field of dreams part iv
In passing it is worth noting that one important reason why we should be suspicious of hierarchical top-down notion of leadership is because we know from history and from human nature that institutional systems confer social power and concentrates it at the top. The problem is precisely because of human nature that we should be very wary of such power in human hands. It almost always corrupts and damages the relational fabric that constitutes the church. Very few people can handle it and not be altered by it—perhaps only the great. History is quite clear of that. At least we should learn this from the Lord of the Rings trilogy where the ring of power exercises a powerfully alluring and corruptive power on those who wield it. Besides, the servant/slave image of leadership (dis)qualifies all forms of top-down power leadership and establishes the bottom-up servant approach (Rom.1:1, Tit.1:1, etc.) Jesus could not be more explicit when he says to his disciples, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves” ( Luke 22:25-27
.) Snyder is right when he says that “The New Testament does not teach hierarchy as the principle of either authority or organization in the church” and that “Jesus seems to be opposed to both the abuse of power and the hierarchical structure on which (such) power was based.”
But there are powerful metaphors that help us to avoid the alluring notions of top-down coercive power; ones which aid us in understanding our task of creating environments where missional church can arise. At Forge Mission Training Network, we like to think of ourselves as midwives to a new dream. Our stated mission is to ‘help birth and nurture the missional church in Australia and beyond.” And while this describes is our own particular calling, the idea of being midwives is both a very biblical and humane image of leadership and I recommend it to you here as describing the actual mode of leadership which informs all authentic apostolic influence. A midwife aids and assists in the birth of a child. All that he/she makes sure that all the conditions are right for a healthy birth—the birth is the result of things beyond the midwife’s influence. It is interesting that Socrates called himself a midwife and that he saw his role as helping others discover the truth for themselves. This he did by the constant use of questions which drove the learner to their own insights and observations. Jesus is very ‘midwifey’ through his use of questions, stories, and parables.
But perhaps one more image of this quality of leadership is needed to pin this concept down in our minds, and this is the image of a farmer. A good farmer creates the conditions for growth of healthy crops to develop by tilling the soil, replenishing it with nutrients, removing weeds, scattering the seeds, and watering the field. He/she is wide open to natural rhythms of nature which are out of hihe/sher control and so they are reliant on God for the sun and rain. The seed itself, if given the right conditions, will flourish in this type of environment and produce good crops. All that the farmer does is to create the right environment for this mysterious process of life to take place.
Apostolic ministry works in precisely the same way. Paul even alludes to similar organic processes in 1 Cor. 3:5-8 when he says “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field….” In fact the bible is laced with organic images that engender an ‘ecological view’ of church and leadership (seeds, ground, yeast, body, flock, trees, etc.) If we remodeled our leadership and churches with these organic metaphors in mind we would develop a more fertile communal life. And organic view of church is much richer because it is truer to, and more consistent with, the inner structure of life and cosmology itself.
Comments
15 Responses to “field of dreams part iv”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
the reason for god
- Amanda said: Wow, looks like an... the last thing to convert…is the wallet
- Richard Clarke said: The version I heard had...
- Andrew Park said: Money on a different...
- Andrew said: Relates directly to...
- Dan Lowe said: You know, if this was a...
- Amanda said: hehe, it's funny because...
- Lucy J said: Kinda reminds me of a...
- Eric said: The story goes that... the role of theology in faith
- Ed Magee said: thanks Janet, intersting...
- Janet said: "Are people looking for...
I am LOVING this whole series of posts. Great stuff and very helpful! Thanks!
I totally agree Alan.
My issue is the current structure of church absolutely will NOT allow for a non-hierarchical leadership.
Farms and midwives exist within a certain structure (as did the the churches Paul planted) but that structure is nearly non-existent today.
When you base a church around a worship service with 100+ people you NEED hierarchy. It’s BETTER for that model. You can tweak that model and try to force the N.T. leadership structure but it won’t help it.
I believe there are structures that will allow for apostolic servant leadership but everywhere I go, even when people like the kind of things you’re saying, they are NOT willing to make the structural changes that will allow for this.
Some of them in my opinion are -
* the 5-fold ministry must be itinerant and NOT rooted indefinitely to one work.
* 5-fold minsters must be funded for their calling and not by a position in a single church
* discipleship training tools must be EXTREMELY effective so people are not forever dependent on those “above” them in a hierarchy
* worship services can NOT be the center of church life (they flourish long-term only under hierarchy and rooted paid staff positions)
* a powerful “city church” must emerge where the 5-fold can freely minister allowing simple body churches in homes to remain organic with flat leadership.
So how can we suggest any of these leadership changes unless we change the structure that necessitates them?
Good comments Jeremy. The only thing I would say is that we must not confuse hierarchy with structure. We need structure…all organic systems do. Movements can grow very large indeed and for that they need structure. Hierarchy however is clearly verboten in the NT. We need to find a way to have structure without falling into the trap of hierarchical leadership. God help us!!
I like the distinction between structure and hierarchy. Any htoughts about what structure looks like w/o hierarchy? Maybe some concrete examples in existing churches that pull this off?
In China, government regulations that “force” the structure of house churches with 10 people or less (any meetings of more than 10 people must be registered with the government) are arguably one of the key factors releasing exponential growth. (Passionate spirituality in the context of persecution must surely be another). The New Testament churches were often a bit larger than this, but none were “megachurches”.
I think this supports Jeremy’s contention that if we really want to release the gifts of all believers in “exponential” potential, we need to consider more than reformation of current leadership practice… we need to look at restructure. Wolfgang Simpson certainly argues this emphatically… the body of Christ must be structured in the way Christ designed it to be… cellular!
For those currently working in more traditional local churches, Alan Roxburgh would suggest running “organic / cell / missional” expressions of ministry alongside the existing church ministries… for good pastoral reasons. (Only a minority of people in any given church are ready to embrace radical change straight away).
I agree with most everything Alan writes about. He has many great insights. However, to suggest that “the servant/slave image of leadership (dis)qualifies all forms of top-down power leadership” or that “Hierarchy however is clearly verboten in the NT” is a mistaken concept. Take, for example, parent-children relationships, where in their hierarchy children clearly obey their parents (Eph. 6:1-3
). Or take Jesus relationship to his father, where he clearly obeyed his father while on earth. Or take Paul’s relationship to the Corinthians, where he says that he will “lord it over their faith” (2 Cor. 1:24
), but they are to “obey him in everything” (2 Cor. 2:9
), and that he has authority over them (2 Cor. 13
). 2 Cor. is key here: Paul goes out of his way to be a servant, to show how he is their slave, yet, like a parent with a child, he has authority over them. Hebrews 13:17
makes it clear - there is a place for us to “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.” If these passages don’t affirm a servant-based-hierarchy, what is? Hierarchy is not inherently evil, but lording authority over people in a hierarchy is . . . .
Typo . . .Or take Paul’s relationship to the Corinthians, where he says that he will NOT “lord it over their faith” (2 Cor. 1:24
),
Bob, your point is well taken, but I don’t equate the call to obey with hierarchical authority at all. Clearly there are relations which express authority, but again, I think we must not confuse authority (exousia) with normal, and worldly, notions of social and political power.
My own conversion in all this came from studying the life of Jesus. It was Jesus who actually inverts all normal notions of power and requires us to do the same (…if shall not be that way among you, the greatest among you, etc. ) And Paul talks about this is Phil 2
where he notes that this mind should be ours that it in Jesus, who being in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself and took the form of the lowliest… If we follow Jesus truly, we simply cannot use power in a hierarchical fashion.
I am struggling with your statement that “Hierarchy however is clearly verboten in the NT.” And, if you admit the legitimacy of “authority over” then how is that not hierarchical in some sense?
It is impossible, at a key level, to not have some hierarchy in social groupings.
Several points . . .
1. Are parents in a hierarchy with their children?
not tell followers to obey (be persuaded by and follow) the leaders. We can import a Jesus-centered concept on authority into this text, but it still describes a hierarchy.
2. Was the Father in a heirarchy over the Son?
3. Is Jesus in a heirarchy over the the church?
4. Does Hebrews 13:17
Furthermore . . .
1. There is a hierarchy that “Lords it over people.” Jesus shows us that this is wrong and worldly and Jesus inverted it, showing how it is not for his people. But there are different modes in which hierarchy can function. a) Hierarchy grounded in “Lording it over people” clearly is “verboten;” but b) Hierarchy grounded in serving and putting the needs of others first. I would argue that Jesus clearly has hierarchy over the church, but he he leads as a servant, slave of the people. Yet we are called to submit to his authority and follow it. Again, if this is not hierarchy, what is it. We want to be careful that we do not just redefine words to fit our paradigm.
2. And what about non-spiritual hierarchy is that inherently evil too? Because Paul clearly teaches us in Romans 13
that God establishes this authority for good. Is a policeman evil because he is in hierarchy over me at the traffic light? If he Lords that authority over me, that could be abusive. But if he sees himself (or herself) as a servant of the people in a government role, then he has captured the idea of Jesus and applied it in a Romans 13
manner.
I have tremendous difficulty seeing Jesus or the New Testament say that hierarchy is evil. The use can be evil, by hierarchy itself is neither evil or good, apart from how it is implemented.
Help me here?
Sorry Alan, but I have been thinking about one more thing on your response. In regard to Hebrews 13:17
exousia (authority) is not the word used in the text - instead it is peitho (be persuaded), hegeomai (ones leading), hupeiko (submitting), and huper (over). How is this not the language of heirarchy? It seems clear that it is heirarchy for the purpose of service and putting the needs of those who are being lead ahead of the needs of leaders, as Jesus teaches. Leaders must give an account (logos-apodidomi) for how they have cared for their followers. Is this not Jesus-style heirarchy?
Bob, once again I hear you. But my feeling is that the term ‘hierarchy’ carries with it long term associations that imply the default power understanding that infuses a fallen world. If Jesus inverts normal notions of power (and I think he clearly does) then normal notions of hierarchy cannot be retained. I think you can use the term if you wish, but I think then the onus is on you to make sure people don’t misinterpret it. And here I think history is clearly against you. Roman Catholicism is built squarely on this as are most, if not all, normal ideas of organization. It is the default mode–the template of a fallen world. I think it best to discard the term as the Bible clearly does not use it, and try to model and articulate the different Way that Jesus modelled and taught.
BTW, have you read Walter Wink’s book “Naming the Powers”. I don’t agree with everything Wink writes, but it is well worth the read.
One thing that strikes me that may be a useful “exegetical discipline” in this discussion is to consider what the church actually looked like when Paul was writing his letters… and for that matter, what the church looked like when the gospels were written. It’s very easy to impose our deep seated paradigms about “church” back onto the text.
The church in the 1st century was small, scattered, vulnerable, persecuted, it had no paid staff (although there was an expectation itinerant ministers would be fed and lodged), no colleges, no certification for leadership (only recognition of giftedness), but a relational network that recognised apostolic authority… the voice of those who had met with Jesus.
In saying this, I’m not advocating with forget all church history (we live with this and its legacy powerfully)… I’m just doing the reminder when Paul wrote about mutual submission, and indeed submission to the courageous lay leaders appointed to “watch over souls” in local churches, it doesn’t carry the kind of connotations of the priest who submits to the ruling of the bishop who submits to the ruling of the cardinal who submits to the ruling of the pope… ie an institutional chain of command.
I don’t think Alan ever said hierachy is evil… (it is ordained in society… in deference to a fallen world I believe)… I think he said it should not be the structure of Christ’s church.
Now that we can debate… with that exegetical discipline in mind!
I was just dwelling on this topic during my trip home from Alaska a few days ago. I considered the great number of pastors who have fallen into immorality and wondered why for a few minutes. Why should so many fall? What causes it? How can we prevent it?
After a minute or two of pondering, it suddenly dawned on me that most pastors bear a burden that is not rightfully theirs to bear. The structure we see operating in the early church - that of elders in positions of service - prevents this type of heavy load falling upon any one man. I simply do not find the position of head pastor as we have defined it today within the New Testament, and for good reason. The sake of the pastor’s health and that of the congregation cannot bear it.
I was reading 1 Corinthians Chapter 1 just recently and that says a lot about ministry to the Gentiles in early church times. As much as I love intelligent debate and meaty theological repartee… OK so I’m a bit of a ecclesial-debate junkie… it seems like God found a good to remind me that the wonderful gift of intelligence needs to be put into perspective in terms of the bigger Missio Dei picture. As contemporary Christians, we too, could be called followers of The Way like the early church people and so I think Alan’s thoughts on hierarchy as being a pattern around which people organise themselves NOT affirmed or recommended by Jesus are well expressed and well founded. The aforementioned Corinthians chapter mentions the importance of the authority of Christ and that we should really concentrate on getting along together. Somehow the ability to do that in an entirely dignified and truly egalitarian manner is compromised when people for whatever reason, be it extremely practical or superior intellectual reasons establish a ‘pecking order’ when they do things. Sure, there can be benevolence in a totalitarian regime just as there can be abuse and repression in a democratic one, but in Christ’s teachings of the Kingdom, there are the seeds/patterns we can follow for transformational living. It’s not just a matter of the simple confounding sophisticated worldly wise. Both the simple and the wise can be founded on Christ.
We are all broken people in a broken world as the stories of the ‘fallen super-pastors’ attest, but being a true disciple (obedient friends) of Christ is surely what being a Christian is all about. Perhaps if the systems/churches of which these fallen ones were party to were more Christ-patterned, it would have been less likely for such tragedies and ensuing damage to occur.
I’m glad Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, because where there’s Life, there’s hope for us all who constitute His ecclesia!
Lucy J
This is not from me but from John S who couldn’t for some reason actually post the comment. Sorry John
……………
I agree strongly with what Janet said, that it\’s very easy to impose our deep seated presuppositions and pre-biases about \”church\” back into the text. We tend to read the NT through those lenses.
Nevertheless, we should recognize that Christians throughout history has demonstrated that they can adopt various ways of being church depending on ministry focus, needs and composition of the members and the changing circumstances in which they may find themselves. By this, we realize that the NT does not give us one model of being church after all.
The communitarianism of the Jerusalem church was not exactly the same as the Pauline house churches, and both were quite different to the church pictured in the pastoral epistles (which is more structurally organized with leadership functions in place, such as the presbuteros, episkopos, and diakonos).
But,inspite the variety, the church\’s fundamental nature does not lie in its external and organizational structures. It lies rather in its internal life rooted in Christ, and expressed in relationships of solidarity and care.
Jurgen Moltmann, speaks of the church as a \’Messianic fellowship\’, \’a free society of equals,\’ and a community of \’open friendship.\’ He is right in emphasizing the importance of relationships at the heart of christian community. Thus, reflecting back on the NT ethos, everyone is considered as brother and sister. Galatians 3:28
says it well that neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. There is no dividing line between \’clergy-laity\’and no such concept of that at all.
Having said this, the APEST are gifts of function and not a position of heirarchy. These leaders were exercising a function and utilizing a spiritual gift that Christ apportioned them (Eph. 4
), rather than holding an office. I think what Allan was emphasizing here is that authority does not necessitate heirarchical order. Christians in the NT only do recognize a brother/sister\’s authority in certain matters (e.g. James stepping up to mediate the dialogue between Peter and Paul at the Jerusalem council).
Also, why does Paul have to defend from time to time his apostolic authority? This goes to show that people do recognize authority figures but not on a hierarchical sense. Overseers, elders and deacons are not hierarchies - like the way we know now in the institutionalized church.
In response to Bob\’s questions with regards to his examples of hierarchy (parents to children; The Father and the Son; Jesus the head and church is the body), i do think would open up old debates and would create more problems that could easily divide. Take for example the issue of the Godhead, the Trinity. Are they not a community of equals? Are they not ONE? Is there division and order of heirarchy in the Godhead. Our understanding of this has great implications the way we see relationships within the family unit. Furthermore, if we use the metaphor of Christ the head and the church the body and apply it to husband and wife, then implication would be, that males are more dominant and superior than the female, all based on order of heirarchy. This is clearly contrary to the Genesis 1
mandate and also of Galatians 3:28
.
The thing that i see clear in those examples is relationships. They are all based on relationships. And what has been described by Paul in Ephesians 4-5
are the roles and functions on how to properly treat others. The emphasis there is that each one is to submit to one another out of their reverence to Christ. There is individual submission to Christ, then each are to submit to one another. Another emphasis there is not on heirarchy. I do believe Paul does not have in mind hierarchical order here. What he\’e emphasizing is the Oneness and unity. Take for example his arguement of the relationship of Christ to the church. Christ is the head and the church the body. The emphasis here is the oneness of the church to christ just as the husband has become one to the wife. No such thing as hierarchy there. And how each one is to submit is being explained by Paul through the way they should function in the role (e.g. husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church, and wives are to submit to their husbands - again submission does not necessarily mean below the hirarchical order like that of Jesus submitting to the will of the Father).
Alan is right in pointing out that \’heirarchy\’ carries with it a long term negative baggage that imply the default power understanding that characterizies the brokeness and falleness of our world.
Change is difficult when we come to question the more basic structures of church. We enter into the arena of the politics of change. It has to do with the politics of power, privilege, status, and continuity.
All throughout history, the church is seen to be resistant to change. Change should be a matter of moving ourselves and others to live more authentically as God\’s people in our world. Instead, it is often a power game, where tradition wins over relevance and where present structures block new possibilities.
I like what my proffesor in seminary said in his book Catch the Wind (Dr. Charles Ringma):
\”That change is difficult in the church should not take us by surprise. This is because the church has a thoroughly human face and runs the full gambit of human foibles. The church is God\’s idea, but the church is also a human institution. And human institutions frequently lose their way. Over time they develop a self-perpetuating life and culture of their own. They develop traditions, heirarchies, experts, resources and legitimacies that are hard to resist change. More seriously, institutions frequently fail to live out their own stated goals and purposes and fail to serve the very people they were meant to serve. And most disconcertingly, institutions can propagandise their clientele, controlling their lives at the point of their vulnerability, and thus create dependence.\”
And hierachical structures tend to bend on this plain. Religious bureacrats and autocrats arise inevitably out of this.