the leader shouldn't be a person
Here is a revolutionary thought for the day. I have been pondering issues related to biblical egalitarianism for the past several days... and honestly I believe that the debate itself is flawed. I came to this conclusion after talk to a wise man that I know (and you know who you are) and thinking about other organizational problems that I perceive in the church. I believe that there is a more fundamental and serious critique to be leveled at modern western Christianity than simply how the sexes interact in our communities.
Here is the problem as I currently perceive it.
All the arguments for traditional gender roles in the church return to similar arguments relating to hierarchy in nature (God made man first and then made woman). Man becomes the conduit of leadership, appointed by God, and woman follows.
CHRIST
|
MAN
|
WOMAN
The above is supposedly a picture of how Christ relates to the church (ala Paul's New Testament comments). As a result we envision church leadership to look very hierarchical as well. God speaks to a leader (head of the church, pastor, etc.) and that leader provides oversight and direction for the flock. The head directs, the body (or congregation) follows. This is how God intended the structure to look, how He created it to function in nature, right?
CHRIST
|
PASTOR (MAN)
|
CONGREGATION
What if that assumption is wrong. What if hierarchical leadership is a, flat out, BAD way to lead a church community and it was never intended as the model by God. That would alter all discussions of leadership roles (including potentially solving the Biblical Egalitarian stuff) because it changes the nature of leadership itself. My new position is this... leadership is not supposed to be held by an individual it is better held by a community of capable individuals. I think that it is time to completely revision the leadership structure of many churches..
Consider this... currently in many churches I have seen there is a system built upon hierarchy with small group accountability. The pastor, indeed all pastors (associate or otherwise) are chosen by God. Once the community "discerns" that this individual is supposed to hold the position then he (b/c it typically is a he) is allowed a large measure of autonomy over the community. Other associates and ministers report to the pastor who then speaks for God to the community of believers.
It starts to look something like this…
CHRIST
|
SENIOR PASTOR (MAN)
|
PASTORAL STAFF
|
SUPPORT STAFF FOR MINISTRIES
|
VOLUNTEERS
|
NON-INVOLVED CHURCH MEMBER
In my experience this leads to a number of problems common to tall hierarchical organizations. There is little upward communication, downward communication is poor because it must travel through a variety of channels to reach the average church member, informal communication channels thrive resulting in in-group/out-group problems and gossip, decision making is based on minimal information (resulting in potentially poor decisions), and participation is limited to those who are able to participate in the informal communication network (you have to know someone to be able to get involved. As for small group accountability, due to the massive break down in communication and semantic information distance that plagues such organizations, group think is common and accountability is more ideal than real.
Frankly, this is no way to run an efficient organization. So here is a radical idea... the idea of senior pastor as head (symbolic of Christ himself and embued with the power to speak for God himself) is, put simply, a bad idea. It generates a "cult of the leader" phenomena and ultimately leads to unstable organizations that are unable to function synergistically.
Consider this... recent studies on Southern Baptist Congregations included the following observations. There are more people on the rosters than actually attend. There are more people attending than are involved. Churches are typically shrinking in size as well as aging demographically. Most churches are growing because of church splits not because of new baptisms.
Why is that? Because the modern church is failing to note that it has a fundamental leadership problem. We are running badly managed organizations… but refuse to adapt because we falsely believe that our current hierarchical structure has been dictated by God. However, our current structure, I argue, has evolved out of culture and has been proven since then to be a poor way to function.
Consider models present by the early church. Jesus does select and mentor 12 men however once Christ leaves the world a new model of organization is chosen. Now, the disciples gather and vote concerning community decisions. In fact, there is much evidence throughout the book of Acts that the community was the valued entity and singular individuals did not typically reign over the group. Leadership was held corporately, being sought within communities that were built upon democratic and consensus decision making styles, very different than the autocratic and simple democracies that we see in more incarnations.
There is a sense of hierarchy within these communities (groups reported to deacons, deacons reported to the apostles). However, I argue that there is a thread of practicality when hierarchy is present and an evolution of human interaction was possible. Namely, these hierarchies weren't fixed entities but could have been present to meet situational concerns.
Jesus couldn't involve the disciples in leadership decisions immediately (ala Contingency Theory) because worker maturity was too low. However, as the disciples matured they were able to assume greater leadership abilities (the mentoree became the mentor) and were presented with increased community authority and leadership participation. Similarly, as the early church expanded rapidly they were again faced with participation readiness issues because they were immature in their faith (new believers) so hierarchy may have served the function of maturation and discipleship. It was not, and should not be seen as permanent or valued organizational structure.
A better structure could be one that returned to notions of community as the ruling value of decision making back upon a consensus model. Certainly discernment should be applied to the selection of these individuals, however, the power to make decisions should be shared within a small group of mature leaders who would be able to better share/discern community needs and potential directions. The "headship" then is held by more than one person and responsibility for leadership rests upon multiple shoulders. When consensus fails then democracy reigns. The community is able to move forward without the problems that the "cult of the leader" presents.
What implications does that hold for the gender/sex/leadership debate. It completely revisions the problem by reexamine hierarchy (moving from individuals to collectives), and could potentially allow for decision making in marriage to be a community process as well. It is not that one person is imbued with power to lead and the other imbued with power to assist. Instead, we are all mutually accountable in community to both lead and assist when the situation demands. Leadership is not held by one person but shared by a group (in this case a dyad) and requires mutual submission and accountability. This may allow women to step into leadership roles as long as she, just as men are required, remains in submission to the will of the community.
OK… that probably makes no sense. It is my random collection of jargon laden thoughts. I will try to clarify all of that later.
Buggs
Here is the problem as I currently perceive it.
All the arguments for traditional gender roles in the church return to similar arguments relating to hierarchy in nature (God made man first and then made woman). Man becomes the conduit of leadership, appointed by God, and woman follows.
CHRIST
|
MAN
|
WOMAN
The above is supposedly a picture of how Christ relates to the church (ala Paul's New Testament comments). As a result we envision church leadership to look very hierarchical as well. God speaks to a leader (head of the church, pastor, etc.) and that leader provides oversight and direction for the flock. The head directs, the body (or congregation) follows. This is how God intended the structure to look, how He created it to function in nature, right?
CHRIST
|
PASTOR (MAN)
|
CONGREGATION
What if that assumption is wrong. What if hierarchical leadership is a, flat out, BAD way to lead a church community and it was never intended as the model by God. That would alter all discussions of leadership roles (including potentially solving the Biblical Egalitarian stuff) because it changes the nature of leadership itself. My new position is this... leadership is not supposed to be held by an individual it is better held by a community of capable individuals. I think that it is time to completely revision the leadership structure of many churches..
Consider this... currently in many churches I have seen there is a system built upon hierarchy with small group accountability. The pastor, indeed all pastors (associate or otherwise) are chosen by God. Once the community "discerns" that this individual is supposed to hold the position then he (b/c it typically is a he) is allowed a large measure of autonomy over the community. Other associates and ministers report to the pastor who then speaks for God to the community of believers.
It starts to look something like this…
CHRIST
|
SENIOR PASTOR (MAN)
|
PASTORAL STAFF
|
SUPPORT STAFF FOR MINISTRIES
|
VOLUNTEERS
|
NON-INVOLVED CHURCH MEMBER
In my experience this leads to a number of problems common to tall hierarchical organizations. There is little upward communication, downward communication is poor because it must travel through a variety of channels to reach the average church member, informal communication channels thrive resulting in in-group/out-group problems and gossip, decision making is based on minimal information (resulting in potentially poor decisions), and participation is limited to those who are able to participate in the informal communication network (you have to know someone to be able to get involved. As for small group accountability, due to the massive break down in communication and semantic information distance that plagues such organizations, group think is common and accountability is more ideal than real.
Frankly, this is no way to run an efficient organization. So here is a radical idea... the idea of senior pastor as head (symbolic of Christ himself and embued with the power to speak for God himself) is, put simply, a bad idea. It generates a "cult of the leader" phenomena and ultimately leads to unstable organizations that are unable to function synergistically.
Consider this... recent studies on Southern Baptist Congregations included the following observations. There are more people on the rosters than actually attend. There are more people attending than are involved. Churches are typically shrinking in size as well as aging demographically. Most churches are growing because of church splits not because of new baptisms.
Why is that? Because the modern church is failing to note that it has a fundamental leadership problem. We are running badly managed organizations… but refuse to adapt because we falsely believe that our current hierarchical structure has been dictated by God. However, our current structure, I argue, has evolved out of culture and has been proven since then to be a poor way to function.
Consider models present by the early church. Jesus does select and mentor 12 men however once Christ leaves the world a new model of organization is chosen. Now, the disciples gather and vote concerning community decisions. In fact, there is much evidence throughout the book of Acts that the community was the valued entity and singular individuals did not typically reign over the group. Leadership was held corporately, being sought within communities that were built upon democratic and consensus decision making styles, very different than the autocratic and simple democracies that we see in more incarnations.
There is a sense of hierarchy within these communities (groups reported to deacons, deacons reported to the apostles). However, I argue that there is a thread of practicality when hierarchy is present and an evolution of human interaction was possible. Namely, these hierarchies weren't fixed entities but could have been present to meet situational concerns.
Jesus couldn't involve the disciples in leadership decisions immediately (ala Contingency Theory) because worker maturity was too low. However, as the disciples matured they were able to assume greater leadership abilities (the mentoree became the mentor) and were presented with increased community authority and leadership participation. Similarly, as the early church expanded rapidly they were again faced with participation readiness issues because they were immature in their faith (new believers) so hierarchy may have served the function of maturation and discipleship. It was not, and should not be seen as permanent or valued organizational structure.
A better structure could be one that returned to notions of community as the ruling value of decision making back upon a consensus model. Certainly discernment should be applied to the selection of these individuals, however, the power to make decisions should be shared within a small group of mature leaders who would be able to better share/discern community needs and potential directions. The "headship" then is held by more than one person and responsibility for leadership rests upon multiple shoulders. When consensus fails then democracy reigns. The community is able to move forward without the problems that the "cult of the leader" presents.
What implications does that hold for the gender/sex/leadership debate. It completely revisions the problem by reexamine hierarchy (moving from individuals to collectives), and could potentially allow for decision making in marriage to be a community process as well. It is not that one person is imbued with power to lead and the other imbued with power to assist. Instead, we are all mutually accountable in community to both lead and assist when the situation demands. Leadership is not held by one person but shared by a group (in this case a dyad) and requires mutual submission and accountability. This may allow women to step into leadership roles as long as she, just as men are required, remains in submission to the will of the community.
OK… that probably makes no sense. It is my random collection of jargon laden thoughts. I will try to clarify all of that later.
Buggs