AUTHORITY ISSUES II.

In the last post I wrote (see:below) I talked about issues around Authority in contemporary church models. In essence, I argued that a heirarchical approach to leadership is found nowhere in the New Testament outside the fact that Jesus is our leader, teacher and master (Matt 23:8). While a rant is all good and well, I didn't really demonstrate any desire to change the situation. What is the point of writing a post such as the one below which risks causing so much cynicism and destructiveness without suggesting ways we can better ouselves and the church in this area? Discussion of these issues is all very well and good, but if it doesn't translate into altered practice or methodology then it's just a big fat less-than-intellectual wank.

So in response to this God has really shown me this week that there is hope for the church. There is hope for this sick and disabled body of Christ to become better, to become the representation of Jesus we are meant to be. Earlier this week I had the chance to sit down with a fellow young pastor from a fairly new Wellington Church. In practice we have some serious differences in the way we go about ministry, yet somehow this year we have managed to come togeher in working to reach the young people of Wellington. Recently some of our different ideas on ministry have come to a point where polite avoidance of the issue was no longer an option.

On Friday morning outside a Wellington cafe we caught up and began to thrash some of this out. I explained to him how Church success cannot be measured in numerical terms and how the individual's well-being must be of chief concern to any pastor; in response he explained that a community without goals or objectives is likely to go nowhere. Both are truths of who God is. He wants us to believe for big things I'm sure, but we must also be willing to leave the ninety-nine for the one when the situation calls us to. As we raised voices and exchanged blows on ideas and methodology it only became clearer and clearer that we were on the same page. We shared our stories about where we've come from and what Jesus has been doing in our lives and it wasn't long before the differences began to fade away. EVERYTHING pales  in comparison to the cross of Christ.

It is as my friend Brook reminds me often, 'Unity is not seeing eye to eye, it's looking in the same direction.'

You see I reckon that movements and practices become a lot harder to get angry with when they have a name and a face. I remember having an amazing conversation with Ben Kendrew about his church (Arise, Wellington) while we were away on retreat. I shared that his expression of church scares the crap out of me, while he suggested maybe Blueprint could stand to get a little more excited about God from time to time. Yet again, both represented truths of who God is. My frustration is that we have these amazing discussions through the safety of blogs and forums yet often fail to build relationship with those who might challenge our theology or practice.

An example of this would be the rift between Emergent and Evangelical movements in the States. These two stances have distanced as far from each other as possible, when in reality they will be the strongest and most accurate body of Christ if 'the conversation' included both sides. Too many read books and listen to sermons that simply support their existing position. How can we expect to grow and find a truer expression of the gospel without deliberately engaging in conflict with those who we think have completely missed the boat?

Without doubt I will soon swing back the other way when Harvest Crusade comes to town again. But until then I'm sure that our greatest hope for correcting each other is through the deliberate pursuit of healthy conflict and discussion. We need to develop a gaze that looks for where God is moving, not just where he isn't. The only way to change a movement is one person at a time.

Powered by Qumana

AUTHORITY ISSUES...

I think it's time I began to blog again.
I've missed the opportunity to discuss and debate how we express our faith and think it's time to return to the fray.

Some recent experiences have got me thinking about the matter of authority. I am more and more convinced that, were I not in church leadership, I would be a problem for church leadership. It has forced me to ask some questions about myself and what I think about church. I belong to a community with a relatively flat leadership structure. Those who I take my lead from are also some of my closest friends. They are literally brothers to me and so their wisdom and guidance comes with an incredible weight and authority. To my thinking, there are two types of authority in our lives.

Firstly, prescribed authority. This is the kind of leadership is thrust upon the individual. I think in some situations this is appropriate. For example, our government. We ascribe to a series of social norms and laws that we all agree are best to keep society in order. Many of these of authorities are actually in place to give us greater freedom in the long run, and while we submit to these powers, we also have the opportunity to have our say through elections and citizen led referendums every few years. We choose people to make decisions on our behalf who we believe have our best interests at heart. An authoritarian or parent-state robs the individual of this freedom, and holds them captive to their vision of utopia. This kind of government has the interests of the leadership, and not the people, at heart.

Secondly, there is chosen authority. The leader must prove themself to their follower. God's vision of New Testament relationship never forces itself upon man. Authority is gained by serving the follower to the point of personal expense. 'The greatest among you will be the servant of all.' (Matt 23:11). Throughout the epistles we see Paul lay himself down for the church. In Phillipians he continues to write and pray for the Church even while held in jail by the Roman guard. The authority Paul had to speak to the churches was not out of fear or an iron fist, but one they chose to submit to because of the integrity of his ministry. It cost him everything to become who he was to the people, and out of this commitment they chose him. It is interesting to note that Paul's journey in itself was one from law enforcer to graceful servant. This is New Testament leadership.

And yet it seems in church culture we've completely screwed up this model. So often we are stuck in top-down structures where one individual sets the tone for thousands of people. To keep this individual in line a 'board' exists (normally comprised of business high-rollers rather than elders), and they continue to enforce the same set of values that keep their pay packet secure, and their control over the institution sure. The only way to ensure control is a legalistic and law-based institution that breeds a community of clones who plaster fake smiles on their faces to avoid upsetting the organisation. What we end up with is insecure leaders with insecure disciples all maintaining the same front for fear of upsetting others. Grace is replaced with law and we quickly lose the heart of the gospel Jesus died for.

The problem with grace is that it doesn't allow control. It relies on the individual to work out their own faith with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). It is as my friend Sam Harvey puts it, 'the scandalous mystery of grace'. It relies on us to live as equals in a community, considering each other more significant than ourselves. Anyway, just some thoughts to get the ball rolling - would love to hear your thoughts on the matter...

"But none of you should be called a teacher. You have only one teacher, and all of you are like brothers and sisters.
Don't call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven.
None of you should be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader."
Matthew 23:8-10

Powered by Qumana