In the New Testament God used human leaders to bring blessing and feeding to the church. From the day of Pentecost, the apostles acted as de facto leaders. They preached, taught, (Acts 2:42) and ruled on issues that came up for debate (Acts 6:1,2). They were able to ____________ leadership to others(Acts 6:3,4).

After the period of the Jerusalem church, attention shifts to Paul's missionary journeys. Paul, too, was an apostle, and an obvious leader. He served in Antioch with a group of men who were said to be "prophets and teachers." (Acts 13:1) These may have been the elders in Antioch, though it never says that. It does record that "they" [probably the same men] ______________ on Paul and Barnabas and sent them off on the first journey." The reason they chose Paul and Barnabas was divine election (see below). On that journey we see them appointing elders in the new churches they planted. (Acts 14:23) The fasting and prayer that preceeded these appointments suggests they were seeking God's choice for leaders.

Both Timothy and Titus are given the job of appointing elders. Of interest is the fact that Paul has left them behind to do this work, implying that it was _______________ to select elders when he was there. This suggests that they wanted to see these men actually living out leadership roles before making the choice to recognize them as elders. Likewise, Paul cautions Timothy about deacons: "They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons." (1 Tim. 3:10)

Overarching these observations about leadership in the early church, we see other evidence of divine election in the selection of leaders. This should be clear for the following reasons.

	1. The Apostles were chosen by Christ.
	2. Paul comments on his own credentials for leadership in the book of 2 Corinthians 3:1-3:
	Notice Paul's reference in 2 Cor. 10:12 to "the field God has __________ to us."
	According to Rom.. 12:8, there is a gift of leadership. Likewise, Eph. 4:11,12
	We see in the waiting period between the planting of churches and the selection of elders:
	Election was evident with Old Testament Leaders as well.
	Mature Christian character is a prerequisite for leadership in all cases.

We conclude that God, not humans makes a person a spiritual leader:

The implications of this perspective on leadership are profound. If we conclude that God chooses leaders, our goal becomes cooperating with the choice of God in assuring that only divinely appointed leaders are recognized. Therefore:

	We should avoid appointing someone
	We should exercise caution when
	We should be very reluctant to
	When someone is removed from leadership
	Only leaders
	The notion that leaders are chosen by God strongly implies favoring

Even with these principles, the business of determining God's calling remains subjective. We are often reduced to guesswork when naming leaders, because there are so many variables. We usually are faced with compromise in at least some areas with every leader we recognize.

Even churches that work toward installing only leaders chosen and manifested by God will sometimes find they have leaders who don't belong. These are usually painful situations that call for grace and firmness. Certainly every church would hope to keep such situations to a minimum. Ideally, we should have all our leaders actually functioning as leaders, all belonging in their roles because God himself has chosen to put them there. Realistically, this will not be the case, because even some who were chosen to be leaders at one time, later act in such a way to discredit themselves, or for other reasons are no longer able to serve (e.g. Paul and Barnabas sent away from Antioch). Therefore, this issue becomes a perpetual area of tension in the church as new leaders are considered, and older leaders are reconsidered. Our best move is to follow principles calculated to maximize the likelihood of chosen leaders holding authority so we have a God-made, not a man-made leadership in the church.