I like your comment that we recognize their gifts/authority/wisdom already, even before giving them the title. That makes much more sense than the popularity contest that electing leaders can be. Much like Barnabas--people recognized that he was a leader, and then they waited on God, and 'officially' sent him out. One of the values in imparting the title upon someone is that not everyone might have seen the presence of the Spirit upon that person, but now all will be aware that he or she has been recognized by their peers to have a special function in the body. In effect, this is an ordination that isn't only for pastors. I heard one guy say that in their church they ordain people as ministers within their workplace--plumbers, teachers, etc. etc.--in as official a ceremony as a church might ordain a pastor. My experience has always been within the 'typical' pastor and board setting, but I am beginning to wonder about career clergy. I think better leadership and guidance might come from a number of 'regular' people, and more of the church budget can actually go to help people in need, for example.
paul munn
· 3 months ago
Yes, the Spirit's gifts/authority/wisdom in people is what we should be following, not the leadership title. When we are doing that, titles are not necessary (nor the authority of offices), and we avoid the temptations and abuses of institutional power structures.
If we have not yet "seen the presence of the Spirit upon that person" perhaps we should not yet follow their lead. Because we should be following the Spirit, not someone's reputation or title, shouldn't we? And shouldn't our relationships and trust be built on personal experience with one another, not organizational roles and structures?
Facebook User
· 3 months ago
Paul, you seem to be eavesdropping on my mind! I'm pleasantly surprised...thank you.
paul munn
· 3 months ago
I probably should add a disclaimer to this. I'm not at all sure that the authority and leadership style of Jesus can be applied well when we start involving property.
With many groups (including churches and Christian communal organizations), decisions about the use of property are the most problematic and divisive, and human authority is often appealed to. I'm not sure Jesus gives us good advice about this problem. Because he did not face it. He counseled his followers to give away all and not gather up treasures and not resist those who would beg or steal from them. But if we don't follow Jesus' counsel in regarding the gathering and holding of property, I think we probably won't be able to follow Jesus' counsel very well in our attempts to manage our property and resolve conflicts over it. All of Jesus' teaching holds together.
frato7
· 3 months ago
destroyideas
· 3 months ago
I like this, but I disagree with the conclusion.
What sort of authority does an elder have? Certainly not the same sort of authority a police officer or politician has.
No, they are servants. Their position is given to them as a task to complete for the community.
In a group setting when you try to get anything done, you task specific people with these items. They don't lord over anyone, they're just doing a duty.
So, yes the authority derives from "the people" but it is not so they have a better position in the world, but so they defer their own responsibilities onto this one head so that the task can be achieved effectively.
paul munn
· 3 months ago
Yes, usually a church elder has very little authority. In our intentional Christian farm community, elders are more like community leaders, with more authority and more tasks that go beyond church, including decisions that involve property, personal disputes, work or family problems, etc.
Duty (or "responsibility") and authority usually go hand in hand. We don't usually task someone with a job without giving them some authority to get it done. That gives certain people more power (and status in the community usually goes with this) and the community agrees to back up their decisions, usually with some sort of penalty that they as a group can apply to wrongdoers. Like making someone leave the church or community, for example. If the community is also where you live and work, that could be a very severe penalty and have lots of power to influence your behavior.
So it's not exactly the same as the police, but certain power dynamics can be similar. It is the same "power of the people" that empowers anyone in elected offices (in politics, business, or religion). And it has the same temptations, and can be just as oppressive. The power of God that we see Jesus exercising in his leadership is not like this.
I'm saying we don't need the power that groups of people give, that we should lead like Jesus did (and follow people who lead like Jesus did), exercising only the power of God.
mschellman
· 3 months ago
I agree with the gist of your argument, but I don't think your solution provides a way around the fact that people can chose the wrong leaders. There is no necessary link between power and authority. The people will invest power in whomever they choose. And sometimes they make the wrong choice. You can take away the formality of elections, and people will still choose their leaders - but perhaps by less rational means. I do like the idea you propose of leaders emerging from among the body for specific tasks. It would truly be impressive and display the true headship of God (so obscured by formal offices). For this reason alone I believe it would be worth doing. It is no guarantee however against bad leadership. Only a people truly seeking God's will above their own desires and biases will be able to choose the right leaders.
paul munn
· 3 months ago
I agree that "people will still choose their leaders." One of the arguments I've heard in support of formal group selection of leaders (like voting for them) is that if we don't do this, people will still empower leaders among them, but in an unorganized way or in an un-thoughtful way, often ending with leaders who happened to be the loudest with their opinions, or the pushiest, people we wouldn't have selected if we talked and thought about it carefully as a group. That may be true. I hope it would be less likely if there's more mature Christians in the group.
But I really don't think we can or should control what "people" do. Jesus did not prevent others from choosing bad leadership (just as God did not prevent Israel from crowning a king, though he warned them against it, 1 Sam 8). But he did demonstrate a markedly different way of leading (without human authority or power), and related to the official authorities in a way quite different from most people. This is what I think we should do also.
I haven't tried to "take away" elections in our church, though I have challenged them, and not supported them myself. And I try to follow the leadership of various people in the community that have demonstrated that they have gifts and callings from God in various areas of life (whether or not they happen to be in any official leadership "position").
I guess I think that the body of Christ operates according to its nature, whether or not our institutional churches reflect that nature very well. I think mature Christians can see God's calling and gifts in people and they follow those people, as true leaders in the body, whether or not they are elected or are in their church or even their denomination. God organizes and leads his people; it's his body. So that's what I try to see and submit to and cooperate with.
I just wish our Christian communities reflected that more, instead of having leadership and authority structures that seem to be copies of every other human organization around us.
Jason Winton
· 3 months ago
I have been thinking through this issue a lot recently due to my role as "the leader" of a small community. I decided to try something different over the summer. It occurred to me (watching a Peter Rollins video) that the best way I can "lead" them is by refusing to lead. So, for the summer, there was no "formal" leadership. Surprising to me, many folks commented afterward that they felt abandoned and lost, that they realized how much they desired for me (as their leader) to lead them versus God or His gifts in folks like them. Some of them even attributed my "leadership" to situations and decisions that I had nothing to do with--i.e., an attempt by a few members to forcefully lead while I was gone (which turned out to be an empty "authority" anyway).
Another example has come out of this recent experience. A few of the members asked if I would officiate their wedding. They wanted me to get ordained online (which I declined) and to formally pronounce them as husband and wife. At first, considering the short notice (about 3 weeks) and the lack of in-depth conversation about marriage and their relationship, I wanted to say no. After considering it more, I came to the conclusion that I could offer them three options I would be willing to support them with. One, they could postpone the wedding, which would give us time to talk and make it less frantic. If they chose that one, I would do the formal officiating, though without the "authority" to sign a state marriage license (i.e., traditional wedding). The second option was to think of me as the "host of the ceremony" instead of officiator and to invite God, primarily, and the community to affirm and bless their union. This would involve some of the traditional parts of a wedding as well as to include many non-traditional parts (such as no marriage pronouncement from any humans). The third option was that I would help them find someone else to "officiate" within the bounds of what they wanted.
With surprisingly little hesitation, they chose number two. I'm glad they did. It's going to be very interesting, to say the least.
paul munn
· 3 months ago
That "leading by refusing to lead" thing sounds interesting. I've wondered if a way forward for our community here might be for the sole remaining elder to step down (she certainly deserves a break), so others would have to step up and not keep depending on her to carry things or looking to her for the next step. I may suggest it to her.
And I am quite willing to help encourage all of us to step into the leadership that God has gifted us for, and be active in seeking (and following) those callings in ourselves and others.
frato7
· 3 months ago
This discussion is great as it opens the door to the very foundations of leadership, those put forth by Jesus and found in Ephesians. The goal of leadership is to provide a safe place for the baby believer to grow into the mature man of God. This path is not one that can be mapped out as step one, two, three, and so on. The direction for this path comes from the cues and promptings of the Spirit of God. The role of the leader is to hear the timing for when the next level of maturity to be entered into. There is never a time when the leader is not responsible to encourage that person to step up and be as adult as is appropriate. The balance comes in as the leader fulfills their duty as the servant of that person. The action of the leader that places the well-being of that person above the well-being of the leader is the encouragement for the person to step into the things that the Father is attempting to implement into their life. The timing of the Father is all-important in these matters, and the removal of a visible leader requires the members of that part of the body to step up and respond to the callings of the Spirit this will cause discomfort, the need for patience and grace will be evident. Cool here is another chance to grow and be transformed into the image of Jesus
All Comments
Much like Barnabas--people recognized that he was a leader, and then they waited on God, and 'officially' sent him out.
One of the values in imparting the title upon someone is that not everyone might have seen the presence of the Spirit upon that person, but now all will be aware that he or she has been recognized by their peers to have a special function in the body. In effect, this is an ordination that isn't only for pastors. I heard one guy say that in their church they ordain people as ministers within their workplace--plumbers, teachers, etc. etc.--in as official a ceremony as a church might ordain a pastor.
My experience has always been within the 'typical' pastor and board setting, but I am beginning to wonder about career clergy. I think better leadership and guidance might come from a number of 'regular' people, and more of the church budget can actually go to help people in need, for example.
If we have not yet "seen the presence of the Spirit upon that person" perhaps we should not yet follow their lead. Because we should be following the Spirit, not someone's reputation or title, shouldn't we? And shouldn't our relationships and trust be built on personal experience with one another, not organizational roles and structures?
With many groups (including churches and Christian communal organizations), decisions about the use of property are the most problematic and divisive, and human authority is often appealed to. I'm not sure Jesus gives us good advice about this problem. Because he did not face it. He counseled his followers to give away all and not gather up treasures and not resist those who would beg or steal from them. But if we don't follow Jesus' counsel in regarding the gathering and holding of property, I think we probably won't be able to follow Jesus' counsel very well in our attempts to manage our property and resolve conflicts over it. All of Jesus' teaching holds together.
What sort of authority does an elder have? Certainly not the same sort of authority a police officer or politician has.
No, they are servants. Their position is given to them as a task to complete for the community.
In a group setting when you try to get anything done, you task specific people with these items. They don't lord over anyone, they're just doing a duty.
So, yes the authority derives from "the people" but it is not so they have a better position in the world, but so they defer their own responsibilities onto this one head so that the task can be achieved effectively.
Duty (or "responsibility") and authority usually go hand in hand. We don't usually task someone with a job without giving them some authority to get it done. That gives certain people more power (and status in the community usually goes with this) and the community agrees to back up their decisions, usually with some sort of penalty that they as a group can apply to wrongdoers. Like making someone leave the church or community, for example. If the community is also where you live and work, that could be a very severe penalty and have lots of power to influence your behavior.
So it's not exactly the same as the police, but certain power dynamics can be similar. It is the same "power of the people" that empowers anyone in elected offices (in politics, business, or religion). And it has the same temptations, and can be just as oppressive. The power of God that we see Jesus exercising in his leadership is not like this.
I'm saying we don't need the power that groups of people give, that we should lead like Jesus did (and follow people who lead like Jesus did), exercising only the power of God.
But I really don't think we can or should control what "people" do. Jesus did not prevent others from choosing bad leadership (just as God did not prevent Israel from crowning a king, though he warned them against it, 1 Sam 8). But he did demonstrate a markedly different way of leading (without human authority or power), and related to the official authorities in a way quite different from most people. This is what I think we should do also.
I haven't tried to "take away" elections in our church, though I have challenged them, and not supported them myself. And I try to follow the leadership of various people in the community that have demonstrated that they have gifts and callings from God in various areas of life (whether or not they happen to be in any official leadership "position").
I guess I think that the body of Christ operates according to its nature, whether or not our institutional churches reflect that nature very well. I think mature Christians can see God's calling and gifts in people and they follow those people, as true leaders in the body, whether or not they are elected or are in their church or even their denomination. God organizes and leads his people; it's his body. So that's what I try to see and submit to and cooperate with.
I just wish our Christian communities reflected that more, instead of having leadership and authority structures that seem to be copies of every other human organization around us.
Another example has come out of this recent experience. A few of the members asked if I would officiate their wedding. They wanted me to get ordained online (which I declined) and to formally pronounce them as husband and wife. At first, considering the short notice (about 3 weeks) and the lack of in-depth conversation about marriage and their relationship, I wanted to say no. After considering it more, I came to the conclusion that I could offer them three options I would be willing to support them with. One, they could postpone the wedding, which would give us time to talk and make it less frantic. If they chose that one, I would do the formal officiating, though without the "authority" to sign a state marriage license (i.e., traditional wedding). The second option was to think of me as the "host of the ceremony" instead of officiator and to invite God, primarily, and the community to affirm and bless their union. This would involve some of the traditional parts of a wedding as well as to include many non-traditional parts (such as no marriage pronouncement from any humans). The third option was that I would help them find someone else to "officiate" within the bounds of what they wanted.
With surprisingly little hesitation, they chose number two. I'm glad they did. It's going to be very interesting, to say the least.
And I am quite willing to help encourage all of us to step into the leadership that God has gifted us for, and be active in seeking (and following) those callings in ourselves and others.