Original Meaning
THE PERIL OF suffering has preoccupied Peter’s attention. From the beginning of the letter (1:3–12) to the end of chapter 4, he has exhorted his churches to live faithful lives before God, constantly placing these exhortations against the backdrop of persecution. Having given his final exhortation to the churches to suffer as Christians (4:12–19), he now turns to specific groups within the churches for special instructions (5:1–5), after which he will offer some final remarks (5:6–14). The present section contains three units: an address to the “elders” (5:1–4), an address to the “young men” (5:5a), and an address to “all of them” (5:5b). Since the three sections are joined by a common form,1 we will treat them together.
The address to the elders begins with the basis of an exhortation (5:1), provides an exhortation (5:2–3), and then offers a promise to those who carry out the exhortation (5:4). The address to the “young men”2 contains an exhortation to submit (5:5a). The third unit, addressed to “all of you,” is an exhortation to humility and closes with a reason for this exhortation (5:5b).
The Address to Elders (5:1–4). Peter begins by defining his personal relationship to the elders (5:1), which serves as the basis for his exhortations: He is “a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed.”3 He cites three traits they have in common: (1) They are all elders,4 (2) they are all5 witnesses of Christ’s sufferings, and (3) they will all partake of the future glory.
That Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” is both a statement of modesty (he is also an apostle; cf. 1:1) and sympathy. As an elder, he knows both the temptations these elders encounter and the joys. More importantly, he knows the essence of the calling he needs to spell out in 5:2–3. While it may be argued that Peter condescends to their level, it is more likely that he is elevating their ministries and incorporating their work into his. As a “witness” to the sufferings of Christ,6 Peter can appeal to them to endure hardship, suffering, and persecution because of the example of Jesus (2:18–25; 3:18; 4:1, 13). That is, Peter and the other elders both preach the significance of the sufferings of Jesus (as Peter has admirably done) and endure such sufferings. Since Jesus was vindicated by God, he knows that he, like all the faithful elders, is someone “who also will share7 in the glory to be revealed.” The apostle appears to be drawing again from the important connection he has made between suffering and being glorified (cf. 4:13), and he waits for the prize of the elder (5:4).
Having established the common traits of all elders, Peter turns to the exhortation itself (5:2). It is comprised of a general exhortation (“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care”) and several specific instances of that general exhortation (“serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock”). These specific instances begin with a general term (“serving as overseers”) and move to three illustrations that contain both a negative and a positive point.
Elders are responsible to shepherd God’s flock (5:2). Throughout the Bible, and mostly because Israel was composed of agrarian communities, the relationship of leaders to their charges was described metaphorically as a shepherd-like relationship. As shepherds cared for their flocks, so ought the leaders of Israel to care for Israelites. This is all rooted in the description of God as a Shepherd to his people. Besides the well-known Psalm 23 (which concerns the Lord’s relationship to David), there are the important uses of this image in Isaiah 40:11 (God-Israel), Jeremiah 23:1–4 (Israel’s corrupt shepherds will be replaced by good shepherds), Ezekiel 34:1–10 (God will rescue his people from selfish shepherds), Zechariah 11:4–17 (a caring shepherd is replaced by a worthless, uncaring shepherd), Matthew 9:35–38 (Jesus appoints new shepherds for his people), John 10:1–18 (Jesus is the good shepherd), and John 21:15–17 (Peter is to be a shepherd).
Peter exhorts his fellow shepherds to tend to the flock that God has appointed to them. What he has in mind is almost certainly the role that individual leaders played in a given house church—to tend to that house church as a group assigned to them by God.8 Without question, Peter ends any sense of possession by stating that it is “God’s flock,” not theirs.
Peter goes on to list, in contrasting pairs, the specific instances of what shepherding ought to involve and not involve. It begins with an expression that both resumes what 5:2a has said and carries the notion of shepherding further: “serving as overseers.”9 Their ministry of leading these churches was:
Not to be | To be |
not because you must, | but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; |
not greedy for money, | but eager to serve; |
not lording it over those entrusted to you, | but being examples to the flock. |
Here Peter lists some of the tasks involved and the personal characteristics of early church leaders (as Paul does in his listing of elders in the Pastoral Letters). Service in the church ought to be done with the proper motive, that is, with personal willingness10 and a sense of divine calling, not because of a sense of internal or external compulsion. As E. G. Selwyn says, “There is all the difference, especially in spiritual matters, between the man who does his work for no other reason than that he has to do it, and the man who does it willingly, as being in God’s service.”11 If, as many think, age played a critical role in the assignment of the pastoral ministry, then personal willingness and eagerness become even more important.
Besides compulsion, greed is also an unworthy motivation for leading in God’s house. Jesus had no fixed income and consequently had to trust in God for his daily provisions (Matt. 6:11, 25–34; 8:20); he taught his disciples that they, too, were to live by faith (10:8–13). This early church squeamishness about reputation and ministry not done for profit leads Peter to reflect on the importance of the same principle: The elders are not to serve in the churches in order to gain a profit.12 Instead, they are to do their ministry eagerly. Peter’s concerns possibly reflect a period when the elder of a local church was paid a fixed income, though he may be thinking of gifts in return for their ministries. More important, his instructions are concerned with the social impact of how Christian ministers acquired their living (cf. 2:11–12).
Finally, Peter urges the elders to lead by example, not by authoritative domination of their local churches.13 Again he seems to be reflecting a saying of Jesus (Mark 10:42). Power, no more today than in the first century, is addictive. It leads to unworthy motives and pollutes decisions that are to be made under the guidance of the Spirit. Instead of seeking God’s agenda, power-hungry church leaders pursue their own, doing what they can to increase their own reputation. Instead of leading by dominating power, Peter urges elders to lead by example, as Jesus has been their example (1 Peter 2:18–25). Note how Paul had been an “example” to his churches (1 Cor. 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 3:9; Titus 2:7).
Peter’s exhortation to elders to carry on their ministries with the proper motivations was founded on his relationship to the elders (5:1); he now incites them to the appropriate behavior by appealing to the promise they will receive for faithful discharge of their calling (5:4): “When the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” If Peter is a “fellow elder” (5:1), he is nonetheless an “undershepherd,” under Jesus himself (cf. 2:25). Once again, understanding all elders as equals reflects an important saying of Jesus: We are all brothers, and there is but one Teacher (Matt. 23:8–12). When Jesus returns as Savior and Judge (cf. 1 Peter 1:3–5, 9, 13, 20; 2:12; 3:9–12; 4:5–6, 7, 13, 17–19), he will give (cf. 1:9) them a “crown of glory” for their faithfulness to him. It is unwise to think here of a physical crown; rather, the crown is the glory of being accepted by God14—a reward for those elders who conduct themselves as elders should, by serving under God those whom God has given them to serve. Until then they are to serve because of God’s call and the joy that comes from doing his work.
The Address to the Young (5:5a). Peter now addresses a different group, the “young men,” instructing them “in the same way15 [to] be submissive to those who are older.” Some have argued that the “young men” are not just men younger in age but refer to a more specific group within the churches: the “elders-to-be.”16 But we have no evidence that any such group existed in the early churches.
Is Peter addressing just men here? Perhaps, though the majority of scholars argue17 that he is speaking generically of all those who are under the authority of the elders, both men and women. Since Peter probably does not have in mind a specific group of younger men who are waiting until they can assume elderships, it seems best to me to translate “young men” (NIV) as “younger ones,” referring generically to all members of the house churches. Furthermore, if the elder was in effect the sole leader of a local house church, then what remains were not just young men but both men and women. In fact, if we continue this line, it is likely that more women than men were left. At any rate, the younger ones are to defer to the elders. Dividing churches by age might seem odd to us, but in “the ancient world the division of society into older people and younger … was just as much taken for granted as the division into men and women, free men and slaves, etc.”18
The advice to this group is to listen to the wisdom of the elders and live in accordance with their instruction; that is, they are “to submit.” As stated in 2:13, the term submission should be understood as “living according to some constituted order”—here, the order established by the directives of the elders. And since they have already been instructed to lead, not by domination but by example, we can assume that submission here was not some onerous task. Rather, it was joyfully acceptable to those who wanted to live in accordance with God’s will. If it was possible for the churches to stand against the governmental authorities (see at 2:13–17), so it was possible that the younger members of the churches might want to resist the authority of the elders.19
The Address to All (5:5b). Finally, Peter addresses both the elders and the younger members of the churches with the following words: “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’ ” Whether leader or laity, whether old or young, Christians are to develop a deferential and humble attitude toward one another. Peter hinted at this in 3:8–12 and 4:7–11; he now makes it more explicit. The elder is not to arrogate himself to the position of dominant partner, nor are the younger members to rebel against the authority of the elders; rather, they are to respect one another mutually. The elder’s service is by way of leadership while the younger members’ service is by way of conformity to the norm of the elders.
Once again, Peter grounds his exhortations in the threatening judgment of God (see at 4:7, 17–19). The Christians of his day do not want to assign themselves to the same fate of the persecuting pagans by living a life of pride and avarice; instead, they should live in accordance with God’s will.
Bridging Contexts
THE BULK OF this passage contains exhortations for pastors, teachers, elders, and church leaders; they are not designed primarily to speak to the typical person in a Christian church today (what we call the “laity”). That is not to say that there are not some lessons to learn for all, for there are. For instance, parents can learn from this on how to deal more Christianly with the spiritual nurture of their children, and Bible study teachers, whether trained or not, can find in these exhortations lessons on how to lead. But those are derivative lessons from the main one, directed to the pastors and leaders of the house churches.
Thus, the first step in moving 5:1–4 into our world is to recognize that it is directed at leadership, at any who have been given the task of looking after the spirituality of people in the church. That is, it applies as much to what we call the “Senior Pastor” as to the “Youth Pastor,” the “Visitation Pastor,” the “Small Group Pastor,” the “Christian Education Director,” and the “Music Pastor.” The reason we draw this conclusion is because Peter’s churches knew of no such divisions of labor; his words are addressed to those who lead the churches in any way. In coming to this position, I am not arguing that pastors and ministers are somehow superior; rather, Peter recognized a “pastoral calling” and gave instructions to those who had that calling.
This means that the typical person in our churches today will feel no particular relevance to this text. However, it would be wise for the laity to understand the details of a text like this, not so they might usurp the callings of others, but so they might pray for their leaders, understand and sympathize with that calling, and institute policies in the churches that protect such callings. Just as a pastor needs to understand the callings of his “parishioners” in order to be more effective in serving them, so the parishioner needs to understand the calling of the pastor to be able to support such a calling.
Returning again to the general or derived application of this text to the laity,20 I contend that this text can be used indirectly to apply to any situation in which a Christian is called to serve another for spiritual growth. It is important to recognize that such a move is indirect (e.g., the text does not directly concern a mother’s teaching her children how to pray) and that there will undoubtedly be things that are not applicable (e.g., mothers always teach their children without pay!). Nonetheless, whoever is exercising a spiritual service to others can learn things here about leadership. For instance, when a Bible study teacher goes out of his way to work with one of his “students,” he is exercising a ministry analogous to the service of elders. When a concerned church member visits a struggling brother or sister in the church, that church member is extending the pastoral ministry. In these and similar situations, the words of Peter are important: Do not do this work out of compulsion, or for financial gain, or for power. Instead, such acts need to be done willingly, eagerly, and in an exemplary manner.
Moving the text about the “younger ones” into our world has one important knotty issue: If the text is only about young men, then either the text is only for younger men in our churches, or it must be adjusted to a world that has changed with respect to patriarchalism. We argued above, however, that the text is about both men and women—all those who are being led by an elder. The application of such an injunction to our world is not difficult since, though changes have surely come, there are plenty of church members who are being led by elders. But is the term submission appropriate? The answer is not simple. If we understand submission to be subservience, with the result that the congregations always must go along with the plans and schemes of the elders, then the term is not appropriate to our world. But if we understand submission to be “living orderly under the leadership of the elder,” then the term is appropriate: Elders are to exercise leadership, and congregations are to follow their lead.
This puts a finger on a touchy issue: leadership and authority. Ours is not a culture that easily adjusts itself to such an idea. Ours, in fact, is a society of mavericks and do-it-yourselfers. Consequently, not only does the term submission sound foreign, but even the idea of actually being led by a spiritual advisor/pastor is hard for many to comprehend. I am not convinced that our social makeup is an improvement. While I surely enjoy the freedom of independence that our culture affords, I am not sure that the pendulum swing away from authority and leadership is any healthier than total control.
What we need is able leadership; when able leadership is present, following the lead of the elders is healthy and effective.21 Just as it is morally healthy for children to follow the good guidance of their parents, so it is spiritually satisfying and edifying for the churches to follow the guidance of the elders. It is important to remember God’s call on an elder’s life and ministry as well as the high calling he or she has to preach the gospel and teach the truth of the Bible. Until we come to terms with that calling and with God’s call on our lives to be recipients of that person’s calling, we will fail to be what God has called us to be: church members.
Even while affirming the importance of leadership and authority on the part of the elders, we must not forget that there will be differences of opinion on matters, some small and some significant. After all, we live in a fallen world, and we simply do not come to concord on all issues. Thus, at times an individual member will disagree with the pastor and will want to pursue an alternative course of direction. Such a decision by a member ought to be done with humility, in conversation with the elders, and in such a way that is not disruptive (unless necessary).22 When done in a spirit of humility and concern, disagreements can be minimized and the harmful effects of divisions reduced.
Accordingly, Peter’s words to the churches to “submit” are not to be taken as a blanket endorsement of every elder in the world. Rather, he assumes spiritual healthiness at the top; when that leadership is corrupt, following it would be contrary to God’s will (as Peter himself resisted leadership in Acts 4:1–22; Gal. 2:11–21). Indeed, I suspect that Peter was aware of differences between elders and the “younger ones” and urged them to submit as a principle consistent with true spiritual leadership.23
Peter’s final words in this section are crucial for understanding the perspective of his instructions both to elders and the younger ones: Whatever is happening, everyone is to clothe himself or herself with the robes of humility. When everyone is so clothed, church dress is not shabby. That is, when everyone is concerned with serving others, the problems of leadership and authority are virtually eliminated. When both elders and laity are out to serve, the elders are no more authoritarian than the laity is rebellious.
Contemporary Significance
PETER PROVIDES A virtual checklist of proper and improper pastoral motives. The problems pastors in his day faced are essentially no different from the ones faced today by contemporary pastors. Admittedly, their society offered fewer temptations than what we face, and our pastors face challenges Peter’s elders probably never thought of. Nonetheless, the essential temptations to greed and power have hardly changed, only their manifestations. What our text offers, then, is a list of three problems of motivation, and contemporary pastors and church leaders need to look over this list, examine their hearts, and ask themselves, “Why do I serve God in the church?”
First, are you as a church leader motivated to serve in the church because you have to or because you want to? I was once traveling with a pastor in England who frankly told me that he did not like the ministry. I could understand the pain that sometimes comes with people-oriented ministries because people are not always easy to work with. But I was not prepared for his next comment. I asked him, “Why then did you get into the ministry?” His answer was cold: “Because my parents demanded it, and now I have no other option.” Here was a man in his late fifties who had no personal motivation to serve others in the ministry of the church of Christ.
Many pastors, Christian educators, and evangelists, if we can trust studies on job satisfaction, are carrying the same burden. They neither enjoy nor want to be pastors. Apart from an act of God’s grace, through his mighty Spirit, such people cannot change. What these people need is time alone—time to spend with God in prayer so that he might either direct them out of the ministry of the church or renew the fires of ministry in their hearts.
There are at least two problems here, emotional-spiritual burnout and the normal trend for many to “cool down” after some years of service. Burnout, in our context, is a term that describes leaders who simply can no longer function at the appropriate energy level for their calling and job description. Christian leaders are called to a ministry of serving others; unfortunately, many of these same leaders have no ability to say “No” to the many demands on their time. Cloud and Townsend have expressed it perfectly:
Made in the image of God, we were created to take responsibility for certain tasks. Part of taking responsibility, or ownership, is knowing what is our job, and what isn’t. Workers who continually take on duties that aren’t theirs will eventually burn out. It takes wisdom to know what we should be doing and what we shouldn’t. We can’t do everything.24
To be sure, pastors suffer an enormous burden, and the Christian message of service suggests (to some) an unlimited availability to others for whatever they need—even mowing grass for others. And it sounds arrogantly selfish for the Christian leader to say that he or she needs to spend some time for leisure or for self-healing. But the wise leader sets boundaries that, while at times may be shifted, allow for healthy self-development.
Louis McBurney, a psychiatrist who specializes in working with Christian workers, both understands the pressures of ministry-oriented callings and has some important insights for ministering to those suffering in those callings.25 Dropout is as pervasive a problem for Christian ministers as any vocation in our society. The clergy no longer command the same respect that they once had, divorce rates are up among them, they leave for “secular” jobs more than ever before, and they are fired more than ever before. These pressures create what McBurney calls a series of five crises: a crisis of authority, of identity, of priority, of integrity, and of dependency. In addition, pastors have a list of impossible tasks, a mandate to succeed, job insecurity, unexpressed anger, and financial pressure. To make matters worse, Christian workers tend to resist counseling because they are perceived (and therefore perceive themselves) as infallible, they are afraid of being exposed as failures or of being rejected, they seem to distrust psychology, they seem to lack funds for paying a therapist, and they do not deal with their feelings well.
This thorough analysis of the problem by McBurney, while it is more than we can deal with in detail here, demonstrates why Christian workers burn out and why the words of Peter are especially relevant.26
Are they doing their tasks because they want to or because they have to? Marble Retreat, McBurney’s counseling center near Aspen, Colorado, is devoted to helping Christian workers emerge from the sea of burnout and broken marriages in a healthier way. Sometimes the Christian worker is performing tasks, not out of the great sense of calling from God, but because he or she simply feels the burden of having nothing else to do. Such a person needs to admit the symptoms of burnout, seek help, and pray to God that his Spirit will regenerate the spiritual passions for ministry. God is more than able.
But what about the problems that befall nearly all of us in the natural cooling down of our eagerness? This is common, and at times we need to go through the typical technique of “cold turkey obedience.” That is, we get up and go about our ministries even when we do not want to just because God has called us to do a certain task. It is not unusual for a minister to awake some morning, perhaps not irregularly, and face the day with the wish that something else were to be done. Instead, that pastor can take time with God and ask him for the courage of obedience to do the tasks of ministry in spite of a lack of passion about it.
Further, what pastors need most is the constant stimulation that causes growth and development in their own lives. You cannot give to others if you are dried up yourself. Stimulation comes from spiritual disciplines, personal relationships, and physical rest. Psychologists tend to “burn out” because they have a pattern of overworking themselves. Pastors have the same tendencies, and churches, unfortunately, are good at exploiting those tendencies. Pastors need to feed themselves by reading new and interesting materials, by finding other pastors with whom they can share their lives (both joys and frustrations), by praying and meditating so they can deepen their knowledge and experience of God, by attending retreats and conferences that will challenge them to new and deeper ministries, and by investing their time in the love and joy that comes from their families. Pastors also need to take time off—weekly, quarterly, and annually. When they work too hard, they lose their joy for ministry and their willingness to serve. Before long their entire ministry is one of “cold turkey obedience,” if not downright bitter compulsion.
In the last few months I have gotten phone calls from former students. One student shared with me the utter joy of serving God in the church. David was as joyous about his ministry now as he was when he was first called, nearly eight years ago. I asked him what he had been doing in the last year, and he shared a litany of things: reading a couple of new books by his favorite author, enjoying the growth of his two daughters, loving his supportive wife, following the Philadelphia Phillies, playing some golf, attending a Willow Creek Conference, spending a lot of time reading his Bible and praying, and so on. I contend that part of the reason for the joy in his life was the variety of stimulations he was enjoying. I did not hear one negative word about anyone in his congregation, even though the primary reason he called was ask my advice about dealing with a troubled person in his church who was disrupting things because of some strange views on how to interpret the Bible.
Contrast David with another student (whose name will go unmentioned), who, though trying to be positive, had obviously lost some fire. When I asked him what he was doing, there was only one comment: “Building program!” Enough said. In other words, he was spending so much time on the development of a new wing for his church that he had no time to feed his soul. He confessed that he hardly had time for prayer and Bible reading, found his time-squeeze affecting his relationship with his wife and his kids, did not take time to enjoy fishing or boating, and simply could not stoke the flames of godly desires. While there are certainly more things going on here than can be discussed (like his age and his diet), I noticed he lacked the eagerness to serve that he once had. Part of that, perhaps most of it, was caused by a lack of stimulation in his life. His priorities were messed up, and all that mattered to him was the building of some new wing in the church—and I told him that.
We can blame the pastors for a lot of this, and we always have, but the church too is to blame. Individual members of churches, beginning with the leadership committees, need to be sensitive to a pastor’s schedule and do what they can to provide nourishment and edification. Elders need to grow, and the churches need to see to it that their elders are developing. When elder boards begin to see the care of the pastors as part of their ministry, pastors will repay them with more vital leadership.
Second, are you, as a church leader, motivated to serve in the church because of the money you can acquire or because of your enthusiasm for ministry? Love of money, Paul said, is “a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim. 6:10). The love of money is nowhere uglier than when it is found in Christian ministries. It is true, I believe, that the average pastor, the average Christian educator, the average youth pastor, and the average music leader of an average church are not motivated by money. This can be said for the average because for most, pay is by way of salary. But there are other places where motivation by money shows up: for example, when a minister says, “I won’t do that because I’m not paid to do that!”, when a pastor’s work intensity heats up around church budget time, when calls come in for some extra ministries that have an honorarium attached to them, when certain people are given special priorities because they have money and helping them will increase one’s opportunities, or when special ministries are developed so as to enable one to increase pay by serving in those ministries.
I believe the pastor today, as at no other time, needs to be above board and ruthlessly circumspect about the monetary side of the ministry. I also believe that the churches themselves need to be concerned about impressions given off by expenditures and salaries. When pastors are being paid salaries that permit them to live in $400,000 homes and when those same pastors drive exotic cars and take vacations to extravagant places, then churches need to ask if this is helpful for the gospel of Christ. So, too, pastors need to sit down with the board and ask not, “How much can you pay me?” but, “Will this salary figure and the lifestyle it permits be helpful for the cause of Christ in our community?” In saying these things, we need to recognize that a Christian worker deserves to be paid, but there is a difference between making money and serving money.
Elders and pastors need to examine themselves here and be penetratingly honest with themselves. They need to ask, “Lord, show me anywhere that I am being motivated by the money I can earn.” In our world, Christian leaders need to be examples of financial responsibility (there is nothing wrong with a wise investment) and of simplicity in lifestyle so that outsiders have no reason to point fingers at local churches with respect to the financial component of ministry. Pastors are people, and people can spend their money where they want; but unlike most people, pastors are public figures, and where they spend money is known to all. Therefore, they need to be circumspect, wise, and simple in their spending so as to further the gospel.
Third, are you as a church leader motivated to serve in the church because of your desire for power or because of the impact your life makes on others? If loving money is a root of all kinds of evil, loving power is the earth in which it grows and the moisture that feeds it. Some church leaders serve because of the sense of power; others serve because they are called by God to serve; and still others do so because of the impact their lives make on others. The second and third motivations are godly; the first is despicable. Power, of course, is difficult to discern. How do we know when power and authoritarianism is part of the pastor’s motivation?
One sure sign of being motivated by power surfaces when a church leader does not “get his way” in a particular matter. When that pastor stews, complains, threatens to leave, and appeals to authority and position, then he or she is not motivated by what is best but by what strengthens his or her fortress.
Another sign is when the pastor feels threatened by the divinely granted gifts of someone else or maneuvers to reestablish her position because of the positive comments made about another’s giftedness. If a Christian mother expresses her appreciation for a certain radio teacher and says so to her pastor, and when that pastor wonders what she is lacking or wonders if she thinks that teacher is “better” than she is at teaching, then that pastor’s motivations are stained with the guilt of wanting power. The true Christian leader rejoices with the lady and does not compare ministries to find out who is best.
Again, if a pastor makes sure he dresses himself in a way that conveys authority and power, then he may well be motivated by such things.
A fourth sign of domineering rather than leading by example occurs when a church leader refuses to delegate responsibilities and leadership. Hoarding all decisions and responsibilities is a clear sign of not trusting in God to guide and in the Spirit to work. The responsible Christian minister trains and delegates in such a way that all are led into their gifts and the entire church does the work (Eph. 4:11–16).
Pastors must desire to serve God, no matter what that means. They need to recognize that they are “undershepherds,” like Peter (5:1, 4), and that they serve only to increase the Lordship of Christ. They have no power, only a temporary service in Christ, because only Jesus is Lord. Peter’s alternative to domineering leadership is an exemplary lifestyle. When a Christian leader can stand up in all humility and ask others to follow as he or she follows Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1), that leader is doing exactly what God has called. Life is more important than office, just as it is true that our children learn more from what is caught than what is taught.