1. IDOLATRY & HUMAN LEADERSHIP
By David Orton
“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.
With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction” Hos 8:4 NIV
“A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way…”
Jer 5:30-31 NIV
How did the Apostles function?
So, how did the apostles function, and who led the local congregation?
Christ anoints and appoints apostles, but apostles appoint elders.176 While the former were mobile ministries planting and caring for multiple congregations, functioning according to their relationships and the leading of the Spirit, the elders were the local resident shepherds of one congregation, functioning as a team of general overseers. However, the latter, while free, never operated independently of their relationship with the apostles.177
How did the Apostles relate to the Churches?
So, how did the apostles relate to the churches?
When the apostle wrote to the church in the city of Philippi he addressed them as “...the saints...together with the overseers and deacons” (Phi 1:1 NIV). First, he primarily addressed himself to the “saints”, the believers. Why? Because they are the “congregation of the Lord”178 – the ones set apart as the royal priesthood.179 As king-priests in the new covenant order, they are, themselves, a priestly governing class with direct access to God. Any mediation of a humanly derived priestly-pastor class between the congregation and Christ is antagonistic to the spirit of the gospel and true spiritual freedom. Neander, the great nineteenth century professor of theology at the University of Berlin, held that the development of the monarchical bishop (senior pastor) “...was unfavourable to the life of the church; and...promoted the formation of a priesthood foreign to the essence of that development of the kingdom of God which the New Testament sets forth....” He believed that it stood, “...intimately connected with ... the formation of a sacerdotal (priestly) caste in the Christian church” (parenthesis mine).180 From where God sits his congregation is free – they have not received a spirit of bondage but the spirit of adoption - they have become his children.181 Any clergy-laity distinction that elevates a priestly class, or an office, whether it is called bishop or senior pastor, over Christ’s immediate rulership of his people is of the spirit of anti-Christ. This is not to say that authority should not operate in the house of God. The question is, what kind of authority?
Second, Paul addressed himself not only to the saints, but also to the overseers or elders and deacons. Nowhere in the New Testament record does an apostle address himself to the bishop or senior pastor. And this is for one very simple reason – there were none! There is no evidence in the New Testament of one person presiding over the elders of a church, let alone the congregation.182
Diotrophes – the first Senior Pastor!
In fact, the only possible allusion to a senior pastor is a negative one. The apostle John is confronted with a situation where a leader by the name of Diotrophes has not only obtained these rights but rejects John as an apostle - as a man of the Spirit.183 Von Campenhausen comments:
“The man of the Spirit, subject to no organisation and to no local authoritative body, clashes with the leader of the organised single congregation, who, it would seem, is already claiming monarchical rights for himself. He may therefore be described with confidence as a bishop, and as one that is fighting, just as Ignatius has required, for the solidarity of his congregation around himself. …Here then we come across an example of the exercise of that particular kind of episcopal authority which was to be of decisive importance in the wider development of spiritual office..”184
In Diotrophes we have not only the first recorded emergence of one leader over the others, but also a rejection of the trans-local ministry of apostles and prophets in favour of a single senior local leader - the senior minister. Both are roundly condemned. Here we have the historic seeds of a very contemporary situation - the model of a senior minister presiding over the elders and operating independently of the ascension gift-ministries of apostles, prophets, and teachers.
In Diotrophes’ case it was far more than a structural problem - it was a spiritual problem - an issue of the heart - of inner motivation.
The spirit of Diotrophes
Diotrophes “loved to be first among them”. He was motivated by an inner need to be at the centre and in control. Every leader is tested on this in their own heart – in their need for recognition and significance. As far as we know, apart from personal ambition, there was no other issue. He loved to have the first place. This is the same Greek word Paul used speaking of Christ’s place as head of the church: “He is ... head of the body, the church...so that he himself might come to have first place in everything” (Col 1:18 NASB, emphasis mine). His unresolved need for recognition caused him to unconsciously usurp the place of Christ in the life and affections of the congregation. How many times has this happened over two millennia of Christian history? In fact, our inherited structures and values have only served to institutionalise and legitimise the spirit of Diotrophes.
Does Christ really have the first place in the leadership of the church? In sentiment, yes. But, in reality, no - man does. We have usurped Christ’s position as head of the church. Is it any wonder the body of Christ is crippled? Human control, exercised in the spirit of Diotrophes, has severed us from the central nervous system of the Spirit. The history of the Christian church is characterised by leaders who resort to less than worthy means to obtain a less than kingdom object – their own advancement. This is not to say that every leader that has occupied church office is of the spirit of Diotrophes. Quiet the opposite, multitudes of worthy men and women of God have served the Lord through traditional church positions. But, whenever, positions of official power exist, the falleness of human nature, to whatever degree, will find it difficult to resist. Where there is a lack of anointing to fill the office, seduction and manipulation operate, to both obtain and maintain a position. Spiritual gifting is self-evident and will make a way in the hearts of God’s people. But, where a leader without the anointing aspires to an office, self-promotion and manipulation are inevitable. And if the more subtle arts of flattery and innuendo do not work the spirit of Diotrophes will resort to slander and the use of naked power. Diotrophes used “wicked words” (3 Jn 10 NASB), “maliciously accusing” (Goodspeed) John. Feeling that his position was threatened he maligned John’s character (whether openly or covertly we don’t know), seeking to undermine his credibility in the eyes of the congregation. When this didn’t work he reso rted to raw power: “...he refused to welcome the brothers...” and “...stopped those who wanted to do soand put them out of the church” (v. 10 b). He refused to receive the apostolic team sent from John, and exerted his senior ministerial power in putting those out of the church who wished to do so. The central nervous system of Christ’s body, the men of the Spirit - apostles, prophets, and teachers - was severed. With the rise of one leader over the others, not only was the congregation cut off from free association with the apostles, it was also cut off from the head of the body, Christ himself.
Paul’s Prophetic Warning
Calling the elders (remember, the office of senior pastor didn’t exist) of the church in Ephesus together for a conference Paul prophetically warned them: “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!...” ( Acts 20:29-31 NIV). Jesus also warned about pseudo-prophets who would arise, looking like sheep and smelling like sheep, but inwardly be ravenous wolves.185 They would be predatory - hungry and looking to satisfy themselves. However, these “wolves in sheep’s clothing” are not wild-eyed off-the-map cult leaders. Jesus said they look like sheep - they look harmless. They wear business suits, speak in tongues, and preach on Sundays. In fact, Paul said they would arise from among themselves – from among the preachers and the elders!
How would they be recognised? Firstly, by their inner wolf-nature - their ravenous self-life would feed on the flock for their own survival. Second, they would ‘arise’ from the team of elders. They will raise themselves above their peers seeking pre-eminence. Third, they would “draw away disciples after themselves”. Just as Ignatius advocated, the bishop or senior pastor becomes central to the unity of the congregation,186 developing a cult of personal-loyalty. Lastly, they would “distort the truth” to develop their personal following. This is not necessarily false doctrine. Their preaching and teaching may be doctrinally sound - remember they look and sound like “sheep”. But they twist and distort the truth in their personal dealings to gain the first place over other leaders and the congregation.
By the turn of the first century Paul’s prophecy was fulfilled. The plurality of elders was overtaken by the singularity of one senior minister – the office of bishop. And, through the advocacy of men such as Ignatius and Cyprian what can only be described as an aberration was mainstreamed into the life of the church.
...to be continued ... an excerpt from David Orton’s book, "Snakes in the Temple: Unmasking Idolatry in Today’s Church" (click here for more information or to purchase).
REPRINT AGREEMENT: Duplication and re-transmission of this writing is permitted provided that complete source and website information for Lifemessenger is included.
Thank you. Copyright © David Orton 2007 www.lifemessenger.org
______________________________________________________________________________
Further reading...
Part 1 of 6
“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.
With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction”
Hos 8:4 NIV
“A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way…”
Jer 5:30-31 NIV
I was sitting in a restaurant with several other pastors. Over lunch, our conversation focussed on the issue of revival as a particular perspective surfaced. One of them said that, “We can’t sit around praying for revival - we know what we have to do - all we have to do is - DO IT!” Explaining, this leader continued, “Our job as pastors is to run our own churches and to reach our own neighbourhood.” Apart from a strong flavour of independence, it almost sounded right, and, in our present system, is no doubt, what most pastors are paid to do. But our continuing discussion revealed behind these statements, a larger view. Revivals come and go – we have no influence over them – and, so all we are meant to do is, to “do church”.
Consequently, we shut our eyes to spiritual dynamics and hang onto the wheel driving the church like any other human organisation. We might even pray and ask God to bless our plans and programs. But they are our plans and programs, not his – they didn’t come from his Spirit, but from our own skill and training. We may even pay lip service to unity and revival, but in practice lost any faith-expectation of the kingdom being advanced through sudden, powerful, or extensive outpourings of the Spirit. This is not to say that planning and programs cannot play a subservient role in facilitating a measure of the grace of God, but they have become the head rather than the tail. We prefer to move ahead in our own strength than to wait for God.
THE CHURCH’S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
How did this attitude enter the church? And, what are its roots? To find the answer we must go back to the day when the Old Testament church cried out, as a declaration of their independence from God:
“Give us a king!”
Samuel had grown old, his sons abused their privileges, the ark of God’s presence was gone, and the nation was ravaged by civil and moral anarchy.161 Not only had the glory of God departed, they faced a significant leadership crisis. Threatened by their enemies, the people lusted for a king like the other nations. “So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel ... They said to him, ‘You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.’” (1 Sam.8: 4-5 - NIV).
Human Leadership
The single greatest change, in the life of God’s people, was signalled. Profound and far reaching consequences were triggered from this event, determining the spiritual direction of Israel for generations. Their rejection of Samuel for a king was, in effect, the rejection of God as king. They were opting, instead, for human leadership. However, rather than giving them victory over their enemies, it opened the doors to an inrush of idolatry and demonic power, ending in their own defeat and captivity.
Foreshadowed by the Old Testament Church
In this chapter we will uncover the significance, for today’s church, of what was, in reality, Israel’s declaration of independence. As a “type”162, it holds lessons for our day, which, if heeded, will save God’s people from further spiritual abuse, on one hand, and on the other, accelerate his design for the transformation of the world through an end-time outpouring of the Spirit. It prophetically foreshadowed a miss-development in the church, dating from the second century, which quickly established religious strongholds and led the church into Babylonian captivity.
A prophetic generation
While the Reformation touched this miss-development, it remains for a prophetic generation to lay the axe to the root. Like John the Baptist,163 it will prepare the way of the Lord by uprooting and confronting the idolatries that led the church into captivity. Centuries old bondages will be shattered as they receive the Father’s heart and a zeal for his house. Through them the house of the Lord will be rebuilt as a house of prayer for all nations. They will deal with root causes – with the issues of the heart. Emerging from their wilderness preparations, they will prophetically confront the historic idolatries of the church. Through brokenness and humility they will pull down the religious strongholds of pride, that have held her captive to the “elemental spirits of this world” 164. They will call her back to intimacy with the Bridegroom, and refuse to be motivated by their own need for significance – they will not pursue their own glory. They will see that the church has rejected Christ as king for human control. And, like the prophet Hosea, confront the idolatry of human power structures. They too will declare in the white-hot holiness of God’s anger, “Where is your king, that he may save you? Where are your rulers in all your towns, of whom you said, ‘Give me a king and princes’? So in my anger I gave you a king, and
in my wrath I took him away” (Hos 13:10-11 NIV). They will see that it was God who satisfied Israel’s lust for a king, but also God who would take him away.
But before we look at the consequences of Israel’s newfound independence we will consider its causes.
Leadership by expedience – a crisis of continuity & authority
They faced both a crisis of continuity and authority.
Their request for a king was pressured by expedience - by the tyranny of the urgent – by crisis management. Prior to Samuel’s leadership Israel had been without a king with “everyone doing what was right in their own eyes”.165 This situation not only marked the whole period of the Judges, preceding Samuel’s call as a prophet, but the fear of its reoccurrence ultimately precipitated his rejection, in preference for a king. With Samuel’s advancing age and imminent death, Israel teetered again on the brink of anarchy – a crisis of authority.
This dilemma was compounded by a crisis of second generation leadership – a crisis of continuity. Samuel’s sons “did not walk in his ways” and “turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice” (1 Sam 8:3 NIV). Under these pressures, to ensure continuity, Israel’s elders demanded a king.
The nation needed leadership and only a king would provide it. In addition, invasion was imminent. With the Ammonites moving against them they desperately needing military leadership. 166 And, who better than a strong authoritative king to provide it. But, as the unfolding story shows, decisions made by expedience are not usually wise.
Fulfilled in the New Testament Church
This miss-development is directly parallelled in the life of the new covenant church. By the turn of the second century the first generation leaders – the apostles, the Samuels of their day who led the church as men of the Spirit, had all passed from the scene, hastening a crisis of apostolic continuity and authority – a crisis of leadership. While the apostolic writings were in circulation, so were a lot of others. Heresy and confusion prevailed. The canonical Scriptures of the New Testament had not yet fully formed and would not for another century or more. Without the authority of both the Scriptures and the charismatic leadership of the first apostles, the second century church found itself facing the twin dilemma of escalating heresy – a crisis of continuity, and division – a crisis of authority. What where they to do? Trust God to raise up a new generation of “Samuels” - anointed apostolic and prophetic leaders, or ask for a king?
...to be continued ... an excerpt from David Orton’s book, "Snakes in the Temple: Unmasking Idolatry in Today’s Church" (click here for more information or to purchase).
161 See Judges 18-21 & 1 Sam.4-8. The books of 1 & 2 Samuel flow chronologically from the time of the Judges, Samuel being the last of the judges and the first of the prophets. The theme of Samuel is the rejection of the “theocracy” (the rule of God) and establishment of the “monarchy” (the rule of man). The theme of 1& 2 Kings is its failure.
162 See 1 Cor.10: 6, 11 - the history of the old covenant (OC) church, Israel, occurred as “examples” (NIV) or as “types” (Gr. tupos) for our warning in the new covenant (NC) church. The word tupos denotes an impression or mark made by a stamp or die. The OC church, in essence, is a “type” - an impression or mark made by the die or stamp of the future NC church, which is called the “antitype”. As such a “type” is a prefiguring - a prophetic foreshadowing of a future reality. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that OC institutions are a “shadow” of future spiritual realities (8:5; 10:1). Just as a shadow has no substance of itself and points to the actual object causing it, the OC order pointed to the reality of the NC - Christ and his church. Therefore, significant events, people, and institutions of the OC prophetically foreshadow spiritual realities and warnings for the NC church.
163 Mt 3:10
164 Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20 (RSV)
165 See Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25. The moral and spiritual anarchy of the period of the judges overlaps the story of Samuel and the establishment of the monarchy.
166 1 Sam 12:12
______________________________________________________________________________
Part 2 of 6
“They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.
With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction”
Hos 8:4 NIV
“A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way…”
Jer 5:30-31 NIV
Apostles and Prophets replaced by Senior Pastors!
Tragically, as Israel did, they opted for a king, for human government. As the church transitioned into the sub-apostolic era, the ascension-gift ministries of apostles and prophets were gradually replaced by the office of the bishop.167 It was believed that this office was the only legitimate continuity of apostolic authority and teaching (apostolic succession)168; thereby addressing the two-horned dilemma of heresy – the crisis of continuity in apostolic teaching – and division – the crisis of apostolic authority.
Initially, the office of bishop was more akin to our present-day senior pastor, presiding over one local church. But as time progressed, a bishop not only assumed superintendence over one, but a number of congregations in a region, which became known as a diocese. As early as 110-117 AD, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, strongly advocated that one bishop (senior pastor) be in charge of each congregation.169 According to Von Campenhausen, the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at Heidelberg, “In Ignatius a system of monarchical episcopacy (one bishop) has already been implemented, so that all important functions are in principle in the hands of the one bishop. The clergy itself no longer constitutes a single group of...’leading’ men...but is sharply divided into grades. The ‘spiritual garland’ of the presbyterate (elders)...surrounds the one bishop (senior pastor) as his ‘council’; and below them both stand the ... the deacons.” (parenthesis mine)170
What began as leadership through men of the Spirit (apostles, prophets, and teachers),171 serving as co-elders with the presbytery, had become by the second century a human structure governed by the office of bishop as the senior minister. He alonepresided over the elders and the congregation. Referring to this hierarchy of clergy, Ignatius believed that, “Without these there is nothing which can be called a church.”172 Renwick explains, “By the time of Ignatius… one of the presbyters (elders) had been chosen to preside over the others. He had become a permanent pastor and president of the other presbyters or elders...this president is the man whom Ignatius calls bishop because he is episcopos or ‘overseer’”173.This hierarchy of bishop or senior pastor, descending in order to the elders, deacons, and congregation was universal by the third century and went on to dominate the medieval Western church determining leadership styles and structures to the present day.
Back to the Future
Von Campenhausen points out that, “...even the Reformation, which intended change and to a great extent achieved it, in this particular field of ecclesiastical office remained relatively conservative.... Nevertheless it is here...that a real crisis in the early concept of office begins, and makes it increasingly impossible either to go back to earlier patterns or to persevere in traditional ways of thought”.174 I agree in the difficulty we face in persevering with our inherited and traditional leadership patterns. However, as the Holy Spirit renews and restores the church, as difficult as it is, we do have to go “back to the future”. A crisis of spiritual authority and freedom was provoked by the Reformation, but not resolved. If God’s purpose is the complete restoration of his church, eclipsing even the glory and power of the apostolic era, it is imperative we recover the foundations of that era before we can move on. We must rediscover the foundations of true spiritual authority.
Some hard questions
If we are genuinely aspiring to spiritual breakthrough in the church, we cannot escape asking ourselves some hard questions. Is authority in the church organisational or spiritual? Are our present leadership structures really rooted in the apostolic revelation? Or, more to the point, is the concept of office, and specifically of senior pastor to be found in Scripture? And, does it reflect a human control over the church? Like Israel, have we set up our own kings? We may or may not, as a denomination, have bishops or overseers presiding over multiple congregations of a region, but almost universally, we do have a senior pastor holding a position with varying degrees of official authority. How true is this to the life of the apostolic church and, therefore, to the life of the Spirit?
The church thrived before the reign of the bishop. What we discover in the New Testament record is vastly different compared to our present experience, and to what developed by the second and third centuries. Although, as late as the Didache, a document probably dated towards the end of the first century, itinerant prophets and teachers were still functioning in perfect harmony with the local elders of the various congregations, but more of this in a moment.
THE LEADERSHIP MODEL OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH
Gift or Office?
So, what was the leadership model of the apostolic church? Was it exercised through a charismatic gift or an organisational office – through official power or spiritual authority? Recognising that all life demands some structure to exist, how was the healthy tension between form and freedom resolved? Was the church led through the office of senior pastor or through apostles. Or, was there another way altogether? Our answers will determine whether the body of Christ is presided over by the Spirit or by man.
God appoints first apostles, second, prophets, and third teachers
Paul teaches that, “God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...” (1 Cor 12:28 NASB). Apostles, prophets, and teachers were the lead-ministries of the apostolic church. Significantly they were not a hierarchy of official positions, but rather, a sequence of charismatic graces – ministry anointings which, in their order, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, spearheaded the advance of the kingdom. In Ephesians, Paul clearly shows that apostles, prophets, and teachers are people, gifted by the Spirit, who in turn are given as a gift to the body: “But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says, ‘When he ascended on high ,he…gave gifts to men .’...It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers...” (Eph 4:7-11 NIV).
People not Positions
Apostles and prophets are people, not positions. There are two steps in their calling and placement. First, the person receives a ministry-gift as an individual (“to each one of us grace has been given”); and, secondly, that same person is then given to the body of Christ as a gift-ministry (“when he ascended on high, he…gave gifts to men …he…gave some to be apostles” etc). God sovereignly calls and anoints people, not positions.
New Testament Apostleship – not an Office, but a Gift!
Apostles, prophets, and teachers are therefore men (or women)175 of the Spirit. Their anointing is not the product of, or subject to any human organisation. Flowing from the ascension of Christ their gifts and callings are mediated directly by the Spirit: “when he ascended on high, he…gave gifts to men…” Their ministry anointing begins and ends with them in the sovereign calling of God. New Testament apostleship is, therefore, not an office to be succeeded to by future aspirants or to be granted by any church body. Rather, it is a sovereignly dispensed spiritual gift to an individual, who is in turn given as a gift to the body.
Confusion between Spiritual Authority & Official Power
Consequently, to promote the office of bishop, or in current terminology senior pastor, as the continuance of apostolic, or true spiritual authority is wrong. And yet this is what occurred in the second and third centuries and has been inherited by the present day church as normative. The systemic disorder of Christ’s body, to a large degree, has been caused by this continuing confusion between authentic spiritual authority and official power. This isreflected inthe historic confusion between the office of senior pastor and the gift of apostle.
...to be continued ... an excerpt from David Orton’s book, "Snakes in the Temple: Unmasking Idolatry in Today’s Church" (click here for more information or to purchase).
167 David Wright, The History of Christianity, p 118-120; Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, p 41-53
168 Apostolic succession was not fully developed until the third century owing to the advocacy of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (248-258). However, it was present in the climate of the second century with the emphasis on apostolic tradition and teaching. But by the third it had grown to the succession of apostolic office, tracing from the first apostles a line of succession through the bishops. (see RE Higginson, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p 73)
169 Michael A. Smith, The History of Christianity, p 83
170 Von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, p 97
171 1 Cor 12:28
172 Quoted by Von Campenhausen, ibid, p 99
173 A.M. Renwick, The Story of the Church, p 27
174 Von Campenhausen, p 294
175 Refer to David Cannistraci, The Gift of Apostle, p 86-90 for a discussion on women apostles.
If you have been blessed by this article why not forward it to a friend: Forward
REPRINT AGREEMENT: Duplication and re-transmission of this writing is permitted provided that complete source and website information for Lifemessenger is included.
Thank you.
Copyright © David Orton 2007
www.lifemessenger.org
Lifemessenger Inc.
PO Box 777
Mount Eliza VIC 3930 Australia
______________________________________________________________________________
I was sitting in a restaurant with several other pastors. Over lunch, our conversation focussed on the issue of revival as a particular perspective surfaced. One of them said that, “We can’t sit around praying for revival - we know what we have to do - all we have to do is - DO IT!” Explaining, this leader continued, “Our job as pastors is to run our own churches and to reach our own neighbourhood.” Apart from a strong flavour of independence, it almost sounded right, and, in our present system, is no doubt, what most pastors are paid to do. But our continuing discussion revealed behind these statements, a larger view. Revivals come and go – we have no influence over them – and, so all we are meant to do is, to “do church”. Consequently, we shut our eyes to spiritual dynamics and hang onto the wheel driving the church like any other human organisation. We might even pray and ask God to bless our plans and programs. But they are our plans and programs, not his – they didn’t come from his Spirit, but from our own skill and training. We may even pay lip service to unity and revival, but in practice lost any faith-expectation of the kingdom being advanced through sudden, powerful, or extensive outpourings of the Spirit. This is not to say that planning and programs cannot play a subservient role in facilitating a measure of the grace of God, but they have become the head rather than the tail. We prefer to move ahead in our own strength than to wait for God. THE CHURCH’S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
How did this attitude enter the church? And, what are its roots? To find the answer we must go back to the day when the Old Testament church cried out, as a declaration of their independence from God: “Give us a king!” Samuel had grown old, his sons abused their privileges, the ark of God’s presence was gone, and the nation was ravaged by civil and moral anarchy.161 Not only had the glory of God departed, they faced a significant leadership crisis. Threatened by their enemies, the people lusted for a king like the other nations. “So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel ... They said to him, ‘You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.’” (1 Sam.8: 4-5 - NIV). Human Leadership The single greatest change, in the life of God’s people, was signalled. Profound and far reaching consequences were triggered from this event, determining the spiritual direction of Israel for generations. Their rejection of Samuel for a king was, in effect, the rejection of God as king. They were opting, instead, for human leadership. However, rather than giving them victory over their enemies, it opened the doors to an inrush of idolatry and demonic power, ending in their own defeat and captivity. Foreshadowed by the Old Testament Church In this chapter we will uncover the significance, for today’s church, of what was, in reality, Israel’s declaration of independence. As a “type”162, it holds lessons for our day, which, if heeded, will save God’s people from further spiritual abuse, on one hand, and on the other, accelerate his design for the transformation of the world through an end-time outpouring of the Spirit. It prophetically foreshadowed a miss-development in the church, dating from the second century, which quickly established religious strongholds and led the church into Babylonian captivity. A prophetic generation While the Reformation touched this miss-development, it remains for a prophetic generation to lay the axe to the root. Like John the Baptist,163 it will prepare the way of the Lord by uprooting and confronting the idolatries that led the church into captivity. Centuries old bondages will be shattered as they receive the Father’s heart and a zeal for his house. Through them the house of the Lord will be rebuilt as a house of prayer for all nations. They will deal with root causes – with the issues of the heart. Emerging from their wilderness preparations, they will prophetically confront the historic idolatries of the church. Through brokenness and humility they will pull down the religious strongholds of pride, that have held her captive to the “elemental spirits of this world” 164. They will call her back to intimacy with the Bridegroom, and refuse to be motivated by their own need for significance – they will not pursue their own glory. They will see that the church has rejected Christ as king for human control. And, like the prophet Hosea, confront the idolatry of human power structures. They too will declare in the white-hot holiness of God’s anger, “Where is your king, that he may save you? Where are your rulers in all your towns, of whom you said, ‘Give me a king and princes’? So in my anger I gave you a king, and Leadership by expedience – a crisis of continuity & authority They faced both a crisis of continuity and authority. Their request for a king was pressured by expedience - by the tyranny of the urgent – by crisis management. Prior to Samuel’s leadership Israel had been without a king with “everyone doing what was right in their own eyes”.165 This situation not only marked the whole period of the Judges, preceding Samuel’s call as a prophet, but the fear of its reoccurrence ultimately precipitated his rejection, in preference for a king. With Samuel’s advancing age and imminent death, Israel teetered again on the brink of anarchy – a crisis of authority. This dilemma was compounded by a crisis of second generation leadership – a crisis of continuity. Samuel’s sons “did not walk in his ways” and “turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice” (1 Sam 8:3 NIV). Under these pressures, to ensure continuity, Israel’s elders demanded a king. Fulfilled in the New Testament Church This miss-development is directly parallelled in the life of the new covenant church. By the turn of the second century the first generation leaders – the apostles, the Samuels of their day who led the church as men of the Spirit, had all passed from the scene, hastening a crisis of apostolic continuity and authority – a crisis of leadership. While the apostolic writings were in circulation, so were a lot of others. Heresy and confusion prevailed. The canonical Scriptures of the New Testament had not yet fully formed and would not for another century or more. Without the authority of both the Scriptures and the charismatic leadership of the first apostles, the second century church found itself facing the twin dilemma of escalating heresy – a crisis of continuity, and division – a crisis of authority. What where they to do? Trust God to raise up a new generation of “Samuels” - anointed apostolic and prophetic leaders, or ask for a king? |