Quote:
Originally Posted by John
UntoHim,
I am not sure if you mean that the "solid evidence" you claim exists were the lists of requirements in the Bible or if you are referring to some other evidence. Which is it? If the former, I don't think the lists support the idea of a leadership training system. If the latter, what is the evidence?
By the way, in the case of Matthias, they did pull his name out of a hat, so to speak: They drew lots. Since this was the first apostle that was not selected by Jesus, it may be significant.
I have experienced "a church without official, trained and educated leadership." It was a kind of utopia for me.
|
Didn't Apostle Paul have schools in Ephesus and Rome? In Ephesus (Acts 19.9) apparently Paul helped to train a dozen brothers who only knew about the baptism of John. In Rome (Acts 28) the record ends with Paul using house confinement to educate all who would visit him concerning the kingdom of God.
Concerning Matthias, who replaced Judas, didn't he accompany the disciples from the time John was baptizing in the Jordan? He was with them longer than Jesus was, so to speak, and hence received much of the same first hand instruction as the other eleven. To imply that Matthias was somehow
randomly selected is not fair the Biblical record. To stretch my point, history tells us that Matthias was more effective and upright in the house of God, than Judas ever was, and the Lord prayed all night long before appointing him.
I'm not saying that any of LSM's training programs were extracted directly from scripture, but to imply that there is no hint of leadership training in the New Testament is also an extreme view. The bottom line is that what is taught is no better than he who teaches it.
John, you have simply confirmed in your post that mature and principled men make the best leaders, regardless of their "spiritual" pedigree. This was exactly Paul's message to Timothy and Titus in his epistles to them.