Now I confidently say that whoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others, Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.
Gregory the Great, 540-604 AD, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Epistle XXXIII, To Mauricius Augustus, (translated by Rev. James Barmby, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, T & T Clark and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997, Second Series, Vol. XII, p. 226)
What constitutes appropriate authority for leadership in the Christian church? What are the boundaries it should not go beyond?
HE WANTS "YOU"
5 hours ago
That is a great question Mike. Seems like denominations have some criteria that supports authority. Seminaries and Bible Colleges are places that provide some sort of credentials. Then there is the idea that the laity (i.e. elders, etc.) authorize professional ministry. All of these claim to have authority given to them by God. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI am against any purely mechanical means of establishing authority. I not think who someone was ordained by or what organization they are a part of is really relevant. Seminaries and Bible Colleges may help equip someone for a position of leadership, but they cannot determine who belongs there.
DeleteI see two basic criteria for real Biblical authority:
We need to look for people who have God genuinely at work in their lives both in character and the qualities and giftings appropriate for a leader.
There needs to be an agreement by the people of God that this individual has those qualities. People may think they do and be mistaken. The existing leaders can assist in this, but should not make the decision totally on their own.
This goes against the grain of what is usually done, but it is my opinion.
I agree with you in concept. It is the pragmatics of involving folks that seem to be problematic. My experience is limited to three (500+ member) churches and they were mostly nondenom in nature. In each case the elders weeded (senior) pastoral candidates to a few guys from which the 'members' gave input on after a time of evaluation. Generally speaking, the input from 'members' did not out weigh the elders' input. Again, the pragmatics of the 'search' process seems to favor the inclinations of a few and not the body as a whole.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess I am wondering what you feel is a good approach that would involve more people?
This is a difficult question. It probably does not help that my experiences are with smaller churches about 100 or less (Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nondenominational and Baptist).
DeleteMy ideal, which would require reworking the whole system, is to go back to the practice of the ancient church and have people come up through the ranks. This would result in knowing and testing the person before putting them in.
In the present system I would suggest trying to get a variety of people on the search committee, not just obvious leaders. Having functions where people can actually meet the candidates and talk with them and ask questions. It also helps if the congregation has a attitude of taking ownership in the church (something the leadership needs to foster) and not just leaving everything to the leaders. But all this works better in a smaller than a larger church. And with all of it, it is still hard not to have the few have the final say.
I do think congregational size matters when selecting a lead person. Is the person going to be a leader of a few or a leader of leaders. Are they going to administer a small or large staff? Small or large budget? In that context the church needs to select the best people possible to interview any candidate for pastoral ministry.
ReplyDeleteRegarding a selection from their own, I certainly think that could be good a good idea if people are not just simply choosing one of their friends. On the positive side the church I once went to (500+ people) made a young man who grew up in the church their lead pastor when he came back from seminary (he was in his 40s). So I think that it is very possible to do that.
It is difficult to decide exactly what is the best method for every situation. But I think there needs to be a deliberate attempt to see the church as the people and not just the hierarchy.
DeleteI think folks see the Body of Christ that way but not the church. Not sure why but the church seems to be more identified with it's leader.
DeleteI think there is a remnant here of the idea of apostolic succession. That there is some authority that is mechanical passed down from being ordained by the right person or into the right group. This is a idea I firmly reject.
DeleteI reject it too Mike. Also reject (not strongly) the idea that a person with a teaching gift is given more authority than one with a healing gift.
DeletePeople who a particular gift need to use that gift, but none necessarily bestows authority. I think the qualification of being able to teach means a person is well enough grounded in Christ they can explain Him to others, not that they necessarily have the gift of teaching.
DeleteMy point is that people in religious authority seem to be more like the Pharisees than the Apostles. Gifted teachers more than pastoral leaders.
ReplyDeleteI am a teacher and do not want to too severely criticize my own gift, but it is clear that the church needs both instruction and pastoral care. It is a mistake to have one without the other.
DeleteBut I think the biggest issue here is want you teach, grace or self-righteousness. If you teach self-righteousness, you will (like the Pharisees) load people down with heavy burdens and reject them if they fail to live up to your standard. If you teach grace you will be concerned for the welfare of the flock and how to help those who wander find their way back into the fold.
In my experience, it does seem that the teaching gift trumps the pastoral one when candidates are interviewed for the senior position. Congregants want a John MacArthur or a Joel Osteen - someone who can give them their weekly fix of teaching and inspiration. And again, in my experience, I have found these teachers to be introverts and not really equipped to make disciples the way that Jesus did. Their leadership style seems more top-down than relational. But I digress. ツ
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem is we tend to look for a "the pastor", one person who is everything to the congregation, rather than a leadership team that balances each other out. I am not against introverts, I am an introvert, but an introvert in leadership needs to surround themselves with people who will help them connect with people, not buffer them from it.
DeleteBut I think part of the problem is it is easier to tell if someone is a good preacher than a good pastor. The latter takes effort that people may not be willing to put in. That is one reason I like the idea of coming up through the ranks.
I agree with your take Mike. Paying people to minister sets up expectations that they will be everything to the congregation. Leadership teams of lay people can be good but I have found such groups to often be filled with yes men and friends/family of the pastor.
ReplyDeleteHard for a person to come up through the ranks. Just ask Jesus. He did well every place except his home village where people knew him when he was young.
Our pastor is an interesting guy. Started the church with about a dozen folks and has grown it to about 16,000 members. He is a rare combination of a great teacher, a good shepherd and a leader of leaders. He has passed on opportunities to to be a UMC bishop and has stated over and over that his calling is to our church. He is 51 and I do wonder how the church will eventually replace him. LOL. Who knows what I will be doing when that challenge is before the church.
As I said I do not know an easy answer to this problem. But I think getting rid of the hard clergy laity distinction would help. But it is a fight. My current pastor has tried to take more of a team approach, but has taken a certain amount of flack from people who think in terms of a single pastor concept. But eliminating the idea of a special authority bestowed by the ceremony of ordination would help.
DeleteOn those points we agree Mike. Authority issues seem to arise when professional (i.e. paid) ordained clergy are involved.
DeleteI strongly sympathize with your position. I do not necessarily object to pastors being paid, but professionals seem to me to be the wrong attitude. My reservation about unpaid leadership is that it will end up with one or a few people carrying heavy burdens on top of their regular jobs and not having time to instruct or pastor. I wonder if there is some way to pay leaders to give them the time to serve, without the concept of "professional".
DeleteI also do not object to paying pastors as I used to be one. ツ
DeleteMy issue is really with the idea that folks that are paid have more authority than unpaid laity. Just consider how many call their preachers Pastor Bob or Reverend Mike. I always asked folks to just call me Bob.
I agree. We are all part of the body of Christ. But it seems to be a hard thing to get people to see.
Delete