I had a great discussion via IM with Hamo a few weeks ago, and the ideas are still rolling around inside my head.
I explained that our church planting team is very egalitarian and anti-pastoral-model. He was concerned that we may not be allowing for differential roles as God has prepared us for and called us to. Hamo mentioned Ephesians 4:7-13:
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. [8] This is why it says:“When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men.”EPH 4:9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? [10] He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) [11] It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, [12] to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up [13] until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
A major implication of this passage is that if we are insistent upon a flat leadership structure, with no one person serving in a way that exercises specific gifts of leadership, we are missing out on what God intends for us. Diversity, rather than flat egalitarian structure, is the idea presented here.
We have attempted to be positive in our beliefs and methodology, yet I fear that perhaps we are remaining in the negative on leadership, acting more out of what we don’t want than what we do want. This does not mean we need to appoint a pastor in the traditional sense. It may mean that we need to see ourselves leading in ways that may currently make each other uncomfortable when we’re all together.
Taking on differential leadership is hard when we perceive ourselves as equals. But it seems like we are called to very different things, and this has to have implications in the way we view ourselves as leaders.
Any thoughts?
Justin-glad to see you writing again. I don’t comment often, but I read every day. I am struggling to find a way back to a corporate expression of my faith, and reading what you guys have to say stimulates that process.
As to this topic, you and Hamo may be talking about different things. When you refer to an anti-pastoral egalitarian model, you are (I think) referring to a leadership structure and a power dynamic. Paul in Ephesians is talking about functional diversity within the body. You can have diverse functions and titles within a flat leadership, or you can have them within a rigid heirarchical leadership structure. I would guess that you and your team are performing all of these functions regardless of your labels or structures, and that as your team develops you will notice gifts/callings in eachother in one direction or another.
But there’s nothing in Ephesians that argues against an egalitarian leadership. Quite the contrary, taken in context of the rest of Paul’s writings on the different functions within the body, the aim of Paul seems to be to support an appreciation of the equality of God’s call in each person’s life, regardless of its specific form.
P.S. Is there a way to get Wordpress to remember personal info for comments forms?
when mars started as a community in dallas, we came from a congregation under strong egalitarian leadership with many evidences of spritual abuse. the unspoken rule was that we would never become like that and in so thinking we ran the opposite direction to a structure-less leadership. we soon began to deal with the difficulty of folks not recognizing God’s structure and the “too may chiefs, not enough indians” syndrom.
the last couple of years have seen us attempting to right the wrongs of our beginnings by, like Hamo suggested, viewing the Ephesians passage in light of our current context and praying for the wisdom to integrate the ancient wisdom of Paul into our future as a community of Believers.
I do not think the egalitarian power-pyramid scenario is either healthy or biblical but there does need to be an acknowledging of the structure and authority given by Christ to his people.
Our cultural preoccupation in a top-down leadership paradigm IS changing — albeit very slowly. The five-fold leadership description in Ephesians reinforces the notion of leadership collegiums within local congregations - a plurality of godly elders, equal in status and authority, but not in gifting or function.
I’ve personally been part of two attempts to reclaim this model. Both failed. Yet, in my final analysis, it wasn’t the model which was inherently flawed — it was us, those leading.
Glad to see you wrestling with these issues. Blessings!
Remembering info - it looks like it’s remembering my info, but I’m not sure what the factors in that are. I’ve been making a lot of changes around here, so if it’s forgetting your name and email, that may have been my fault.
Thanks for the great input so far. I think our team would agree with what’s been said. Perhaps the issue is more that we aren’t really pursuing said giftings and callings passionately enough. Easy for me to say, though. Balancing the busyness of life with church work is tough, and it’s not my place to criticize how much others want to be involved.
For myself, I think I need to start viewing my role as more pastoral and leader-like than I have before. We are operating in a cultural context where religious leaders have titles, even if they’re humble about it. A religious leader with no title comes across as being either illegitimate or not a leader in the first place.
I suppose that’s why I’ve been putting so much thought into the Leadership Paradigms. As a bivocational church planter, I don’t know how to refer to that role when speaking with my co-workers. Am I a pastor? They’ve heard of that, though not the term “church planter.” They would be cool with it if I said I was a pastor. At the moment, I don’t feel entirely free to refer to myself that way, though I probably should. But I need some sort of established term for people to hang some meaning on when I talk about what I do with Metro.
I’ve been in a couple of different partnerships, at let me tell you, they’re never equal. Your contribution and effort will be different from every other member (unless you were cloned at birth), there’s no way around it. Also having a power structure capable of deadlock is also unhealthy (even number of people with equal votes). Always have to have some way to resolve that.
Romans 12:4-8 also weighs in on different contributions:
So I would say, unity of purpose, diversity in contribution. Power? That’s a tougher one.
As to being a pastor, every one at our church that commits to training and outreach is a pastor (except for being able to marry people). So I would definitely consider you a pastor, as well as anyone else in your group that is reaching out to others. Me? I’m a pastor apprentice. (still have my training wheels)
G’day mate - good discussion kicking around! As you’d know while I like the ideal of an egalitarian system I doubt it ever really exists - even in places where people think it does…
I have become increasingly convinced that it is not structures (heirarchical or flat) that are abusive, but people who are abusive.
I’m not sure I would even argue that a hierarchical sturcure is inherently more abusive… I think it all depends on context.
All that said a think ’servant’ is a key metaphor for leadership and while it has lost some of its beef because its been over/misused I think if we let that notion lead us then we will usually lead well
Thanks for the helpful and wise input. I think for our group, power is not an issue - none of us is going to try to be power-hungry (not that there’s anything to be in power over, anyway!).
Derek - thanks for pointing out that diversity in contributions is OK. This has been frustrating to experience, but now that you put it in words, it’s not so bad. We all bring different things to the table, and we’ll all work “in proportion” to our unique calling.
Hamo - if we all have being a servant as our primary goal, we’ll be in good shape. Thanks.
Leadership is a very important topic to me, especially the ?servant leadership? of Greenleaf, De Pree, and others.
I was just watching The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King today, and the special features disc included an enlightening National Geographic documentary on the film that drew parallels between the film?s characters and historical leaders (and villains). Although I?ve held several management positions, I?ve tended to avoid leadership like the plague. Aragorn was also hurt, fearful of his own wickedness, and living in self-imposed exile?somewhat like Teddy Roosevelt. The point of the documentary was that great leaders seek to acquire and use power only for the purpose of setting others free. As far as titles (like ?pastor?) go, sometimes they are helpful, and sometimes they are unnecessary. It?s likely that no one ever called (Braveheart?s) William Wallace ?General;? he didn?t seek it for himself, and society didn?t bestow it on him, but he formed a loyal army, developed strategies, and fought for freedom.
Anyway, I recommend the DVD, and the documentary helped me to watch for leadership in many of the characters: the leadership of Gandalf?s wise counsel, Sam?s friendship, etc.