The term "Leading Brother"

[4Him]

1. Where did the term "Leading Brother" (capitalized on purpose) come from?

2. Is the Assembly practice of using it as a substitute for "deacon" (not capitalized on purpose, like in the Bible)supported in the Word of God?

My thoughts: A deacon is is simply a servant as I understand it.  It's not a term that connotes authority or lordship over another, but rather, humble service among brothers and sisters (you know, kind of like in Acts 6:3-7).  "Leading Brother", on the other hand, could seem to imply some sort of superiority over another. (Or, maybe, since that's the way it's been practiced in the Geftakys economy for so long, I just can't help but take it that way.)

If anyone could expand on this for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.  And hey, why not discuss the scriptural exercise and authority of an elder while we're at it?

[Arthur]

I think it was as simple as the reasoning that this is a brother who leads.  

They didn't want to give the role a title such as deacon because then it would be like an organizational position and man-made.  People might make it out to be some official, I'm decon so-and-so and you're not, type of a thing.   Correct me if this was not the assemby-think behind it.
Also, I think that, though they were not officially recognized as elders, many lb's were functioning as such in their respective assemblies.

[4Him]

At least in Springfield, it seems that way.  I have seen no substantial difference in function, which of course there should be (of course I wasn't privy to the LB meetings). In fact, at times, the ones called "Leading Brother" seem to have exercised more authority than one or both of the elders.

[anonymous1Cor13]

The term comes from the exclusive Plymouth Brethren, who use it to designate those in thier leadership.
However, in that case its use is partly due to thier belief that "the church is in ruins" and thus new
testament church government, including elders, is no longer possible.  To my knowledge, neither
George or any assembly has ever or currently holds this doctrine.

It was my understanding that the term differentiates between a deacon who serves in a leadership
capacity from those who serve in other capacities (i.e. doorkeepers, tape ministry stewards,
booktable stewards, etc...).

[Kimberley Tobin]

I believe the "leading brother" and "worker" roles, so predominant in the assembly and so clearly NOT SEEN in the scriptures, is another major reason the pastoral community in each locality MUST be sought out in order to provide a pattern of biblical church government.  

[anonymous13]

Please forgive me if I gave you the impression that I do not think these roles are in the scripture.  I was
merely pointing out that the exclusive brethren use them, partly as a consequence of thier belief that
new testament church government no longer applies (which I agree is unscriptural).

If by "leading brother" one refers to a deacon who serves in an oversight capacity, one could make a
case that they are scriptural (even if the term can be confusing), although a case could also be made
that Biblical church govenment consists of elders or elders with deacons.

As far as workers, it is my understanding that they are (or, perhaps, were - please be patient with the
way I will be describing this) associated with George in his ministry and thus might better be described
as George's workers or George's fellow-laborers.  The idea is that the Lord has given George a ministry
in the same way that say, Billy Graham, has been given a ministry (again, please do not be offended by
the comparison, I am merely trying to explain this) and that the workers have jointly agreed with
George that they will support him in his ministry.  Other ministries also have workers (I think they are
quite common), although one could argue that they are less focused on supporting a person in his or her
work (although these ministries often began as one person's work).  A Biblical model for them is
provided for in the apostle Paul and his relationship to Timothy, Titus, and perhaps Silas and some
others (see Rom 16) who helped him personally in his ministry which the Lord gave him. I also don't
think it is wrong to speak of the Lord giving particular individuals certain tasks and from Eph 2 I believe
that God has works prepared for us all.  George Muller, Hudson Taylor, and many, many others used to
speak of the Lord giving them a "life-work" (i.e. orphan homes, founding the China Inland Mission) and
had workers (i.e. orphan home helpers and home directors, field directors, missionaries, etc...) as can
be easily seen from thier biographies (see Muller's "Narrative of Some of the Lord's dealings with
George Muller"  and Dr.and Mrs.Taylor's "Hudson Taylor's Spiritual Secret").  In this respect, the work
should ideally be autonomous (but not independent) with respect to the assemblies and vice versa, in
view of its connection to a particular person.  In practice, as many of the stories on this website indicate,
 this may or may not have not always (or often) been the case, but I do believe that it is what the Bible
teaches.   In view of this, I would in advance the opinion that those who have dissociated themselves
from George would do well to refrain to try to "run" his (although the Lord is free to give you your own
of course) work or worker's meeting on thier own since in this case, at least, I cannot see how such a
system is scriptural (although I am willing to be instructed).

I do not think it necessary to remodel the assembly government based on a typical church with
pastors, assistant pastors, and a board (or deacons, elders or no) since I do not see this type of Church
government (as it is practiced today) in the scriptures.  Recent events have introduced a time of
unprecedented opportunity and danger, which the Lord in His faithfulness wants to use for our blessing.
I know from many of your posts that a lot of you really want to see the Lord do something great here.  
Not all of the things that we have been taught are as unscriptural as "man was created on the seventh
day". It would be well if we behaved as noble bereans and not reactionaries (note: I am not referring to anyone
in particular as a reactionary; please do not take this personally or to refer to the previous post in any way;
I really just want to put this idea forward).  Don't you think it would be sad if one unscriptural system (which I do not necessarily claim that it is)
were replaced with another unscriptural one?

[Oscar]

Regarding the original question, "where did the term leading brother come from?"

Our anonymous friend has pointed out that it came from the brethren's idea that since the dispensation is in ruins we can't have a biblical church government, because there are no apostles to ordain elders.

In the Darby translation I Thessalonians 5:12 says, "But we beg you, brethren, to know those who labour among you, and take the lead among you in (the) Lord..."

Since the Bible teaches male leadership in the church, those who "take the lead" are brothers...ergo....leading brothers.

This is what GG was teaching when I first met him in 1970.  

The problem with the leading brother idea is that other translations don't say the same thing.

NASV "But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you..."

NIV "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you..."

The PB idea is that God gifts each local assembly with leadership, and then the saints are to discern who they are.  But this is based on one man's translation of one verse!   The Bible says God gifts his CHURCH, not every local gathering.  

 I do not personally believe that the Bible gives one and one only plan of Church government.  In any of the three main types, episcopal, presbytery, congregational, or in their sub-variants, there are many many blanks filled in for practical utility.  Questions like, how often should we meet?  How often should we have the Lord's supper? (how often is often?)  How many should preach?  How many elders?  Teaching/ruling elders-could be-but what is the proper ratio?  Head coverings-a must or a can?  When to put them on?  When to take them off?

And on and on and on.
God bless,
Thomas Maddux

[4Him]

Wish Mr.? Anonymous would have the courage to ID himself.  Whatever. What he said sounded very much off the subject and off the mark.  I am interested in actual Scriptural support for the term "Leading Brother".

Having now done a small amount off study, I find several references to "deacons" which clearly refers to servants in the local church.  I don't see any indication that these deacons had any general authority in the local church but rather had certain important services that they were responsible to perform and presumably to manage.  I find no term in the NT that would imply "Leading Brother" with general oversigtht or authority, unless one would say that an elder is one.  But that's not what we've been taught in the ministry of George Geftakys.

Elders by the way are to primarily function as examples among the believers in the local church. (1Pe 5)  A good example, in practice, of the roles of elders and deacons is in Acts 6:1-7 (tho' the two terms are not explicitly stated there).

All in all I think Kimberley has it nailed.  I am also in substantial agreement with my dear brother Tom M.

[Kimberley Tobin]

It is interesting that in our place of fellowship now, the elders and deacons and deaconeses are not the men and women who are "lording" it over the flock.  They are not out in the forefront, touting their position, etc.  No, they are simply in the background, serving the men and women in the flock.  These are true shepherds.  They take a care for the Lord's people, not for recognition of their position, but out of service to their Lord and Savior.   They have been a real example to Greg and I of what true servants are.  Not boasting in their knowledge and position.

What a refreshing blessing!

[freebird]

Kimberley,

I have had the same experience.  No micromanaging lives at all.

I just have a comment on the "workers".  I have no problem with someone having partners in ministry.  The Apostle Paul had co-workers or partners in his ministry.  Every major ministry today has committed individuals involved.  The thing that always killed me was the secretiveness.  What happened to the money?  Who were they talking about (or targeting)?  It always seemed that they came back to the assemblies with new knowledge about people.  The other major thing was that despite what God wanted to do in a particular location, the workers would always stand only for what they were told in the work.  The workers meeting was the destruction of both local autonomy and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

From my double-edged light saber,
Maul

[Arthur]

The workers meeting was the destruction of both local autonomy and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

From my double-edged light saber,
Maul

That was sharp and cut right to the point.

[freebird]

Just wanted to change the name.  Actually the leading one dissappeared.

[Joe Sperling]

I believe that a lot of the practices of the Assembly stem from a misinterpretation of the word "ministry". Jesus said that "he that would be chief among you must be your minister"(just a paraphrase). But he meant by that to take the lowly position as he did when he washed the apostles feet. George thought of the word "minister" as applying to the word. That is why we were bombarded with the word at so many meetings, so many nights that your understanding was blurred. When a brother would share a good "word" at a meeting you would often hear people say "That brother is really growing in the Lord". Whereas a true growth in the Lord exhibits greater love and grace in your life. A godly minister does indeed share the Word, but he also cares greatly for his flock. "What does the Lord require of you oh man, but to do justly, LOVE MERCY,  and walk humbly with thy God"(Micah). "Let him that glorieth glory in this that he understands and knows me that I am the Lord which execute LOVINGKINDNESS, righteousness and judgement in the earth, for in these things I DELIGHT saith the Lord".(Jer. 9:23). Thank God he puts Lovingkindness first on the list of things which delight him, because if judegment came first I'd be in big trouble!! A true minister delights in what God delights----he takes the low road and displays lovingkindness to the flock. A minister is far more than a person who "preaches the Word"--and while I was in the Assembly that's all George did--he talked a lot.          --Joe

[Ken Fuller]

I used to write at EVERY Q&A we would have "Why, when everything we do is found in the scriptures do we use a made-up term and avoid the Biblically given terms of deacons, pastors, bishops"

It was NEVER read.  I know I asked that at least 10 times.

(funny we kept "elder" but nothing else)

How many times would you try to explain to somebody "well, we have what we call 'leading brothers' which is basically pastors or deacons or something ... "

Has anyone ever heard ministry on what pastors, deacons and bishops are???  Apart from hearing the Biblical "requirements" I don't remember ever being taught what those roles were, what the differentiation in each would be, and why we don't have any -- or at least have our own names for them.

That and the term "worker" always bothered me that they just weren't found in the "new testament pattern" that we supposedly got EVERYTHING we did from.

Oh but how many times I tried to explain it to people like I knew what it meant -- SHAME ON ME !!!!!!

[d3z]

How many times would you try to explain to somebody "well, we have what we call 'leading brothers' which is basically pastors or deacons or something ... "

The explanation given to me was that there was nobody available that met the qualifications of an elder.  Since we still needed "leadership", we just called them leading brothers.

I don't know if this was an "official" explanation, or just the attitude in some places.

One of the given determinations of when a place could begin "breaking bread", and be called an assembly rather than a work was supposed to be that local leadership was raised up.  Other than most not being local, that they don't really qualify is kind of an interesting point.

Dave