We all so readily confess that Jesus is the head of the church, but in practice it is rarely so. I have found very, very few contexts that give practical expression to that idea.
A friend spoke of their church being without a leader, because Jesus is their leader. That is commendable, but potentially risky. The truth is that leadership and authority is a serious issue to God. Many of our greatest issues stem from a clash of interest between God’s position on authority and the consequential resentment of followers.
Either way we lose if we don’t get a balanced perspective on leadership. Many churches have been suppressed by self-centered leaders, whilst others have been impoverished by lack of leadership, but far too many individuals are in wilderness places because they could not connect with leadership at all.
That presents the church with a significant dilemma. Empirically, we cannot defend a dominant-leadership model. I happily concede that good, even great leaders have come and gone, but that was as true of ancient, biblical Israel. Aside from David, Josiah and Hezekiah, Israel suffered a rotten bunch of leaders who led them all astray.
The greatest indictment against sovereign-leadership models was that Israel’s need for a king amounted to a rejection of God. Sovereign-leadership has no New Testament pretext, rather it stems from Catholicism and clergy-laity practices.
God’s model is more about leadership than leaders. Individuals are of little consequence to the kingdom. If Moses and others had to step aside, modern leaders are as dispensable.
Biblical leadership is plural. Biblical leaders did not operate alone, but they also respected the balance between the pillars of Biblical society, notably Prophets, Priests and Kings. Modern democracies and public companies also honor divisions of power and the related checks and balances. So, why then is the church at odds with a biblical idea that still works in civil society to ensure accountability and limit leadership excesses?
Until individuals matter less than the whole, we will never know the full implications of Christ’s headship. That is partly because the church was made for its members, not for its leaders. Leaders are, at best, midwives of the emerging church. The proof of that is in Ephesians 4, which says, “(the ministries) must continue until we all come into the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man”. Thus, church is not about organisation and the careers of professional priests, for leadership is a stewardship function designed to facilitate the emergence of a believer-priesthood.
Leaders are vital to church governance, but if they were plural and mutually balanced, there would be fewer conflicts of interest. It would also ensure real stewardship. Further, if individuals deferred to the greater thing that God is doing, individual members would be more effective in doing what they were designed to do. If that happened, we would see Christ revealed through the church and hear the shout of His kingship amongst us.
(c) Peter Eleazar @ http://www.4u2live.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment