Now, the article title seems to mean that simple church enthusiasts only care about leaders and leadership. However, this is not what Roger means.
Instead, he’s trying to point out that those who prefer simple church seek to encourage all to lead.
For example, consider this:
But I would like to suggest that the purpose of the church ought to be to develop ALL believers into leaders. For this reason, I would say that simple/house churches are ALL about leadership. Furthermore, the problem in the past has been that, too often, we have limited the leadership development of others because there is only so much room for the few who are prescribed to lead from the top.
Think about what it is that ALL believers are called to do:
- To be salt and light in the world.
- To love neighbors sacrificially.
- To make disciples.
- To serve as priests.
- To be an example of the incredible wealth of God’s kindness and grace.
- To bring a song, a word, a prophesy when we gather.
- To be ready to share God’s word of grace with others in season and out.
- On and on and on.
Of course, if those who are currently recognized as leaders want to help all to become leaders, it means those current leaders will have to step out of the way and allow others to lead… yes, even to lead them.
Leaders are often happy when others step up and lead in “lesser” things, but it’s more difficult to get leaders to submit to others in issues that seem more important.
In fact, however, I would say that this (submission to others – considering others as more important than themselves) is a very important part of being a leader in the first place.
What do you think?