A note from the compiler ...
Subject: HCDL: Authority
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 23:12:31 -0800
From: John C.
To: HCDL <hcdl@shore.net>
[snip]
So, I would like to ask for clarification and/or a more specific answer
about how authority is
understood and lived out in our groups. How do we deal with the
topic of leadership?
How about the Canberra churches! Many of you have been at this for awhile, how do you see this?
How do you deal with Scriptures that teach on authority? For example:
"Obey spiritual leaders and do what they say. Their work is to
watch over your souls, and they
know they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this
joyfully and not with sorrow. That
would certainly not be for your benefit." (Hebrews 13:17 NLT)
Note: I think we can all agree right now that this has nothing
to do with the institutional way of
ministry but much to do with Christianity as we know it here on HCDL.
What do you think about what Robert Banks has written on the subject?
For example:
"Significant persons are present in Paul's communities. Their
authority comes from the ministry
discharged by them in the community rather than from their status outside
it or position within it, and
that is not an irrevocable position." (Paul's Idea of Community.
Revised. Hendrikson, 1994. Page 148.) Note: It
is clear that he is saying that there were people with authoritative functions.
In other words, the early church would not have understood the common belief
that only Jesus is in authority.
What do you think about what Hal Miller has written on the subject?
For example:
"genuine leadership in the church is based on service, truth, and trust,
not authority. Leaders in the
church are called by the truth to lives which are worthy of imitation,
and thus respectable, and to lives of service." ("As He That Doth
Serve." Toward a House Church Theology. Steve Atkerson, Ed.
Atlanta, 1996. Page 83.) Note: Ahhh, now we are getting
closer! See also Philippians 3:17 and 4:9. Also a note to Hal
- please feel free to elaborate or upgrade your thinking on this!
I really believe that if we smooth this over we are missing something.
Does anyone care to
comment?
KGJJ316 wrote [about a man she saw as a leader in her former
fellowship]:
> This said, HE felt like he taught too much, like he lead too much.
I felt
> like he was being used in the gifts God gave him. Any thoughts
on this?
Yes -- you've given a great in-a-nutshell description of a good sort
of leadership. I think that tension is a *good* thing, perhaps
a
hallmark of real leaders who are also real servants.
In my experience, Karen, what you say seems to
be a lot closer to the
real definition of "leadership" than what we
see around us in the
social and traditional church structure.
Those who possess REAL leadership are those who
put forth a good
example to follow. Those who demonstrate
that they have Godly wisdom,
desire to serve those around them, and pattern
their lives after the
Lord's teachings. True leaders will always
be found among those who
are who are quietly serving any and all who have
need. Anything else
called leadership is a terribly pitiful substitute
at best.
The grabbing of power and exerting of oneself
over others is not
leadership. It's just another stale, warmed
over version of
oppression.
Having said that, I like what you said.
You have the insight to
recognize someone who is a Godly leader.
That means you won't be
fooled by someone who wears a "LEADER" name tag.
Hi John,
It's good that you brought this up again, because I for one, would not
want
you to think that putting our collective 'head in the sand' is a good
practice.
However, I really have got to tell you that I made the comment regarding
identity because I believe that it's a MAJOR reason that 'authority'
is an
issue. In no way did I mean it to be a 'pat' answer. As
I see it, often it
IS the ones who, either
1) have such a heart for the Lord that they want to GIVE THEIR WHOLE
ENTIRE
LIFE to serving Him and don't know of any other way to do this but
'become'
a full-time minister (hence... they have 'the' authority in the church
-- at
least the 'perceived' authority because of the title, training, and
'setting apart.')
2) gets saved and projects the world's view of 'success' or 'power'
into
the Kingdom of God. They 'mix' realms and come up with "pastor"
(authority
figure, yada yada yada), never really moving into the purity of bodylife
(equal priesthood). This, of course, if affirmed, confirmed, signed,
sealed,
delivered by modern Christianity. (This is compounded by the need to
'identify' with having one's 'whole heart and life set a part for the
Lord's purposes)
To answer your question about my view of genuine authority, I must tell
you
that it completely concurs with Joann H.'s post today, along
with the following
statement you quoted from Hal.
<<"genuine leadership in the church is based on service, truth,
and trust,
not authority. Leaders in the church are called by the
truth to lives
which are worthy of imitation, and thus respectable, and to lives
of
service." ("As He That Doth Serve." Toward a House
Church Theology.
Steve Atkerson, Ed. Atlanta, 1996. Page 83.)>>
John C. has asked some good and acceptable questions
about
the "authority" thang.
This is a charged subject and I have charged in
too hard on it in
the past and caused some unnecessary offense
at times, so please
everyone forgive me for any unnecessary offense
I have brought
about or might seem to ignite this go round.
Please believe me
when I say I am not angry at anyone. But I am
passionate, and passion
always seems to serve or betray those who are
given to it. May God be
the judge as to this case.
Before I go on to my personal take and exegesis,
I first want to
briefly explain where I am coming from.
I wholeheartly beleive and am under the
conviction that the church
is an organism and not an organization.
Organisms operate organically
and don't require governing; they simply
do what they are created to do.
Organizations however, require government, organization and control.
Organisms are created, organizations are man-made.
God created the church, man made religion.
If this is true, and most hc'ers I know
say they believe this way.
Then why do so many hc folk, including
"leaders", talk organic;
but then practice agriculture? And
instead of allowing things to
grow up naturally (ok, supernaturally)
organic; they impose structure
and man made tools to the soil.
I also, as part of my organic belief, view
the church as being a family.
In my nuclear family I am not a father
(nor Lori a mother) by title,
authority,
positon or government. We simply
are because we are due to what happened
organically. We also do not govern
in our family. We relate! Because
each member of this family is important.
Sure leadership and authority, in a family
as well as the church, must
and does take place. But no one has
to be a leader (in the traditional
sense) to do this. This is done through
prayer and loving undergirding
and support. And we take turns as God annoints
each one of us to take the
lead at times according to our gifting.
The baton gets passed frequently.
Only way to win a race without tiring out
you know. Sometimes
we have to corporately discern who has
this baton/annointing, and then
go with the results. (Acts 15?)
So I say provide leadership - YESSSS!
Be a LEADER - NO!
And yes some folks tend by the nature of
their gifting to carry the torch
more often than others. But they
do not hold a governmental position
of leadership. They simply do that
thing God has them do. When it is
their turn and they are supposed to do
it. And if the rest of the body
weren't so clergy whipped and timid they
wouldn'y have to do it so often.
Yes, that is a cry for help. The
torch gets too heavy for all of us at
times because none of us were ever meant
to lug it arround the track
too many times in row.
Now on to my Greek trained but hopefully Spirit led look at the Word:
REMEMBER, alot of these are IFs. Scripture
can be translated many, many
ways. So please at least consider
these as possibilites. And stop
beleiving that all the current translations
and lexical aids are
innerrant. Remember, they were brought
to you and financed by
heirarchical system that just might not
want you (conciuosly or
unconciuosly) to know the whole truth.
Because if you did you
might not need them or send them any more
money.
Hebrews 13:17 - speaks of obeying
those that have rule over us in
the King James. However, in the greek
the word Hegomai is used.
It means to lead, guide, think, consider,
or regard. It is not a
positonal word but rather describes relationship
or function. The
passage could read:
Be persuaded by those among you who lead
and help guide you. Because they
think about, consider and regard the truth.
See it is not because they have a governmental
position. It is simply
because these are the type of folks you
should naturally listen to.
This is too long so I am not going to go
blow by blow, scripture by
scripture unless asked a specific question.
But here a a few
observations about NT in general:
The church is the ekklesia - the called
out ones. Called out by who?
God Himself of course. He don't need
no help. THE AUTHOR it (is) HE.
Some scripture seems to speak of people
being "over" others in the Lord.
The greek word "Epi" can mean over/under
among or even beside. Why the
translators always chose "over" in these
cases is unknown, but gee -
could it be that it is because a King (James
a heirarchical ruler)
commissioned the first deal and could have
your head if he wanted?
Also, never forget the religious powers
that be have always been the
religious powers that be. (See Jesus'
crucufixion)
Imagine, - Honor those who are among you
in the Lord and undergird and
support you.............Hmmmm, sure a different
flavor than over you and
rule your as....er butt. Excuse me.
Also strange the Greek word for rule with
governmental authority
"arche'" is not used in regards to the
church in passages John
listed. More relational , functional
terms like hegomai are used.
Oh yeah, the word bishop or overseer, actually
means overseer.
It means look things over and turn them
to God. So bishops of hcdl
what do you do? "Uh, we just watch,
look things
over, pray alot and participate according
to our gifts."
Simulated quote - excuse me.
Another catcher, the "appoint elders" like
in Titus 1:5. Doesn't mean that
a governing man gives an edict. It
simply means dispose, determine,
or recognise. Like hey, recognize
and determine who God has disposed
to be elders in this place. It means
agree with God, not use your power
to make it or fake it.
Oh, what else? What else?
Almost forgot a biggee. When
places like Romans 12:8 are translated
to say stuff like Gift of leadership, leadership'
leadership' leadership'
leadership' ect. Guess what?
No greek work there to derive "leader"
from. It means care or give aid.
Wow service, not leadership.
What a concept! Hey, Jesus should
of thought of this one. Wait a
minute. Oh yeah, HE did, He did.
Thanks for reminding us Karen from
Buffalo and others!
What does all this mean? Could it
possibly be - be who you are in
Jesus without the need of any credentials.
And if God surely dwells in
you and what you speak is His love and
truth His purposes will be
accomplished. You mean His word won't
come back void even if
you don't have the right badge, certificate,
license, or recognition.
You mean we really don't need any letters
of recconmendation, but
could ALL be living epistles known and
read by all.
Like Paul and Popeye said, "I am, what I am."
Let the chips fall where they may.
God is great at picking up the pieces
and putting us together.
The thethehte the that's all folks.
Be happy to converse more.
God's got a million of them!
While the church's preoccupation with leadership
and authority is
something we have all become used to, this familiarity does not make
it
a worthwhile pursuit. The whole thing began with the grab for
power and
authority in the Garden of Eden and has been depressingly familiar
since.
I think it constructive to find ways of structuring the church in such
a
way that it reflects the ego-massaging models of leadership in the
world
around us as little as possible. It is Jesus' upside down kingdom
that
I like to think we seek to model. Our home churches, not hidebound
by
authoritarian traditions of denominational leadership that come from
past ages when these were more fashionable, are free to concentrate
their energies on empowering the fearful, the reluctant and the weak
rather than headhunting church executives. We can safely leave
the
business of raising up those for special tasks to the Godhead, where
any
glory can then clearly reside.
My home church experience has been that by structuring our church so
that consensus is the method of decision-making, direction on particular
occasions can come from unexpected sources in unexpected ways - and
this
can be a cause of wonder and gratitude to a God who can be seen to
perform miracles in the lives of the most retiring and least confident
of us. This, too, has its problems - we have few models, so we
make
mistakes and it is slow and inefficient - but I believe it to be our
struggling attempt to try the gospel model.
Dear HCDL,
>>> Concerning authority, John C. wrote:
Also a note to Hal - please feel free to elaborate
or upgrade your
thinking on this!
I really believe that if we smooth this over we
are missing something.
Does anyone care to comment?
>>>
Upgrade my thinking? Upgrade? Please wait while
InstallShield(tm)
prepares my system to install the new version.
. . .
The funny thing is: leadership and authority is
one area where things
have seemed to get much simpler as we've gone
on. Here is one
disembodied new year's day observations to try
to provoke discussion
on the topic that's a bit deeper.
***
Ken Goodlet's (now we have two Ken G.'s!) description
of how his
home church works makes it sound quite similar
to ours. We have found
little need for defined authority in either of
the two areas many people
claim it is essential:
* teaching, and
* direction.
*** Teaching ***
The children of God are remarkably discerning
when they function as a
group. I believe one reason Christians feel the
"need" for some kind of
authoritative teaching is that we have forgotten
how to be discerning
together. We live our Christian lives as isolated
consumers of "teaching"
and then act surprised when people are blown
here and there by winds
of doctrine.
We have discovered that we have little need to
recognize some authority
or other for teaching because God is entirely
capable of teaching us well
if we will sit and listen together. When we meet,
we take turns (not all of
us, but many of us) bringing insight and focus
to a time dedicated to
learning.
Once a five-year-old "brought the teaching" (on
David and Goliath, and
how God can help you win . . .). I still
remember it clearly years later.
How many adults have brought teachings to you
that you remember
years later?
Though a variety of people bring the teaching,
however, the _learning_
belongs to us all. It is our responsibility as
a group to take what one of
us
brought and make it our learning. This is the
move that is often missing
when people rely on "authoritative teaching."
The important thing is that we do it together.
We discuss what was
brought, disagreeing, redirecting, going off
on tangents, and applying.
This is where learning happens for us: we make
the "teaching" our own,
often in ways the teacher never dreamed of.
I've often said that Christians should stop worrying
about teaching and
pay some attention to learning. The more we go
on, the more true that
seems to be.
And, if you care about "heresy," "false teaching,"
and the like, go read
the sad history of the church and ask yourself:
Where is the danger
here? Is it from Christians trying to be learners?
Or is it from fools
posturing themselves as "authoritative" teachers?
My opinion is pretty obvious.
*** Direction ***
People also commonly assert that authority is
necessary to provide
direction. You know, it's the "without a vision
the people perish" sermon,
and it's pretty routinely some authoritative
leader's vision that we're all
perishing without.
Again, as we've gone on, we've found this completely
unnecessary.
What we've discovered is that when you take the
"authoritative leaders"
out of the way, God's people are overflowing
with leadership gifts.
One or another of us leads in various times, ways,
and places. We don't
have to have a leader because we have learned
that, when we're
willing to function together as a body, people
very naturally lead where
they need to.
The Spirit of God gives people (various of us)
the graces to "go first"
(that _is_ what leadership means, by the way),
and the rest of us have
learned, over time, how to follow.
Following, it seems, is the tough part, not leading.
To well follow, you
have to be supporting and discerning. You have
to be able to try out
what someone other than you thinks is a good
way to go. But it's hardly
a blind follower-ship. It's highly interactive
and dynamic.
Ken called this "consensus" and we do, too. It's
really much more
complicated than that, but that's another discussion.
Leadership, you
see, is a critical part of consensus working
for a group. It's just that
the
leadership you need to operate by consensus has
very little to do with
the leadership models that are touted by the
authority-mongers who
chew up so much Christian air-time.
My point is that you have to learn leadership
(and follower-ship) as a
group, just like you have to learn learning (and
teaching) as a group.
These skills belong to the body of Christ, not
to one isolated
"authoritative" individual or another.
***
I realize that this all may sound ridiculous
or simplistic to those who
live
their lives in church worlds preoccupied with
individual claims to
authority. It would have had that sound to me
not that many years ago.
I think what groups need to do to get started
is to be willing to grow
toward the truth of these things. In Salem, 20
years ago, we started with
a strong leader model of elders and a serious
orientation to authority. We
also started with a desire to work by consensus.
Over the years, we have been willing to grow toward
the way we deal
with authority and leadership now. We didn't
magically arrive one day;
we _learned_ our way here. It took time and lots
of false starts and
tangents. And I'm certain that it's not over
yet. We'll most likely be
upgrading our thinking for the foreseeable future.
So, to people like John C. who have "lots of questions,"
I say: "Bravo!
Those are the beginning of wisdom."
Oooooops. I know the bible says that's the fear
of God. I guess,
technically, lots of questions must be the next-to-the-beginning
of
wisdom. I leave that to the people who feel obliged
to keep track of such
things.
What can I say about Hal's post?
Yes, yes, yes and a thousand more of them!
Churchlife and everything else is a journey
and not a destination. Embrace each step together.
In a message dated 1/1/99 6:16:08 AM Eastern Standard
Time,
hmiller@TASC.Com writes:
<<
My point is that you have to learn leadership
(and follower-ship) as a
group, just like you have to learn learning
(and teaching) as a group.
These skills belong to the body of Christ,
not to one isolated
"authoritative" individual or another.
>>
Hi Hal and HCDL,
Happy new year, etc........bla, bla, bla......
It has been while since my last HCDL confession.
Hal, your post is right on the money! Authority
is not as complicated as
many would make it seem. The Church can
be lead by the HEAD (Jesus Christ) if
all of the local body are willing to allow him
to show up and lead THROUGH the
CHURCH. Yes, he uses many of us [parts
of the Body] to speak words of LIFE
to the body. NOTE the key word is MANY.
I have seen many believers get trapped by following
one man's vision and
teaching . . . day in and day out. I have
actually experienced this and I
know the action can become a form of weekly idol
worship. The type of
worship that says [to us believers] God can't
use me because ... [insert title
here] So&So is so gifted, spiritual, called,
anointed, led by God, leads a holier
life, has been given the responsibility of shepherding,
leading, teaching,
etc.
This why the NT tell us that Christ established
the CHURCH to live, feed,
and work by HIS leading and by our [the CHURCH's]
dependence on EACH OTHER.
The world will see Christ when they SEE our LOVE
FOR ONE ANOTHER! A Church
living in Christ without an established "Leader"
is an incredible testimony to the
world. IMHO it is a much greater "witness"
than 1,000,000 gospel tracks
being handed out, 1000 CCM concerts, or 1,000,000,000
evangelical sermons!
Has an HCDL buddy of mine says, "Don't go to Church, BE the CHURCH!"
It is our right to BE the CHURCH. I say
let us walk in the Priesthood of
the Believers daily.
AMEN, Hal you shared a great teaching today.
My take on this Authority stuff. ( John
this does not define it or even
attempt to explain it using proof texts in any
way. )
Every time a leader, or someone exercising
true leadership, has come to me
I've submitted. Every time.
I am not known in the IC that I try not to
attend as someone who submits to authority though
because this true
leadership rarely occurs there.
I'll say it another way. Every time someone has
come and washed my feet (
spiritually and physically) I've submitted to
them and they have lead me
into a greater fellowship and understanding of
the Kingdom of Heaven.
That's how I see it. IMHO this
behavior rings true with the sayings of
Christ and the teachings of the New Testament.
Anyone wana wash my feet?
I suppose our opinions of leadership depends in
part on the sorts of
analogies we use to describe it. (I've
written something like this before,
I think.) One analogy that's often used
is the family. There are parents,
children, brothers, sisters - all sorts of relationships.
But even with
the
family model, there are two different ways of
comparing it to the church.
Some people compare the Church to a complete nuclear
family, made up of
parents and children. Naturally, there
are times in every family in which
the parents must exercise authority, especially
when the children are
young.
Parents shoulder the responsibility for raising,
training, and protecting
their children and sometimes they have to be
"dictators" in order to do an
effective job. As the children grow older,
that sort of authority becomes
both less necessary and less advisable, but parents
always fill a mentor
role. In the same way, the Church is complete
family, where some people
are
parents and others are children. The parental
types have authority over
the
children types.
Others would say that the church is not made up
of parents and children,
but
merely a bunch of siblings. *God* is the
Father, and we are all his
children and brothers and sisters of one another.
In most families, no
sibling has any sort of concrete authority over
another. Even when the age
difference between the oldest and the youngest
sibling is quite large, most
parents don't choose to give the oldest sibling
direct parental authority
over the younger ones. While the eldest
may have quite a lot of
responsibility to care for the younger ones,
any serious disputes or
critical decisions are left up to the parents.
If you closely watch a group of children at play,
you'll be amazed at the
"coordination" they're capable of carrying out.
They can invent intricate
games of make-believe, which each child filling
a unique role and having
complicated interactions with the other children.
Who organizes this? No
one with any direct authority over the others.
Sure, there's leadership,
or
the game would never get started. But it's
relational leadership, not
authoritarian leadership. There's a crucial
difference!
Some churches and denominations call their clergy
"father". They obviously
subscribe to the full-family model. Other
churches and denominations call
their clergy "pastors". They claim to subscribe
to the siblings-only
model,
but there's no real difference between them and
the first group, in
practice. Most people who get into home
or relational churching are trying
a great experiment - to find out if a *true*
siblings-only model is
workable. So far, the reports are encouraging.
>>> Eric L. wrote:
If you closely watch a group of children at play, you'll be amazed
at the
"coordination" they're capable of carrying out. They can invent
intricate
games of make-believe, which each child filling a unique role and having
complicated interactions with the other children. Who organizes
this?
No one with any direct authority over the others. Sure, there's
leadership, or the game would never get started. But it's relational
leadership, not authoritarian leadership. There's a crucial difference!
>>>
Another in the long list of things we adults need to learn from our
children! Well observed, Eric.
Perhaps one of the reasons children are free to behave this way is that
they don't share our adult biases about what "just won't work." They
spontaneously and easily use relational leadership styles that many
"knowledgeable" adults (including some we've seen quoted here
recently) "know" are impossible or godless.
Clearly, the children have their own problems (bullies, spoil-sports)
just
as we do, but you're right--they do remarkably well organizing and
managing their work (which is play).
One classic of theirs worth emulating is the way many children conduct
leadership. They say, "Hey, I know! Why don't we . . . ." It recognizes
the
importance of innovation and "going first" that are at the core of
leadership. And yet it has the collegiality ("why don't we . . .")
necessary to put that "going first" at the service of the group.