea 4:9) What the pastor and elders are to be is the model for all Christians. And the principles that are true of leaders in the church are also good principles for every Christian in any position of leadership to apply.
So we have to look at what God requires of these model leaders in order to know what is ultimately required of every leader.
The reality is that modern society is suffering from a severe shortage of true leaders. The problem is closely related to the dramatic moral decline that has been systematically eating away at the foundations of our culture since (at least) the 1960s. Western society no longer values character—integrity, decency, honor, loyalty, truthfulness, purity, and other virtues. A look at the typical programming on prime-time television instantly shows what the world thinks of such qualities. They have been deposed. In their place, modern society has ensconced new and different values: selfishness, rebellion, rudeness, pro-fane speech, irreverence, licentiousness, intemperance, and almost every kind of decadence. No wonder integrity is so hard to find.
Sadly, in this instance, what is true in the world is also true in the church. This is no secret. I was recently looking at a catalog from a Christian book retailer and noticed how many titles have been published over the past decade dealing with the integrity crisis in Christian leadership. The front cover of the catalog featured a half page of books on the subject. It is clear that there’s a general feeling among Christians that failure is epidemic among their leaders.
Some segments of the visible church seem to have given up trying to find men of integrity to lead them. I recently read an article in the secular newspaper about a well-known pastor who resigned under pressure when his moral and financial improprieties became front-page news in his community. Four hundred people from his church left and started a new congregation so they could call him to be their pastor again. They said they loved the fact that he was so "human." One woman said she felt the scandal had equipped him to be a better pastor.
That is not a unique situation. A few years ago, another prominent pastor who left his church after a sordid sex scandal was immediately hired by one of the largest churches in the country to be part of their teaching staff. Within two weeks after the scandal made national news, he was back to preaching in the pulpit of a megachurch.
Worldly standards are gradually creeping into the church. The prevailing mood in the Christian community today is that no one is ever really disqualified from Christian leadership, but the disgraced leader who is willing to make a public show of remorse ought to be restored to a position of prominence as soon as possible. This means that in some circles, sexual immorality and marital infidelity are no longer deemed disqualifying sins for a pastor. I know of men who have dragged their churches through the grossest kinds of public scandal without missing a single week in the pulpit. Others take a little time off for "rehab" and "counseling," but then resume the leadership role. Sadly, this has become quite commonplace, because many in the church have responded to the leadership crisis by lowering expectations of their leaders.
How far we have come from the New Testament standard! Notice that in every list of qualifications the apostle Paul gave for church leaders, the first and most indispensable qualification for men in leadership was that they be "blameless" (1 Timothy 3:2, 10; Titus 1:6–7). Paul employed a Greek word that means "above reproach"—inculpable, unblemished, irreprehensible. Literally, it means "not subject to accusation." The term does not speak of sinlessness, of course, or no one would qualify (1 John 1:8). It does not disqualify people from leadership on the basis of sins they committed before conversion, or Paul himself would have been disqualified (1 Timothy 1:12–16). But it describes a person whose Christian testimony is free from the taint of scandal—someone who is upright, sound in character, and without any serious moral blemish. Simply put, it means leaders must have a reputation for unimpeachable integrity.
The early church held leaders to the highest moral and ethical standards. Nowhere is that more clear in Scripture than Acts 6, where Luke recorded how the first leaders were marked out and chosen by their fellow believers to assist the work of the apostles.
Of course, Christ Himself had already chosen and appointed the apostles (John 15:16). But remember that at Pentecost alone, three thousand people were added to the church (Acts 2:41). Another five thousand men (and presumably many more from their families) were added in Acts 4:4. Since we know that many were being added to the church daily, it appears the church in Jerusalem quickly grew to include at least ten thousand believers (and very likely more than twice that). Obviously, the time soon came when the responsibilities of leadership in the church were more than twelve apostles could handle.
Someone once said that Christians become very unchristian when they get organized. Sometimes that seems true. But Acts 6 reveals how things ought to be in the church.
Obviously, the early church was having a major impact on the Jewish community in Jerusalem. Multitudes were coming to faith in Jesus Christ. An amazing spirit of love and harmony existed among the Christians. Because so many in first-century Jerusalem were dispossessed and transient people, the community of believers "had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart" (Acts 2:44–46).
The first hint of any controversy in the church comes in Acts 6:1, where Luke wrote, "Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution."
There were two groups of people in the early church. Since the church began in Jerusalem, practically all the early believers were Jewish. But some were Hebrews, and some were Hellenists. The Hebrews spoke Aramaic, a derivative of Hebrew. Most of them were native-born Judeans. The Hellenists were Jews who had adopted the Greek language and Greek lifestyle. Most of them were from Asia Minor, North Africa, and diverse places throughout the Roman Empire. But they remained loyal to the Jewish religion and returned en masse to Jerusalem every year for Passover season and Pentecost.
Many who were converted under Peter’s preaching at Pentecost were therefore Hellenists. Many of them apparently remained in Jerusalem to become part of the Christian community. One of the main practical reasons the early church became such a caring and sharing body was the necessity of meeting the collective needs of this massive immigrant community.
Obviously, with so many believers from two major strains of culture, people would tend to associate with their own language group. Moreover, the Hebrews had been brought up to regard Hellenistic Jews with a degree of suspicion, because they felt they had been polluted by alien culture. The apostle Paul said that in his pre-conversion life, one of the things he took pride in was that he was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews"(Philippians 3:5)—not a Hellenistic Jew. Although he had been born in Tarsus, in Cilicia (a Gentile nation), he had been brought up in Jerusalem, at the feet of Gamaliel, a strict Pharisee and Hebrew rabbi. The Hebrews tended to think the Hellenists were not true Jews, because they had not remained loyal to the land and the traditions of Israel. So in that cultural friction lay the makings of a potentially serious conflict.
"The daily distribution" refers to the apostles’ practice of dispensing food, money, and other resources to those in need (Acts 4:35), especially widows. The Grecian Jews were no doubt in the minority, and Luke said some of them began to feel the needs of the widows in their group were being neglected.
Obviously, a complaint like that can easily become a wedge that splits the church. As any church leader will testify, no matter how petty such murmuring may appear, it always has the potential for great mischief. In this case, it may have been true that some of the Grecian widows were being overlooked. Obviously, it wasn’t intentional, but the situation needed to be corrected.
So the apostles responded quickly. Luke described what happened:
The twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:2–7)
The church had become too big for twelve leaders. Such a large community desperately needed more oversight and more organization. So the apostles proposed a plan for the people themselves to appoint godly men with outstanding reputations to come alongside and "serve tables," meaning that these men would now oversee the distribution of food and funds to those in need.
Seven men were to be singled out to serve in a subordinate leadership role. They were appointed to serve, which is normally the role of a deacon, and for that reason, commentators sometimes refer to them as the first deacons. But notice that the text does not call them deacons. At least two of them, Stephen and Philip, were also preachers, which is a role more associated with elders than with deacons (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9). Of course, they’re not called elders, either. This was so early in the formulation of the church that those offices did not even exist yet. When the apostle Paul listed the qualifications for deacons and elders in 1 Timothy 3, the only significant difference between the two offices was that elders must be gifted to teach. Elders are given the teaching authority in the church, and deacons serve under them in a support role, much the way these seven men in Acts 6 were appointed to do under the apostles.
In many churches, the deaconate is somewhat of a training ground for elders. It is not uncommon in the church I pastor for deacons to become elders as they develop their skill in teaching and their ability to handle the Word. That process began here in Acts 6. As these seven men proved themselves faithful in serving, at least some of them, like Philip and Stephen, also developed skill as teachers. No doubt some of them later stepped into even greater roles of leadership as the apostles were martyred or moved on to take the gospel message to the remotest parts of the earth. As they proved their faithfulness and assumed greater leadership roles, new servant leaders would have been appointed to serve alongside them. Eventually, the teaching role was designated as the office of an elder, and the servant role was assigned to officers called deacons.
So what we see in Acts 6 are the rudimentary beginnings of church organization. The separate offices of elders and deacons are foreshadowed in this event, but they were not yet clearly defined.
From this passage, however, we learn much about how the church is to be organized and what kind of leaders ought to have oversight. At least three principles emerge that continue to set the standard for all leaders in the church. Notice the plurality of leadership that was prescribed; the priority that was recognized as leadership’s first duty; and the standard of purity that was demanded of those who were appointed. We will examine each of these closely, because they establish principles that apply to spiritual leaders of all kinds.
Plurality
The clear New Testament pattern for church government is a plurality of God-ordained men who lead the people of God together. The church is not to be led by dictators, autocrats, or solitary rulers. From the beginning, oversight was shared by twelve apostles, and we see here that when they appointed subordinate leaders, those men also functioned as a team.
When Paul and Barnabas founded churches in Asia Minor, Luke said they "appointed elders in every church" (Acts 14:23). Paul likewise instructed Titus to "appoint elders in every city as I commanded you"(Titus 1:5). At the end of Paul’s third missionary journey, "he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church" (Acts 20:17). In Jerusalem, Paul met with "James, and all the elders" (Acts 21:18). Virtually every time elders are spoken of in Scripture in connection with a church, the noun is plural, clearly indicating that the standard practice in the New Testament was for multiple elders to oversee each church.
Every ministry described in the New Testament was a team effort. Jesus called twelve disciples. After Judas’s betrayal and suicide, Matthias was chosen to take his place (Acts 1:16–26). Those twelve as apostles obviously shared oversight in the founding and early ministry of the Jerusalem church. When they began to take the gospel to "all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8), they did so in teams (Acts 15:22–27; Galatians 2:9).
Peter and John together dominate the first twelve chapters of Acts. The focus shifts to Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13. Then Barnabas went with Mark, and Paul went with Silas at the end of Acts 15. Timothy joined Paul and Silas in Acts 16. When Paul returned to Antioch in Acts 18, he took Aquila and Priscilla along. As we have seen, Paul even took Luke and Aristarchus with him on his journey to Rome, although he was a prisoner of the Roman government at the time. A comprehensive list of all Paul’s various companions and fellow ministers would fill a page or more.
In other words, ministry as depicted in the New Testament was never a one-man show. That does not preclude the role of a dominant leader on each team. Within the framework of plurality, there will invariably be those who have more influence. The diversity of our gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4) means all people are differently equipped. Therefore a plurality of leaders does not necessitate an absolute equality in every function. In even the most godly group of leaders, some will naturally be more influential than others. Some will have teaching gifts that outshine the rest. Others will be more gifted as administrators. Each can fulfill a different role, and there is no need to try to enforce absolute equality of function.
The Twelve, for example, are always listed in similar order in Scripture (Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13). They seem to divide naturally into four groups. The first four names listed are always Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Peter’s name always heads the list, and the other three are listed in varying order. Those four dominate the gospel narratives, and three of them are often seen with Christ apart from the other nine (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 13:3; 14:33).
The second group includes Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew. Philip’s name always heads that list, but the other three are ordered differently in different places. The third group consists of James, Thaddaeus (or Lebbaeus, also known as Judas, son of James), Simon, and Judas Iscariot. James’s name always heads that list.
So each group seems to have had its unofficial leader. Peter was usually the leader and spokesman for all twelve. Their office and their privileges were equal, but their influence and importance varied according to their gifts and personalities.
Nothing suggests that Peter had a higher office than the others. He certainly is never portrayed as a pope in the Bible. In Acts 15:19, for example, it was James ("the Lord’s brother," according to Galatians 1:19, not one of the Twelve) who announced the Jerusalem Council’s decision, even though Peter was present and testified. And in Antioch, the apostle Paul withstood Peter "to his face, because he was to be blamed" when he compromised with the Judaizers (Galatians 2:11). Peter clearly wielded no more authority and held no higher office than the other twelve, although he plainly was the strongest leader in the group. As noted, Peter and John together dominate the early chapters of Acts. But Peter was always the spokesman and preacher. John, of course, had equal authority, and (partly because he lived longer) he wrote more of the New Testament than Peter, including the gospel that bears his name, three epistles, and Revelation. But when John and Peter were together, Peter always did the speaking. Likewise, although Barnabas obviously had remarkable teaching gifts, Paul was always the dominant member of that duo.
It should be apparent, then, that the biblical concept of team leadership does not demand an artificial or absolute equality. There’s nothing wrong, in other words, with a church’s appointing a senior pastor, or a pastor-teacher. Those who claim otherwise have misunderstood the biblical approach to plural leadership.
Still, the undeniable biblical pattern is for multiple elders, team leadership, and shared responsibility—never one-man rule. And leadership by a plurality of godly men has several strong advantages. Proverbs 11:14 says, "Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." The sharing of the leadership burden also increases accountability and helps ensure that the decisions of leadership are not self-willed or self-serving.
One-man leadership and autocratic rule are the hallmarks of cults and false religions. Although well-suited for men like Diotrephes, who loved to have the preeminence (3 John 9), it is not the proper model for a biblical church.
It is fitting, therefore, that when the apostles first appointed subordinate leaders in the Jerusalem church, they appointed a team of seven.
Priority
The burden of personal need in the Jerusalem church had grown to such proportions that the Twelve, in order to serve everyone, had to "leave the word of God" (Acts 6:2). In other words, they had out of sheer pragmatic necessity been forced to curtail the time they spent studying and proclaiming the Scriptures. Even so, they still weren’t able to manage the distribution process well enough to keep everyone happy. They knew they needed to delegate the task to others who could oversee that task and better organize the process. They understood something with which every wise leader has to come to grips, sooner rather than later: You simply cannot do everything yourself. A leader knows how to delegate.
It is simply not wise leadership to try to manage everything with hands-on oversight. Leaders who take that approach invariably frustrate their people by micromanaging, and they sabotage their own effectiveness by getting bogged down in details. A few things demand your hands-on attention, but good leadership demands that you delegate the rest. There is no other way to get all the work done and keep your attention on your priorities.
Moses learned the art of delegation from his father-in-law. Exodus 18:14 says, "When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, ‘What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?’"
Moses explained that people came to him to settle all their disputes. "When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws" (v. 16). So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, "The thing that you do is not good. Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace."
So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves. (vv. 17–26)
It was a wise strategy, and God blessed it.
When I first came to Grace Community Church, I gathered a group of men who would meet with me on Saturday mornings. We studied principles of church leadership together, and I began delegating tasks to them. As they proved themselves faithful and able, several of them became lay elders in our church. Others saw their ministries develop to the point that we brought them on staff full-time. In that way, for the first decade or more of my ministry here, we developed virtually the entire staff and leadership of our church from within the church itself. That is how ministry is supposed to work: Pastors "[equip] the saints for the work of ministry"(Ephesians 4:12). Paul encouraged Timothy to raise up leaders that way: "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). This is one of the chief values of delegation: It helps equip others to lead. The leader who follows that plan will reproduce more leaders.
When you delegate duties to others, remember to delegate only what you are willing to let go of. And then give the people you delegate the freedom to fail. Don’t take back what you have delegated. But teach them when they fail that they need to be quick to learn to make a good second decision. As they learn to do things with excellence, you can delegate more, and do it with confidence.
How do you decide what you are willing to delegate to others? You need to have a clear understanding of your priorities. Your own priorities, not someone else’s emergencies, should determine what you do and what you delegate to others. That is what happened in the Jerusalem church.
Luke wonderfully outlined the hierarchy of priorities embraced by the leaders of the early church. The Twelve said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables...but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:2–4). Notice the three main activities that dominated their energies—prayer, the ministry of the Word of God, and servant ministry—in that order.
Those three activities consumed the apostles’ time and efforts, and they are a pattern for church leaders even today. They perfectly outline the main business of the church, and therefore set the agenda for all church leaders. The order is clear. Servant ministry, while crucial, is not to eclipse prayer and the ministry of the Word.
That simple fact seems lost on many these days. Ask the typical pulpit committee what they are looking for in a pastor, and you can practically guarantee that prayer will not be at the top of the list. Even preaching isn’t always given a very high priority. Submit a list of candidates to the typical church, and they will probably choose the candidate who is the most affable, gregarious, and sociable—someone who is willing to do lots of visitation and host lots of church socials, rather than a man who devotes himself to prayer and study. Others will look for a man with administrative or entrepreneurial talents, because they think of the church like a secular enterprise. The apostolic priorities have thus been eclipsed by other business in too many churches.
Look at these priorities individually:
Prayer
We’re not inclined to think of prayer as work. We tend to think of prayer as inactivity. But it is not. Good praying is hard work, and prayer is the first and most important work of all ministry. All other activities of ministry are utterly futile if not bathed in prayer.
Prayer itself is, after all, an implicit recognition of the sovereignty of God. We know that we cannot change people’s hearts, so we pray for God to do it. We know that it is the Lord who adds to His church, so we pray to Him as Lord of the harvest. We know that "unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it; unless the LORD guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain" (Psalm 127:1).
We can plant, and we can water, but no aspect of ministry can ultimately be fruitful unless God Himself gives the increase (cf. 1 Corinthians3:6–7). Our efforts can never bear fruit unless they are blessed by God. Jesus said, "Without Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Since that is true, isn’t it obvious that everything we do ought to be bathed in prayer?
That is why our first and most essential priority is prayer. Paul wrote, "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made" (1 Timothy 2:1, emphasis added). We are to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). We’re taught by Scripture to pray earnestly, persistently, frequently, and soberly. Peter said, "The end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers" (1 Peter 4:7). This is the first priority in all our work.
Good praying is hard labor—make no mistake about it. It is hard to stay focused. It is no easy task to intercede for others. But the wise leader will not neglect this first order of business. Nothing, no matter how vital it may seem, is more urgent. And therefore we must not let anything else crowd prayer off our already-busy agendas.
My advice is to start each day with a specific time of prayer. Don’t let interruptions or appointments distract you from your first business. Go to the Lord when your mind is fresh. Prayer is hard enough work without putting it off until your mind is fatigued. Don’t squander your brightest hours doing less important things.
But don’t limit your praying to mornings. "[Pray] always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18).
The Ministry of the Word
Paul told Timothy, "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching" (2 Timothy4:2). This duty, like prayer, is hard work. Devoting oneself to the ministry of the Word means spending time in study. It is a total commitment. "We will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4, emphasis added).
That may occasionally require the faithful pastor to neglect what seems urgent in order to do what is really essential. That can be difficult, because the demands of ministry and leadership are so great. But we must keep this priority straight.
That is precisely why the apostles saw the need to appoint leaders in a support role. The apostles’ time was being consumed by legitimate, urgent needs in the church. They were spending so much time serving tables that they were neglecting the more essential, higher priorities of prayer and the ministry of the word. Something had to change.
Servant Ministry
Notice that the apostles did not regard the task of serving tables as something that was dispensable. They were not willing to leave the distribution of charity undone. And they were not suggesting that waiting tables was beneath them because they had achieved the rank of apostle. But there was too much work for them to do it all without neglecting their more important duties. And so they appointed men in a support role—men who could serve alongside them to meet all these needs.
This is the whole point of servant leadership. We are servants, leading and training other servants, and the ministry thus becomes a self-perpetuating school for servants. Jesus modeled that kind of discipleship during His earthly life, and He always maintained the perfect balance, never neglecting prayer or the ministry of the Word for the sake of meeting mundane needs, but never letting people’s needs go unmet.
Following their Lord’s own example, the apostles therefore delegated the oversight of the servant ministries to "seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom" (Act 6:3).
Purity
Notice that the men chosen to oversee that vital third priority were chosen for their character and reputation, not because of their social stature, their experience in the business world, their raw abilities, or any of the other criteria churches today often employ in selecting leaders. A lowly slave of unimpeachable character is more suitable for spiritual leadership than a business magnate whose integrity is questionable. A man is qualified for this role because of what he is, not merely because of what he does. The stress is always on character more than ability. Purity, not personality, is the key issue.
Why this high standard? Because whatever the leaders are, the people become. Spiritual leaders set the example for others to follow. As Hosea said, "Like people, like priest" (Hosea 4:9). Jesus said, "Everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:40). People will not rise above the spiritual level of their leadership.
The new leaders therefore were to be men of "good reputation" (Acts6:3). Paul said leaders in the church must have a good reputation both inside the church and among unbelievers as well (1 Timothy 3:7).
The men chosen to assist the apostles in leadership also had to be "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom" (Acts 6:3). That means they had to be controlled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Ephesians 5:18) and men of sober, righteous judgment.
The men who were chosen all had Greek names, suggesting that they were predominantly if not exclusively from the Hellenist community. Nicolas was "a proselyte from Antioch" (Acts 6:5)—a Gentile who had converted to Judaism before becoming a Christian. This was a loving expression of the early church’s unity. In all likelihood, most in the Jerusalem church were Hebrews, and yet they acknowledged the godly leadership of their Hellenistic brethren. Thus a potential rift was healed, and the church got back to business with its priorities in order.
The seven men were set before the apostles, formally ordained, and put to work (v. 6). The apostles devoted themselves anew to prayer and the ministry of the Word. "Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith" (v. 7).
The church’s zeal seems to have been invigorated and its influence expanded by the efficiency of the new organization. After all, it gave the apostles new freedom to do what they were called to do. It unleashed the Word of God. No wonder growth increased exponentially. And the impact of the church’s evangelistic ministry reached right into the temple. A revival broke out among the priests. As a result, many of the very men who had been the most bitter opponents of Christ during His earthly ministry were converted to the Christian faith.
All of this underscores the supreme importance of having the right kind of leaders. Mere talent could never have such a powerful influence. This wasn’t about style or strategy or flowcharts. It was about choosing men of character to lead the people of God, so that the work of the ministry would get done in the right way, by the right people, devoted to the right priorities.
We have come back to our starting point. Leadership is all about character—honor, decency, integrity, faithfulness, holiness, moral purity, and other qualities like these.
All these virtues may be combined and summed up in one final statement. This rounds out and perfectly summarizes every fundamental requirement of a true leader: A leader is Christlike.
The perfect model of true leadership, of course, is the Great Shepherd, Christ Himself. If that does not make you feel the least bit unworthy, you have missed the whole point. With Paul, we ought to say, "Who is sufficient for these things?" (2 Corinthians 2:16).
We already know the answer: "Our sufficiency is from God" (3:5).