It’s a common theme in movies and television. You see a group of friends all hanging together, and one of them comes into sudden good fortune: wins the lottery, gets famous, something like that. All the promises are made that nothing will change between the friends, but everything does. The movie or TV show becomes all about how the money or prestige changes people, and changes the relationships, usually for the worse. A lot of times the focus is on the person who won the lottery, or whatever. But look more closely, and you see that there’s just as much (if not more) change that happens with everyone else around that person. Makes for a great story every time.
Why does everything change like that? In my opinion, it’s because there’s something that happens when we perceive one of our own has “risen above”, it upsets the equilibrium–even when we are happy for that person’s success. From that point, human nature tends to respond in one of two ways: coveteousness or resentment. Either we kiss up to the person, using him/her to climb the ladder ourselves (coveteousness), or we start digging at the person, attempting to knock them off the ladder (resentment). Most of the time these responses are expressed very subtly, but reactions are a subconscious attempt to restore balance–or our perception of balance. No one can be “higher” than the others.
Believe it or not, the same dynamic happens in the presumed divide between clergy and laity in the church. It didn’t start out this way with the church, but over time (despite Jesus’ warnings not to lead one another in the same way as the world around us), the church began to perceive its leaders as “above” the others. The “ministry” became a place of special prestige, and the clergy became an elite class. People who were “called” to ministry became venerated, not just set apart, but set
above in the minds of others. And this continues to this day. And right along with it, you see the same two gut reactions from people toward the clergy class: coveteousness or resentment. It’s more subtle in some than in others, but for many–we either cozy up to our leaders to curry their favor (or aspire to the ministry ourselves), or we criticize and judge them in our hearts, holding them up to a microscope, looking for any flaw or fault that we can use to cut them down to size.
Why? Because deep within, we feel there is an imbalance that must be restored.
Now, let me say right now that both coveteousness and resentment are part of our sinful human nature and are un-Christlike. These two reactions fuel most of the politics in our culture–politics in government, in the workplace, among friends, and even in the church. (Especially in the church, it would seem.) I have experienced these feelings as a churchgoer, and I have experienced their sting as a leader. As believers, we are challenged to do the opposite–to share in the joy of others without being jealous, and not to look at someone else’s position to compare our own value to theirs. Paul puts it this way: “There is neither Jew nor Greek; neither slave nor free; neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ.”
And that’s just the point. While it is not right to be coveteous or resentful toward anyone, including leadership…at the same time, I think the false prestige we’ve attached to church leadership sets us up for needless temptation. If I’m looking at Scripture correctly, then at its heart, this whole equilibrium/balance thing is a myth–a matter of false perception. It isn’t that church leadership is a corrupt concept; in fact, there is much in Bible to support it. Rather, it’s that being a leader doesn’t make anyone better than anyone else. It’s a function, a role; it was never meant to be a social class. The authority one carries (or the money or honor one has, for that matter) does not change that person’s DNA, or the color of his/her blood. It only changes everyone’s attitude. The things that make ministry positions so coveted and/or resented are things that don’t even exist in the eyes of God.
This competitive prestige thing was a stumbling block even for the earliest disciples, who apparently got in several arguments over who was the “greatest.” Jesus’ response (my paraphrase) was: “Fellas, you’re missing the whole point. See this child? If you want to be great in My kingdom, learn a lesson or two from her. And those who want to lead–you get to be everyone’s slave. Still want the job?”
Apparently, we’ve not learned; it’s still a stumbling block for us, on both sides of the issue. We have made leadership so enviable that we have people striving for it who have no concept of what “leadership” typically meant in the early church: beatings, imprisonment, torture, shipwreck, etc. (Those who strive for church leadership with a secret desire for prestige will likely become bad leaders, because they’ve missed the point completely.) On the other hand, we have people who fear and resent their leaders for no other reason than that they are leading, and we have leaders who have genuine servant hearts but get wrongfully scorned and abused by people who assume the worst of them. In fact–these days, those viewed as leaders in the church (at least here in America) face a whole different set of obstacles. Rather than risking life and limb for representing a subversive movement, they must face the mistreatment of their own brethren. At best, they can expect to receive little or no thanks for the many ways they lay their lives down; and at worst, they can expect to be exploited, competed with, scrutinized and sabotaged–often used for what they can give, and rarely loved for who they are–all by people within their own camp. All because “leadership” now comes with an elevated status attached to it.
Still want the job? What were we so jealous about, again? 🙂
I guess what I’m saying is that while we should resist temptation and the darker desires of the soul…there’s also something to be said about not creating the temptation in the first place. If we had been doing this leadership thing the way Jesus taught us, we wouldn’t have anything to be jealous or resentful about! We would have far less reason to fear our leaders, and far more reasons to trust them. The political games would be virtually non-existent. How we have needlessly ensnared ourselves!
Unlike some on this journey (as you might have guessed), I have not given up on the idea of human leadership in the church. In my view, there’s just too many pages of the Bible that would have to be torn out of it for that to be the case. What I do think is that we’ve got to take off the extra baggage, to return to the heart of what Jesus tried to tell His misguided, prideful disciples–because we are just as vulnerable as they were. What I hope is that when we take off all the man-made baggage we’ve attached to leadership, we’ll find a new way of looking at it, a better way to let it function, and a better way of working with it. I don’t pretend to know what that all looks like, but I think I know where we ought to start looking:
…with the example of Jesus. Who was God, and Who emptied Himself to become one of us; Who was Master, but washed our feet; Who showed His greatness by laying down His life.
Musician. Composer. Recovering perfectionist. Minister-in-transition. Lover of puns. Hijacker of rock song references. Questioner of the status quo.
I'm not really a rebel. Just a sincere Christ-follower with a thirst for significance that gets me into trouble. My quest has taken me over the fence of institutional Christianity. Here are some of my random thoughts along the way. Read along, join in the conversation. Just be nice.
View all posts by Wayward Son →
very good! thanks!
yet in my immaturity – I can't envision how it's possible….
I just can't imagine seeing leadership biblically done around me today. Which is sad. What does it look like to give a person power/authority/title but for them to not exercise that authority to a point where it puts them above?
HOW do we keep that separation/distinction from happening? I guess most leaders don't REALLY want that separation to be gone…..
Is it about keeping everything more simple so that there's not so much "stuff" to be 'in charge' of?? Is it about just not making it known via publications, advertising who is the leader — but simply via action/life of that leader?
Maybe more of a team focus and distribution of power/authority? rather than trying to make a "lead" pastor … I don't really see "lead elder" anywhere in the Bible – is there? Just information on elders/deacons/leaders.
I don't get how to get away from the one (or 3 or 5) man show thing without getting rid of the titles at least temporarily and letting an equal group form then seeing who 'rises' to the top.
Maybe that is part of the problem – that we "ordain" then 'assign' leadership and then try to gather a church… rather than allowing the local church to be built and THEN letting the leaders naturally come out of the congregation (therefore chosen and acknowledged by the congregation that they are the leaders).
thanks for the thought provoking post as usual 🙂
Randi Jo,
Part of the problem is that we *haven't* seen anything else modeled for many centuries…and it's apparent even in Jesus' day that the leadership style He prescribed was revolutionary compared to the world around Him.
Just a thought or two, not any conclusions…first, there may be a difference between "lording over" and "submitting to". When someone demands my obedience simply because of position and "God wants you to submit", it feels like a "lording over". But when someone has an established pattern of love, nurture, and laying down their life for me, I have no problem willingly yielding when that person has something authoritative to say, or seeing that person as placed by God in my life. In fact, this is exactly how Paul prescribes the marriage relationship ought to be–and even Christ and His church. We only hear about the wife submitting, but we gloss over how the husband needs to love his wife by laying his life down for her (as Christ did). 🙂
Another thought is that there is a nuanced difference between leading and governing. Someone can be a governor/ruler but not really lead. Leading involves moving in a direction and bringing people along with you…not standing still in a superior posture while people serve your needs. True leaders are people we want to follow, because we want to go where they are going. No motion equals no leading.
Finally…I think you touched on it when you talked about letting leadership emerge naturally. The way Paul would plant churches was to preach the gospel until a community formed around it–then LEAVE, without appointing leaders! Then he would come back, and THEN identify elders. Can you imagine anyone doing that sort of thing today? 🙂
Dang, it is an awful reality. we lord authority over each other when all we are really supposed to be are authorities according to our own gifts! How is the prophet greater than the one who leads in the realm of mercy, or in helps? How is the apostle greater than the one who leads by teaching? If we each led according to our divinely given authority, we would all see each other as ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Tyler got me thinking.
If there is some sort of 'authority' given to pastors…. it's the same 'level' as all the other elders right? maybe it was supposed to be more of a 'team' and not "lead pastor" – where did that idea of lead pastor come from other than secular government/military?
If it was always a team of leaders operating as a team but understanding each other's gifts & areas of strength – they could keep each other in check instead of the one man show.
I'm just still not convinced of the "authority" given to them at all though – I don't see it completely clear biblically one way or another.
I guess because I don't know what healthy, biblical, Jesus-like authority could/should look like because authority is almost negative term in some ways because it translates to inequality/degrees of value. How can somebody have authority but not give authority over?
anyway – my major question is – where did this 'lead pastor' idea from come. That isn't in scripture is it? Didn't Jesus always send/train them in teams? 12 disciples. and then after He left the holy Spirit – even if it was just a team of 2 to start when the the Body was being started? Now that the Body is so much bigger – the lead teams should be bigger.
anyway 🙂 thanks
Hi Randi Jo,
Funny how church life revolves around a word used only one time in the scriptures! Personally, i don't figure "pastor" ever meant anything other than the type of person who goes around making sure everyone is taken care of — like a shepherd. It was certainly never meant to embody apostle, prophet, evangelist and teacher as well — but there is the idolatry of what divinity school tells them to take on to themselves.
It's the whole pagan Nicolaitan shebang, the one man between Jesus and all us lowly folks 😉
Tyler Dawn is correct…"pastor" only occurs once in Scripture. Some would interpret the word "elder" as a similar function, and yes, there were often several.
To be honest, I don't think the N.T. is as rigid about how church leadership should be structured as most people make it out to be–they didn't specifically do a check-and-balance team ministry thing to prevent anyone from having too much authority. I see they just did what worked. Paul's instructions to Timothy were apparently as a leader of a church plant, suggesting he was functioning as a pastor or lead elder, even if he wasn't specifically called by that term. In other words, what Timothy did was more important than what he was called. 🙂
It's obvious that Paul and other apostles operated with recognizable authority–they often uttered rebukes and correction, and those were taken by the people. So I disagree with those who suggest human authority didn't exist in the N.T.–there are too many examples to the contrary, imho. I just think, as Randi Jo suggested, that we haven't seen good Biblical examples of authority in quite some time–we're seeing through a filtered lens, and that takes some time to work beyond. I think that's why it's important not to hold things too tightly right now as far as what it ought to look like–I just can't go beyond what I see in Scripture and do away with human leadership completely.
Last thought…Randi said, "authority is almost negative term in some ways because it translates to inequality/degrees of value." I think that's our stumbling block right there–we equate authority with value/importance. THAT is something we do not see in Scripture, but we are conditioned to expect in our world. Jesus taught and modeled it the opposite–the leader lowers himself; the Master washes the disciples' feet. If we could only get hold of this picture and let it inform our idea of leadership…we'd be a lot closer, I think, to what Jesus intended.
Thanks for the conversation. I am just having such a hard time wrapping my mind around the different terms/meanings and how it's supposed to look. Can't seem to get out of the "leadership" box I've been trained in for so long. Because I'm in contact with that world every day as well.
I really can't picture a leader and their followers that doesn't portray in someway they are more valuable than others indirect or direct.
HOW can a leader make himself lower when
a) there are soo many decisions to make because the leader is involved in so much 'stuff' so he's always making decisions for the people (exercising authority over) – making decisions for the people. having veto power.
b) when the people 'following him' give him so much authority.
I've been at meetings recently in my own community – where I've heard people give full authority to the pastor to be the sole person responsibility to pursue God for the vision of the church – followed up with, "and we'll follow you anywhere. we trust you"
and I just completely disagree. Yet when I speak up I just seem like a poor follower/rebel/like I have a problem with authority/don't trust the pastor…. but in my mind – I just disagree because I won't follow one man anywhere except Jesus (and even then it isn't always easy!)…and I trust God's spirit in me and the things He has planted in me as much as I do THE leader. I know that my input as part of the team would be of value and that God doesn't want to just use ONE man to impart His wisdom/vision to figure out which way the community should go. I just believe in teams and having those around you to sharpen, encourage, rebuke, love.
I agree the NT just isn't as rigid one way or another as we think regarding structure. I think that it's just a topic that is sooo minimal which shows me the WHAT (what the structure/form is) isn't important as the HOW (in grace, love, submission, humility, thinking of others above yourself, carrying each other's burdens, serving)…..
but I think to help people get OUT of the leadership box – we have to do whatever we can to diffuse power. Make sure we believe and portray that everybody is worth listening to and that God can speak through anybody.
which is one of the reasons I lean toward teams leading because it's easier to listen to more people when there is more of you listening. It's impossible for one man to give voice to all — but when you have 10 – 12 people – think about how much more coverage you can have. multiplication/exponential growth. Also, it's easier to add people onto a 'team' as they grow in relationship with God & others… but you can't add anybody onto a team of 1.
continued….
I guess in my mind – the leaders of a church exemplify what the church is all about by learning to operate and love as a unified team despite personalities/disagreements…. doing it with grace/humility. I feel that people really get the message and point of the church when they can see that. when you're so close in relationship with God & others — to me that is when His light shine and "churches grow"….. what are our leaders doing if not learning to love/value others? They will know you are my disciples by how you love… not by how you can attract people to Sunday.. not by how funny you are preaching…. not by how efficient you are at orchestrating events & programs. but by your relationships above all else.
I don't know. I guess in my mind I just wish it could be simpler….. if we didn't have so much STUFF going on and just focused on 1) God 2) others — then we wouldn't have so many decisions to make and power to give if we were just learning to be fishers of men plain and simple.
I think we have a hard time knowing what leadership should be like — because we operate so much like every other secular thing that teaches us about leadership – business/military. Maybe the structure really does make a difference because of what a state we are in – we have to change the structure to help people undersatnd that we're not an organization like the other things we are trained in and come in contact with every day at work and such. we are all in so much contact with business and professional life now (industrialization of society changed it all) that we've all been trained in authoritative leadership. It's so different from when people just worked on farms or minded their own business (carpenters)
anyway….. thanks for letting me ramble.
🙂