Some more writings on the development of a Scriptural community of Christ. It seems we have some work to do... It is guaranteed to be risky and difficult... But I sense, deeply, that the results will justify the risk and the work... The cohesive power that unites the various gifts and ministries of a congregation and causes them to function harmoniously as one body is nothing less than the total involvement of the Godhead in the work of the local church: the Spirit in relation to the different gifts, the Lord Christ in relation to the different kinds of service, and God the Father in relation to the different kinds of working (1 Cor. 12:4–6). The distribution of the gifts and ministries is the sovereign privilege of the Spirit (v. 11); but God is the one who arranges them in relation to each other just as he wants them to be (vv. 18, 24b), so that the harmonious whole constitutes the body of Christ (v. 27). From cooperative oneness above proceeds functional oneness within the human community. The imposition of humanly derived, split-level dichotomies on this divinely ordered oneness can only defeat the purposes they are intended to achieve. At the human level, oneness does not just happen on its own. It takes hard work to bring it about, and once it is there, it takes hard work to protect it. A fallen world dominated by rulership applies relentless pressure on the church to stratify its relationships into hierarchy. The deceptive point of access of hierarchy into the Christian community is through leadership roles misconstrued as positions of power. Not confusing gifts of leadership with positions of power would go a long way toward the protection of community. The following is a random listing of some suggestions for clergy and laity to work together for the decentralization of church ministries: Train laypeople to develop their spiritual gifts and invest them in ministry teams. Train church staff not to do themselves what laypeople can do but to help them do it. Allow leadership and ministry teams to have one or two retreats every year. Train church leadership to maintain a low servant profile. Always think of leadership in terms of team leadership. Elect church officers in consideration of the spiritual gifts needed on the board(s) of the church. Elect church officers for one-year renewable terms. This allows for flexibility should changes be necessary and for continuity in the case of proven spiritual gifts. The “senior” pastor should be a board member, equally accountable to it and not its chair. Select and appoint pastors in function of the spiritual gifts required by the church for its next stage of development. Do not expect pastors to minister outside of their gift areas. As soon as the growth of the church justifies it, appoint multiple staff with complementary gifting. Expect the staff to work as a team, even to team-teach and to team-preach. Expect each leader to mentor individually his or her potential replacement. Keep communication lines open between congregation and leadership through periodic newsletters and congregational Question and Answer sessions. To defuse potential conflicts, require that complaints and grievances be submitted to the church board. Do not dismiss a staff or office-holder without requiring the person involved to explain to the congregation the reason for his or her departure. Never allow style of leadership to devalue persons in need of leadership. Train staff, lay leaders, and congregation always to think of themselves as servants, servants, servants (1 Cor. 3:5; 4:1). The simplistic premises that underlie authority-based leadership enable dominant individuals to establish themselves as rulers because their task is relatively uncomplicated. Right or wrong, they make the decisions. They are not required to submit to the painstaking process of negotiation and deliberation. If they do, they still control final outcomes. Might makes right. Not so with leadership biblically defined. Because of the exacting complexities of servant leadership, no one individual can presume to assume all the responsibilities that it entails. In a hierarchical system, the strong man or the person in charge hands down decisions that may not be questioned or criticized. Even if issues are allowed to be discussed, the strong individual leader arrogates the right to make final decisions for the group. The servant leadership approach is much more subtle and therefore much more demanding. A typical approach may require servant leaders to bring to the attention of the community matters of concern that affect its life so that the group may, in turn, commission them to seek resolutions (Acts 15:2–3). This may require groups of people to meet in order to consider such matters together (vv. 4, 6). Their consultation may involve much discussion (v. 7) and even times when the whole assembly becomes silent (v. 12). Opportunity must be given to all competent people to participate in the discussion (vv. 12–13) until a consensus is reached (v. 22); this then becomes the decision of the Holy Spirit (v. 28), because the community was involved together in discerning the mind of God. Servant leadership operates on the basis of group consensus or of representative consensus, not of unilateral, autocratic, top-down decision-making. The New Testament contains a strong rationale for the necessity of authority structures in secular society (Matt. 22:16–21; Rom. 13:1–7; 1 Tim. 2:1–2; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13–17). Because the fallen world does not have the mind of Christ, it cannot function in an orderly fashion without someone taking charge and enforcing rules. A similar apologetic for the practice of authority within the church cannot be found in the New Testament. If anything, the Scriptures explicitly forbid Christians to run their communities in the manner of “the rulers of the Gentiles” or of “their high officials [who] exercise authority over them” (Matt. 20:25). The secular world is governed by ruler-to-subject relations. The distinctive mark of relations in Christian communities, however, is that they conform to a subject-to-subject model of interactive life (Eph. 5:21). The world cannot function effectively without leaders controlling their subjects; the church cannot function effectively when leaders control their constituency. The Holy Spirit’s dynamic for community is not for some to control others but for all to be mutually submissive as servants. In this perspective, the task of Christian leaders is not to use positions of authority to control the community but to band together as servant leaders to work for the best interests of the community. There may be times when control may be necessary to correct evil behavior, thus serving the best interests of the group, but only as measures of exception in situations of crisis and never as a normal way of life. Under normal circumstances, the purpose of leadership is to enable the group to exercise its own corporate responsibility. Because of checks and balances, a group of leaders is less likely to become corrupted and to usurp the authority of the community than a strong individual leader who might gain ascendancy over it. When it comes to leadership, there is safety in numbers. The pressure exerted on the Christian mind to conform to the pattern of this world and to impose on Christian communities orders of hierarchy extraneous to it is relentless (2 Cor. 11:20; Gal. 4:8–9; 5:1). The power of such influences is demonstrated by the proliferation of religious sects that claim scriptural support to subject their converts to authoritarian and controlling designs. It can even affect the translations of the Scriptures we hold in our hands, as with unwarranted insertions of the word “authority” where it is absent in the original text (Heb. 13:17 NIV; 1 Peter 3:1; 5:5 NRSV). The best defense against autocratic takeovers of Christian congregations is a constitutionally protected plurality Bilezikian, Gilbert (2009-08-30). Community 101 (pp. 160-163). Zondervan.
Posted on: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:21:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015