Qualified?

I have been thinking alot recently on the biblical qualifications for leadership.  These thoughts came to me when I was asked to be part of a small LifeGroup Leadership Team at my church.

Along with the associate pastor and three other people, I will be responsible for the vision and implementation of our LifeGroups in the near future.  We already have LifeGroups at the church, but they were never given the investment that they needed.  As the church is growing pretty exponentially these days, the leadership decided it was time to refocus on LifeGroups.

In thinking about LifeGroups (LGs), I began to see the work of a LifeGroup leader as that of a micro-pastor.  You see, in our LifeGroups an average of 4-8 couple meet weekly or bi-weekly to go over some follow-up material from Sunday, do an independent Bible study, or take a class like Financial Peace.  There is an appointed leader for each group who is supposed to organize and direct the time together.

Another key aspect of our LifeGroups is the idea of "doing life together."  Since the vocational leadership can't be personally involved in the emotional and spiritual needs of every member in their flock, our LifeGroups are safe places for people to share their struggles and get helped along this faith journey by peers.  By default, the LifeGroup leader is seen as the point person for helping others in the LG.

That said, you may understand why I see the LG leader as a micro-pastor.  They are responsible for teaching, encouraging, guiding, mentoring, and overall shepherding their little LG flock.  As such, I have come to some preliminary ideas on the qualifications for LG leaders.

We all know what the Scriptures say about the qualifications for elders and deacons.  In Titus 1 for example, we read about the character of an elder...

⁵ This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— ⁶ if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. ⁷ For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, ⁸ but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. ⁹ He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. 

Contrast that with the "what not to bes"...

 ¹⁰ For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. ¹¹ They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. ¹² One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” ¹³ This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, ¹⁴ not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. ¹⁵ To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. ¹⁶ They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. 

Also in 1 Timothy 3, we see more on what an elder should be like...

¹ The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ² Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵ for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. 


Then, in the next few verses are the qualifications for a deacon...

⁸ Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. ⁹ They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. ¹⁰ And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. ¹¹ Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. ¹² Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. ¹³ For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 

So, here is where I am at with this. 

If LG leaders (and their equivalent in church, to include worship leaders, youth leaders, children's ministry leaders, and other prominent leaders - volunteer or vocational) are essentially micro-pastors...shouldn't they be held to the same standards as paid clergy?  At least to the standard of a deacon?

Remember that deacons were not even leaders per say in the early church.  They were individuals who served the body through daily operational tasks so that the apostles could teach, preach, and expand the vision of the Gospel. (Acts 6)

Therefore, it seems very logical that we would expect that those in quasi-leadership or leadership positions be held to the qualifications of a deacon at the very least. 

It seems reasonable to me and, most importantly, biblical.  The early church didn't have a LifeGroup ministry like we have in 21st century America.  Neither did Rome during the Middle Ages or Europe in the Reformation from what I can tell.  We have to use some inference and logic to apply the biblical principles in context. 

I am not trying to be legalistic, but I do feel that our culture is very lax on the idea of qualification for church leadership and the idea of church discipline.  We must be sheepdogs for the protection of the flock.

What do you think?