This book is a recent release of Eerdmans (2000), as the second volume of the series called “First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World” for the Institute of Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge. As a historical search, the book gives a fascinating socio-historical background of the New Testament which will be helpful to students of Biblical studies. However, the content will also benefit students of practical studies as its major concern is about leadership practice in the early Christian community.

The focus of the book is to discuss “the nature of leadership in the early Christian community … taught by Paul and practiced in the congregations of the first century” (preface, ix). The book is divided into two major sections. The first of these sections mainly deals with different leadership practices of first century Graeco-Roman world, in which Christians had to locate themselves as a distinct social community. The second section is about how early Christians practiced their leadership within the church (and in front of the surrounding culture) as an application of their faith, while living in such diverse social contexts.

After first warning readers about “the hermeneutical gap” between distant Graeco-Roman world and modern society—in language, culture and philosophy—Clarke opens with a confession of the historical ambiguity related to his current topic. He promises that better answers will eventually come from the “significant wealth of archaeological finds” of recent decades (p. 5).

In part one, to overlay his background studies, Clarke categorizes five socio-political parties of Graeco-Roman world and gives detail discussion on each while indicating that how each party could undoubtedly influence the emerging Christian community. These are: wider Graeco-Roman cities and their political leadership tradition, growing Roman colonies (and cities) and their leadership system, less influential Graeco-Roman voluntary associations and their leadership practice, wide use of Roman household structure and patria potestas (absolute authority with the head) concept, and Jewish synagogue structure as the nearest leadership model for emerging Judeo-Christianity.

He was young in the Lord; rash and impulsive. He was also a born communicator, and immediately went out preaching and teaching, unencumbered by such banalities as sound doctrine and scriptural truth. That was where I was supposed to come in. When I mentioned in the company of other believers that I had to teach that boy sound theology I was surprised to hear what I now know is a common response: “make sure you don’t put out his fire for God!” Most will not come out and say it, but the sentiment is clearly felt: theology is dangerous.

Welcome to the Pentecostal/charismatic movement.

I am not sure where this fear of theology was birthed, but without a doubt it is with us. Though this does not reflect the attitude of the entire Pentecostal/charismatic movement, its influence is felt throughout. Few things are more shaky than a Christian movement that fails to emphasize the very structure that would preserve it: sound doctrine.

Thus, I was encouraged when I saw that Ministries Today had begun the Ministries Today Institute which describes itself as “A continuing Education Course to Equip Church Leaders”.  However, I was discouraged when I saw the May/June 2001 issue. The Institute teaching was titled “Healthy Church Apostles”. The subtitle read, “Every local church should have a healthy apostolic covering in order to be effective beyond its four walls.” The article goes into detail about how apostles are to be used in the local church. It was very specific, and reflected heavily the teaching of C. Peter Wagner.

Ministries Today has as its subscribers a large number of Pentecostal/charismatic leaders from many different doctrinal backgrounds. This movement is distinctive in its broad denominational following, as we are bound together by our common desire to see the contemporary work of the Spirit. As I read I kept thinking doesn’t MT realize the diversity of the movement?

This was not merely an article, but a teaching endorsed by Ministries Today. I have no desire to discuss the validity of the teaching set forth in the article. Rather, I question the wisdom of MT putting its name behind what is clearly a disputable doctrine. The alienation that can result from this is apparent in the opening paragraph. Note the unqualified statements:

Image: Daniel Tseng

We are in a subtle shift of Church leadership, which is going on around the world. The shift is in the way leaders think of ministry, view ministry, and function in ministry. C. Peter Wagner has carefully studied this change and has called it the New Apostolic Reformation. Because of this shift, if you’re conducting church the same way you were 10 years ago, you are already caught up in yesterday’s movement, and may be stuck in a religious system.

This would be acceptable in an article. But as part of their Institute, it is a sanctioned view of MT. As such, you can see what they are saying about those who reject this teaching, or are not “conducting church” in the ways prescribed in the article. Such a narrow and arguably obscure view is not in keeping with MT’s non-denominational stance.

Ministries Today’s commitment to educating church leaders is commendable, and I hope other Pentecostal/charismatic publications will soon follow suit. However, with our need for an understanding of the primary doctrines that unite us, I see no need for MT to endorse disputable teachings representing a small part of a large movement.

Reviewed by Mike Dies