Acts 29 has a posting listing the essential characteristics of a church planter as espoused by Dr. Charles Ridley. The list is quite practical and I’m sure immensely useful in helping to gage the readiness of someone to plant a church. While I haven’t read anything by Ridely and the other expert Scott Thomas quotes (Malphur), I have to wonder though if this approach can’t see the forest for the trees.

Where is any emphasis on the specific qualifications listed in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9? Surely those are more important than some of the practical qualifications that Ridley lists. Don’t misunderstand me - Ridley’s list is practical and I’m sure born from experience. But one of the results of the marks of maturity listed in 1 Tim is that such men become examples of the Christian life and of the power of God that is available in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The responsibility of the church is to select those men who are models and examples for the flock to follow. Ridley’s list, as such, leaves out much that is critical … i.e., not a new convert, able teacher, etc.

A gifted, natural leader who has been a Christian less than 6 months, never read most the Bible, and unable to teach a lick of Biblical truth potentially meet the requirements of Ridely’s list.

The passages in Timothy & Titus focus on the moral qualities of leadership and highlight the essential marks of maturity for Biblical leadership. Much of Ridely’s list seems more focused on the practical requirements of leadership from the perspective of corporate America. Given that a church planter is inherently a church leader (the lead elder), I’d really like to see Ridley’s list expanded to include discussion on the Biblical requirements.

Bob
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
__________________________
Bob Pratico
Fides Quaerens Intellectum
(my Sojourn blog)