Who's To Judge?

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 4:5 NASB)

One area of confusion within church and living out faith in Jesus is the idea of judging other believers.  In my opinion from my observations, here's what I think is going on:

• Christians state to each other and to non-believers that we are not to judge each other at all.
• In general practice, believers compare themselves to others in matters of faith, practice, belief, intelligence, and acceptability before God.
• In general practice, believers only reveal their judgements to people they believe will agree with their 'judgment' or in anger with anyone.

This is a huge generalization, and my observations are limited to my own church experiences in the few churches with which I've been a part.  I have myself been guilty of these statements and behaviors, and I have witnessed people from old, young, ministers, professional clergy, the educated and uneducated alike behaving in this way.

Part of the problem is that there are contrary Scriptures which claim that we will know each other by our 'fruit', i.e. our Christ-like behavior.  In fact, in the very next chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul states that he has, with the believers there in Corinth, already passed judgement on one of their own.  Other passages state that believes are to be wary of 'false teachers' and so on.  How can we do that if we don't judge others?  If we do these things, aren't we violating the clear admonitions above?

One of the problems involved with this issue is the language barrier between English and Greek.  Unfortunately this is exacerbated by cultural differences between modern American culture and first century Roman/Greek/Jewish culture.  But there is also the problem that Paul actually does mix his terminology with these statements, where in both prohibition and promotion he will use 'legal' terms for 'judgement'.

The answer to reconciling these separate concepts is to examine the context; literary and historical/cultural.  So, here's my interpretation, and probably a gross oversimplification of Paul's intent here:

• In chapter 4, Paul has church members and their 'assessment' of him in view.
• In chapter 5, Paul has church members and their 'acceptance' of sin in view.

The problems start when we find the terminology is pretty much the same.  I labeled what they do to him as 'assessment' but he uses the term 'judgment' as in the legal term as well.  I used the term 'acceptance' but he again uses 'judgment' there.  So, since the difference isn't the terminology, it must be found in the objects.

The 'assessment' of Paul in chapter 4 has to do with his 'fitness' to teach, how 'wise' he is, how well he led, and so on.  It wasn't dealing with a sin or some unscriptural teaching on his part.  The 'acceptance' of the church member in chapter 5 has to do with a clear violation of Scriptural teaching.

I'm going to revisit this again with chapter 5 and 6 later, but I wanted to first put forth the problematic seeming contradiction first.  Partly because it causes confusion, and mostly because I believe 'we're doing it wrong' when it comes to 'judgmentalism'.  I was the target of a religious groups judgmental attitude, and it had nothing to do with sin.  I'm no longer a vocational minister, and would no longer consider such a position because of their treatment.  So I have an emotional stake in this, I freely admit that.  Perhaps I still have some resentment that I need to surrender to my Master, even after all these years (it's only been 15 after all).

But I also believe the church does need to address sin within the body.  This usually falls on the pastor to preach at or address.  But while that may be necessary, it also falls to the responsibility of the believers at large to confront and address sin found among them.  This is dangerous ground because the point to the exercise, as Jesus describes it in Matthew 18, is the restoration of the 'offender', not their 'destruction'.  Like I said, we're not doing it right.  And we don't do it well.  But I also believe we can both do it, and do it well.  We just need to think through what we're doing and why.  So, who's to judge? I believe we are...sometimes.

Leadership: Surviving The Fire of Life

Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.  If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.  If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15 NASB)

These verses refer to work in a church, among believers, by those called by the Spirit of God to lead.  The 'building' refers to the work or teaching.  The building materials some how relate to the content or intent of the teaching or work.  But I'm interested this morning in the 'fire'.  What makes up the 'fire' used to test the quality of the work?

Gordon Fee pointed out that 'fire' is used as either 'smelter' fire which 'refines' quality (i.e. makes it better), or 'testing' fire which determines the quality.  Quality things withstand fire better than poor quality things.  This is not a reference to refining, but to testing.  So, what sort of things 'test' the quality of teaching or work of church leaders?

Normally, with either refining or testing, the fire corresponds to life events, difficult, stressful, perhaps disastrous, occurrences in life.  If that holds true here, then Paul is saying that those who have been building on the foundation of Jesus Christ which he laid will have their work (content or activity) tested by coming life events.  I suppose it makes little difference whether it's persecution events or simply secular upheaval of some sort.  The point of his statement is more about the revealed quality.

I suspect that his comment about surviving but as through fire may make more sense in relation to persecution events, but I still think it makes little difference.  His overarching point is that the quality of the content of work and teaching will be shown.  Life, as he knew it, and I suspect as we know it, simply does that with anything.  Life is 'hard' regardless of what is done or where one lives.  The 'hard' may look different, but the effects are often similar.

What I'm getting from this exercise is that I need to be careful.  I'm not some great leader in our church, expounding on Scripture, or one a bunch of people look to for wisdom and insight.  I lead a small group and manage the coffee bar.  But even with the limited impact I have, the content of the work and teaching I do will be tested.  In the fire of a life lived in a world in rebellion against my Master, the quality of my teaching and work within this church will be revealed for what it is.  I may escape the flames, but will I come away empty smelling of smoke, or with the gems and gold of my work revealed?

What is my fire?  Have I already passed through (I doubt it)?  Does it loom on the horizon?  What will it look like?  How will I respond?  Is there an effective drug for paranoia?  Where do I get some?  Why are you looking at me that way?  Did that guy just look at me?  Does he know?  Why is everyone talking about me?  Could I be any more narcissistic?  Can you imagine a world revolving around you?  No?  Then worry about the 'fire' testing your work, it'll suddenly show up, that 'paradigm' with you in the center.  I don't recommend paranoid schizophrenia, you know, if you can help it.  Try and leave that part of the paradigm out.

Okay, so worrying about the 'fire' also misses the point.  Obviously, the point is that I should build, work, and teach with quality so I won't have to worry about the fire.  I need to be careful what I teach, careful how I serve, mindful of Who I serve, and provide people quality on behalf of my Master, Jesus Christ.  It's a lot less stressful than a PS disorder or taking funky drugs to prevent it.  No sense over emphasizing myself; that would guarantee poor content, ensuring the eventual demise of whatever I teach or do.  Again, a focus on my Master, Jesus, should guarantee successful quality.

More Than Human?

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:4 NASB)

 Science fiction, one of my favorite genre's of fiction, often looks at the evolutionary development of humans beyond where we are.  What would we look like? What would we be able to do?  And often, something powerfully mental, sometimes insubstantial, yet almost 'godlike' follows.  As if the transition from flesh to spirit is evolutionary.  I'm not sure why people don't see what's being grasped for is what is promised in Scripture, but they don't.

Yet, one of my own personal ambitions is to be able to live my life in both the spiritual and physical realms simultaneously.  I believe that this is part of what my Master intends for His followers, but I have met very few who I would say live this way; perhaps I haven't met any.  I say that because it seems that such people aren't interested in pointing it out, so I'd have to notice and deduce it from their behavior and attitudes.

So, godless, atheistic Star Trek and Star Wars, and so many other science fiction movies and writings seem to believe in the eventual evolutionary improvement of humanity.  Yet, all the changes viewed in the past 1,000 years (or 2,000) only seem to indicate a downward spiral in the good traits, and a tidal increase in the basest traits.  The trend does not favor a positive evolutionary track for us homo sapiens.

Mostly, I would say that Scripture doesn't offer much hope that way either, except for this verse.  It is possible that Paul is operating out of an assumption on the part of the Corinthian believers about themselves; in that they believe they are spiritual and have left humanity behind.  But his wording in verses three and four leave open the possibility that he is comfortable with their terminology, just not their practice.  Therefore, I wonder if they derived their terminology from Paul's teaching when he was among them.  Is it possible to be more than human?

In answering this question, I have to move along the progression of Paul as he refers to the Corinthian believers, in verses 1 through 4 especially.  He begins by denying their 'spiritual' quality (a Greek adjective derived from spirit), but only in that he couldn't 'speak' to them that way, not denying the essential quality of the people.  In other words, he leaves open the possibility that they are spiritual, yet not acting like it.  He uses the comparison between 'of spirit' and 'of flesh', saying he spoke to them as 'of flesh'

In verse 2 Paul continues the image he introduced in verse 1 of them being 'infants' not ready for meat, and claims they are even then, still infants.  His support for this claim is found in verse 3.  Here his sentence begun in verse 2 is completed by stating they are still 'fleshly' (a slightly different word than used in verse 1, but very similar in meaning).  His support for his claim is their behavior in claiming a 'group' or faction within the church and the resulting strife over polarizing in said factions.  His wording is interesting though.

In verse 3 Paul says the Corinthian believers are 'fleshly' but also, 'walking about according to human' (anthropos, where we get anthropology).  This isn't the word for male or female, but the generic word for humanity at large; not even separated by people groups, but everyone.  It's possible that certain people groups were excluded in common use or reference; as slurs against one group or another.  But the word was used for humanity in its highest form, as opposed to 'gods' or other powerful beings.

So, then in verse 4, Paul now points out that it is these factions that indicate they are simply 'people'.  Let's not lose sight of the contrast between these references and 'spiritual' in verse 1.  While Paul doesn't come back to it, it still 'hangs in the air' probably more so in Corinth because it was their assumption about themselves.  He didn't need to keep repeating it, only his denial of the proof of it in their lives.

If Paul can and does adopt this terminology leaving open the possibility of its validity, then can we consider it as a possibility; that we we can be more than human?  Let me also then throw back into the argument that Paul does not deny that they are the alternative 'spiritual' but that they are not behaving like it.  In other words, Paul also leaves open the option that they are, even in the wrong behavior, still more than human.

I'm not going to 'unpack' that right now, I'm simply going to leave it and return to it later.  I have run out of time this morning, but I also have run out of a 'train of thought'.  If I am right now, more than human, what does that mean?  Hmmm.  Let me think about that.  I'll get back to you.

Of Meat and Milk

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?  For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-4 NASB)

Paul refers to the content of his teaching and describes two levels, meat and milk.  He refers to the food of infants and real food for the more mature.  And the teaching references are spiritual references, so I'm assuming the maturity is also spiritual.  I don't think anyone would debate that part, but the content of either I believe would be debatable.

Here, Paul writes to people who consider themselves 'spiritual' and even grade themselves in relation to the spirituality of others; competitively it seems.  Seeing this behavior Paul calls them 'fleshly'; the polar opposite of 'spiritual'.  Since he's writing to such people, is it possible that the content of his letter would constitute 'meat'?

I suppose the problem we face as 21st Century believers, followers of the same Jesus, is that Paul's letters are very often in response to problems within the church rather than to relate deep spiritual truth, the meat.  He is fixing things (or attempting to) for 'infants' so that the content would be expected to be more 'milk' than 'meat'.  This makes the debate about the content of his deeper spiritual content more difficult.  But I wonder if it 'peeks through' in some places.

When I think of 'building on a foundation' and compare or relate that to 'teaching' what I envision is what we call 'unpacking' a topic or truth.  Therefore, if Paul lays the foundation which is Jesus and Him crucified, then what is built on that foundation would be teaching stemming from that truth.  So far you should be saying, 'well duh.'  If you're not, you probably won't like where this is going.

Since teaching stemming from the truth of a Crucified Jesus would have been taught in a culture, over 2000 years old, there is a real possibility what Paul unpacked would not make all that much sense to us today.  For instance, in this letter, he spends an inordinate amount of time on the topic of food sacrificed to idols; not something we concern ourselves with as we shop in Walmart or Windixie.

So, some topics that constituted Paul's 'meat teaching' may have made little sense to us today.  On the other hand, much of what Paul teaches about spiritual gifts does seem to apply today, and gets largely ignored.  That may indicate we have more 'infants' than we thought.  It may also indicate that much of the 'meat teaching' of Paul would apply to us today.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is to catch glimpses of Paul's 'meat teaching' through his letters to churches.  On the other hand it would then be expected much more of this teaching to peek through in his letters to Timothy and Titus, perhaps Philemon.  But what about Luke and Acts?  Luke's writing is accepted because of his association with Paul, so it would also be assumed that Paul's teaching peeks through in Luke's writing.

Considering these sources, the pastoral epistles, to a lessor degree the church epistles, and perhaps below that Luke and Acts; what can be gleaned from them of the deeper teaching, the continued building and growth of Paul's teaching?  I don't truly know.  I don't believe I have spent enough time in depth in these works to be confident that I can relate what I would call Paul's deeper teaching.  But I will, or at least I hope to.  My goal is to work through the whole of Scripture from the original languages (not the original texts, but what my Master has preserved for me through today).  As I do, I will be looking for the gleanings of Paul's deeper teaching.

I suppose the lesson I learn from this passage is that there is more than even what I read in the 'milk' of Paul's teaching.  But part of what I learn from this more shallow teaching is that what lies below will correspond to what has been found already.  I won't dig to find some acceptance of a sinful lifestyle which he denounces in the more shallow stuff.  I won't find toleration of sin below.  I won't find a weakening of the deity of Christ Jesus down there.  I won't find some teaching that undermines the inspiration of Scripture in among the tilings as I mine the words of Paul.  I have no doubts about that, none.

I suspect I will find as I dig clearer understanding of what it means to perambulate before the throne of my Master every minute of every day, and the unimaginable joy found therein.  I will be characterized by peace, kindness, gentleness, and the wholeness sought so diligently by Eastern Mysticism in the wrong place.  But I also believe I will loose myself, forgetting somewhat who I am and what I have tried to make myself about.  Discovering instead that my striving was all for nothing compared to what my Master had for me all along, there will also be mourning over the waste I created, but only momentarily.  For I will also discover eternity.

All What Things?

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS"; and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."  So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God. (Acts 3:18-23 NASB)

On the surface, this ending of this particular segment of this particular argument sound really familiar.  Paul again returns to wise and foolish and God.  Here though, Paul does something that threw me.  He says that 'all things belong to you' which I'm not sure I understand.  The reason I'm not sure I understand is because at first I thought he was being sarcastic, but he winds up serious, and saying the same thing.  I think he's serious about that.

 Part of my dilemma with this statement is the ambiguity of 'all things'.  If he were referring to the 'all the things I've just brought up' then why not put a 'these' in there, 'all these things'?  Paul leaves those out sometimes, and even that would not have solved all the ambiguity.  The progression of 'all things' to those things of 'Paul' or 'Apollos' or 'Peter' to world, life, death, present, future, and then that all that with the Corinthian believers added in, belong to Jesus and He to God creates a categorical interpretation.

So what Paul means is truly all of creation.  But this includes 'ideas', not just material things.  Things of Paul or Apollos, or Peter refers to 'teachings' and so ideas are also included in this 'all'.  And states of being, as in life or death, are also included in this 'all'.  And time is included, both present and future.  This ambiguous 'all' is truly all encompassing.

So it's big, so what?  In what way do 'all things' in the widest sense of this word actually belong to the believers in Corinth?  It's not like they can 'control' all things, so it's not ownership in that sense.  This is probably one of those passages used by some theological strains of Christianity to support a view that 'dominion' in Genesis 1 and 2 referred to all creation, and therefore we as believers today have 'control' (or are supposed to) over all things.  I don't think that is what is being said here.

So I will derive my understanding of the way in which believers have 'all things' from the context.  This passage occurs in a discussion of the wrong behavior of the believers.  They considered themselves 'spiritual' yet were behaving like fleshly people.  They considered themselves 'wise' but were acting foolish.  They looked about them and considered themselves in light of others around them, competing with each other, and trying to 'get over' on each other.  What I think Paul is saying is that they have all things as opposed to some having more than others.

I believe that Paul is setting the believers up for the next chapter where he can ask, 'what do you have that you have not received?'  What I have is what God has intended for me to have.  I have it from Him.  Why would I think I don't have enough?  And why would I think I have any more than my brothers and sisters?  These questions remove the pride and boasting.  They set me on a completely different footing, one I desperately need.  I'm not 'missing' something like some piece is missing.  But I've also not 'acquired' more than someone else making me rich and them poor.

Can I also point out that this too belongs in the context of church?  So my 'wealth' in that 'all things belong to me' fall under the umbrella of church. I get there two ways.  First, the 'you' here is plural (easily seen in Greek, not so easily seen in English).  Second, all things (including the believers) belong to Jesus.  I believe that the 'wealth of my Master' is mine, but as I am a part of His church.  I don't believe I'm as 'wealthy' or that I have nearly 'all things' when I keep myself from gathering and worshiping and serving with fellow believers.

Okay, so I have all things, and am not 'lacking' something.  So now, my challenge is live out these words, this truth.  It's not easy, partly because my enemy whispers and yells that I'm lacking something I see in someone else, he's fostering jealousy and fear.  And he's wrong.  Jesus has not shorted me; my Master has not left me an orphan.  The truth remains for me to believe and live out. 

Of Temples, Teachers, and Teaching

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?  If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)

Pulled out of the rest of the chapter, and left in English without explanation, these two verses can be thought to refer to individuals.  This use of the reference to 'temple of God' sounds much like chapter 6 verse 19 in which the individual is in view.  Here the church is in view.

Paul has been referring to the church as God's 'building' and now becomes more specific than 'building' calling them the temple.  And it's not just a 'temple' including the precincts and auxiliary structures, this word refers to the inner sanctuary, the dwelling place of the god.  As temples make up much of the structures in downtown Corinth, this would have been a ready reference for them to grasp.  For Paul's Jewish background, this would have been the 'Holy-of-Holies' or inner sanctuary of which it was a part.

So what?  It shouldn't surprise me that the Spirit of my Master dwells in my church, considering He dwells in the individuals in it.  The key point that I believe Paul is making is the destruction of said 'temple'.  In other words, the problems which have taken up his initial discussion in these first 3 chapters are destroying the church.  So the 'leaders' participating in or inciting the polarizing factions are destroying the church with their worldly human wisdom both in patterns of behavior and teaching.  They are the ones trying to build on Paul's foundation, possibly trying to replace his foundation, but building with hay stubble and straw.

While Paul makes allowance that those who build on (teach in) the church may survive the test of fire (v.15), here he says God will destroy the one destroying the church.  There's no 'salvation' in that phrase, whatever allowance Paul makes in verse 15.  Combining these two verses in the same context helps make my point that arguments over 'eternal security' versus 'apostasy of the saved' are difficult and amusing (for me anyway).  So, I'm moving on from there.

What I see here is a serious warning which in my formative religious tradition was both ignored and experienced.  In the denomination from which I come, 'church splits' were not only common, but disastrous.  And each ensuing disaster became a lesson not learned.  Small community churches of the same denomination on facing street corners contained people who would not even look across the street.  Years later some knew of the division, but not why, yet still maintained the distance.

In the church I grew up in, we never had a split that formed another church, but I do remember 'groups' leaving the church to join another.  I suppose a case can be made that there were some churches that started from one or more of those groups, but they never lasted.  Even so, the division itself was seen as a viable option, regardless of these teachings of Paul.

These divisions were not due to 'sin', violation of clear core Scriptural teaching, or anything approaching that.  They were over 'personality differences', they stemmed from selfish ambition, bitterness of heart, lack of forgiveness, and envy.  Ironically, these are the same things that prompted so much of Paul's writing, and therefore lots of teaching available to those willing to read.  And yet, knowing the words and allowing them to affect the heart wasn't happening.

So the lesson for me here is that I have to not only read these words, study their meaning and unpack their implications, but I have to permit my Master's Spirit to impress them into my heart, my soul, and my mind.  They have to directly affect my decisions, my choices, and my thought processes.  The warning here is that if I get 'off track' and begin teaching out of my own bitterness, selfishness, fear, and envy; I will be destroyed by my Master.

It sounds harsh but the church, the bride of Christ, is at stake.  It is my Master defending His beloved, His betrothed, which is obviously not me, but His church; of which I'm supposed to be a part.  So, perhaps teaching a belief that I can be His beloved apart from His 'bride' is actually a contradiction.  Wouldn't removing such a contradiction strengthen the 'temple of God' rather than risk destroying it?  Hmmm.

Church Leaders vs. Church-Goers: A Big Part Of The 'Problem'

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.  I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.  So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.  Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.  For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. (1 Corinthians 3:5-9 NASB)

From the inception of gathered followers of Jesus, that group has had 'personality issues'.   Many of  these issues have stemmed from difficulties between the leaders and the followers.  This is a huge and hotly debated area of theology called 'Ecclesiology'.  There are all sorts of interpretations of roles and responsibilities of various terms for church leaders used in Scripture.  But one element that seems consistent regardless of term used, description of role, or limits of responsibility is the character of 'servant'.

One problem in the church in Corinth was their view of church leaders.  The people were polarizing around various leaders who had been there, were there, or were known.  And these polarized groups within the church were causing strife among all those gathered to worship.  Paul's point from the very outset of this letter (possibly his second, but the first we have) to this church is to correct this view.

Digging his way through 'wisdom' versus 'foolishness' and their schisms and 'spiritual versus human', Paul now pulls all these previous discussions down to the core of their problem; the one from which others originate:  The foundation on which the church is founded.  These believers have pulled the church away from their origins in heaven and instead grounded it in the human temporal experiences of their 'world'.  For Paul, this actually destroys the church.

His answer to this problem is to, once again, tie them back to God.  Rather than separate groups (I am of whomever), they are to be one group under God.  They are God's building, God's field.  This makes the church leaders builders and field workers (not the landowner).  The picture Paul draws here is really more of a sketch, and other passages are needed to really flesh out his view of church leadership.  But in this sketch, the leaders are actually not that far removed from the people themselves.  In fact a good case can be made that Paul's criticism of the church at this point almost completely blurs the lines between leaders and lay people.

Here's where I believe Paul 'blurs the lines': "Neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth."  I once referred to myself in a church I was pastoring as a 'bell-sheep'.  That really frustrated my people.  I said that they were to follow me as I followed Jesus, but that we were all supposed to be following Jesus.  I believe they wanted a 'priest' who would intercede for them before God so they wouldn't have to; they wanted someone to be righteous for them so they didn't have to carry such a burden.  I don't know that for a fact, but it sure seemed like I was caught in the middle between very frustrating people and my Master.  I kept trying to get them to look past me to my Master, and they couldn't see anything but me (and that's not a pretty view, let me tell you).

So the lines between leaders and followers in the church is blurry, but it's not without definition.  Paul is not working through roles and responsibilities here except to say that those roles and responsibilities differ from each leader to the next, and that they all are part of God's calling on the leader.  In other passages Paul relates roles and responsibilities (some in this letter).  But here he does point to the very close relationship between leaders and those following in that both belong to God, both are answerable to the same Person.  This is a very powerful and sobering reality.

For those following church leaders, they will answer to the Creator of the universe for how they do so.  For those leading those following, they will answer to the Creator of the universe for how they do so.  In other words, those leading and those following will both stand before the same God to answer for their respective roles and responsibilities (and yes, followers have responsibilities).

In my limited understanding, this places the 'context' for church leadership within the same context of 'spiritual gifts', perhaps even within that category (see verse 10).  This would place church leadership alongside everyone else in the church using their own gifting from the Spirit to fulfill the purpose and design of the same Master.  So, for me, it's a very intertwined, enmeshed relationship between leaders and followers.  In many ways, this is both frustrating for those following, and terrifying for those leading.  And this I know from experience on both sides.