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
1 comment:
I wouldnt be suprised if a lot of churches ground their reasons for authoritarian approaches in a risk-management mentality. If anything goes wrong in their church, they need to have the structures in place to be able to discipline people, and, more importantly (to them), to protect the image of their church in a pr way - to be seen to be doing something about problems, and have everything under control - so members feel secure, and so they don't lose face to the community. And often this is grounded in a sincere desire to want to be effective in ministering to their community. They want to build up trust with people, and protect their relationships so they can reach people outside the church. Often those outside the church will use any excuse to decry Christians and churches, so leaders want to keep things squeaky clean.
It all seems very sincere and well-intentioned, and it seems common sense. And it is common-sense when it comes to running things like a business, or some sort of trust board. However I think that concepts like risk management and pr apply very differently when it comes to leadership and management of a church. The way many conteporary leadership models apply these concepts is almost utopian. Now Jesus, the head of the church, is in one sense utopian. But in another he knows the Kingdom of God will not necessarily fully arrive until he returns. And examples of leadership throughout the Bible indicate God works with churches and leaders with all their messiness. He is not a God who likes to keep things tidy and neat. He is a God who likes to keep risk management in his own hands. And he is the only one who can successfully conduct pr with those outside the church.
On one hand we need to conduct ourselves in a way that leaves us blameless. But on the other we should be slow to try and orchestrate those around is into a squaky clean systematic church machine.
That's what I reckon...
Post a Comment