In the Coram Deo section of the November 2017 issue of TABLETALK magazine, Burk Parsons writes:
"We have entered a new era of modern history. This era is marked by a gaping void of leadership, but also by an antipathy toward the very notion of leadership. What's more, there is a growing trend that celebrates self-appointed leaders who have demonstrated a lack of integrity and to ignore and dishonor faithful, aged leaders whose integrity has been proven over the course of decades."
This caused me to ask a question regarding those who are able to lead but refuse to do so. Do Christians have the option to refuse to lead in the local church if they are biblically qualified and possess the ability to lead? For example, a man is fully qualified to serve as an elder or deacon but just does not want to lead. It's not a matter of poor health, family obligations, or job constraints; he just doesn't want the headaches that often accompany leadership. Is it ever a sin issue to refuse to assume a leadership role if asked to do so?
"We have entered a new era of modern history. This era is marked by a gaping void of leadership, but also by an antipathy toward the very notion of leadership. What's more, there is a growing trend that celebrates self-appointed leaders who have demonstrated a lack of integrity and to ignore and dishonor faithful, aged leaders whose integrity has been proven over the course of decades."
This caused me to ask a question regarding those who are able to lead but refuse to do so. Do Christians have the option to refuse to lead in the local church if they are biblically qualified and possess the ability to lead? For example, a man is fully qualified to serve as an elder or deacon but just does not want to lead. It's not a matter of poor health, family obligations, or job constraints; he just doesn't want the headaches that often accompany leadership. Is it ever a sin issue to refuse to assume a leadership role if asked to do so?