How is the experience of a church member different as a leader instead of just an audience participant?
The experience of a church member is different in that his involvement in the church is naturally much broader than the leaders of the church. The dynamic of an army provides a helpful analogy about how we might think about the difference between how a church leader and a church member engage in the Great Commission.
For example, foot soldiers naturally assume a broader potential for geographical impact than their generals do, and this is because of the job description of each parties inherent role. Foot soldiers invade physical space to a much greater degree than do their generals, and this is because the direct role of the foot soldiers is to effectively conquer space while the direct role of a general is to administratively send out others to conquer space. Indeed, the mission is the same, but the roles are different. Similarly, church members who are not leaders intrinsically assume a broader potential for geographical or relational impact into secular environments by virtue of their jobs that they vocationally assume. Church leaders, however, naturally assume a narrower potential for relational, secular impact because their relative environments are simply not as non-Christian as their lay members. Nevertheless, while both parties equally assume their roles in the same mission, their job descriptions entail differences of design and function. It is important, therefore, for each party to recognize their inherent need upon each other and their obligation to celebrate, serve, and honor each other–for they are not two, but one.
