I was writing some things today about racism in the church (which my wife thinks should never be posted online… we’ll see) when I paused to check my email. A friend was responding via email to some comments I made in a digilog we are having about the theology of the church. He mentioned something about the role or purpose of authority in the church, and I found myself saying to the screen something sarcastic like, “Oh, that’s just the Man’s way of maintaining control and power in the church.” As I was saying that… I began to think about how spiritual authority and church offices might be the sneakiest homes for systemic racism in America. Sneaky, because they are ’spiritual’ized. I’ll share my thoughts.
Authority in the Church is deceiving. Authority in the church belongs to Jesus, that’s it. “Leaders” in the church serve. That’s that. Many of the titles given to leaders in the church were related to their functions. Over the years the institutional church has turned the functional descriptions into church office titles. For example, elders were likely to have been heads of households (uh… elders, elderly). (BTW - there WERE female heads of households back then, hmmmm) They gave leadership to the congregations of God’s people because they were more experienced, seasoned, and probably more tactful and diplomatic. Jesus told the disciples that “those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” The elders were exhorted in 1 Peter 5:3 not to “rule over” the people, but to be examples to the people. The elders already had authority available to them as heads of homes to exercise in the “Gentile” sense of the word . Peter was telling them to exercise their EXAMPLE… instead of their authority home-rulers. You were recognized as having authority in the early church communities from the “bottom-up” by the people. You were given authority by your peers and followers because they trusted your motives and honored your example and service.
We’ve twisted that concept of authority to mean “authority” from God (”top-down”) as if God didn’t actually leave us with his Spirit to serve as the authority in our faith communities… As if Christ stepped out and needs someone else to serve as Head of the church for awhile till he gets back. The “authority” of a new leader in the church is usually confirmed by the old leaders that rule the institution and trust the emerging leader to follow their leadership and preserve the static institution from which the leadership circle benefits. Most expressions of “authority” in the church might actually be the attempts by old white men to preserve the status quo and deny their capable peers of different ages, races, and gender the opportunity to lead in the church (I don’t even want to get started about how this “authority” concept has been abused by lazy men to justify ruling over their wives and children as the ‘head of the home’). Its easier to get or retain that lead pastor job when the competition is thinner. Its my blog. I can say that if I want to. Oh crap… I got to say this, too… Racism in the church is probably deeper, more prevalent, and more deceptive because old skewl club members cling to the conceptions of “authority” that equate, in practice, to extending the domination of the institutional church from one white dude to the next. Thank God for elders (not the institutional office “elders”, but the organic family/community “elders”) who are comfortable enough with their own role in God’s kingdom and confident enough in God’s covenant commitments to his people to share power with people that are not like them.
4 responses so far ↓
1 dansjourney // Jun 11, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Good stuff. I think that in many ways regarding the issue of racism you are on the money. I think that the institutional form of church “leadership” is not biblical and is creating systemic problems.
One thing I want to challenge though is the roles, responsibilities, and yes, authority of two distinct roles of elder and deacon as outlined by Paul in 1 Tim and Titus. These were clearly people who were selected based on criteria to lead the body.
The kind of authority that Paul used was profoundly Jewish in its foundations. This is not a Roman kind of authority. This is the parental/educational authority of the Jewish familial structure where power/authority are used within the context of planned obsolescence. That means that elders and deacons were constantly building up the body to maturity and then getting out of the way.
This is what we see Paul doing in his letters to the communities he founded.
This is what we see Jesus doing in relationship with the 12 (or even 72).
So, I think that the idea that “authority only belongs to Jesus” smacks of 21st century rejection of authority. Most people want Jesus to be the only authority because they can put words in his mouth.
Anyway, this is the thing that I am struggling through.
Racism, yes, I 110% agree. Authority, I think you need to work through more, in my opinion. You the man dog!
2 Chad // Jun 12, 2008 at 12:37 am
Homie. Really. Rejection of authority? Comon. Lets start with that one. First off, many of the references to roles in the New T are in the plural form.
He gave some to be apostleS, and some as prophetS, and some as evangelistS, and some as pastorS and teacherS.
This is a community of God’s people acting together as a body, coordinated by Jesus, the Head. In fact the way we recognize authority as “from God” bestowed on an individual on behalf of the community is more prone to, as you said, put words in his mouth. “God said,…” doesn’t fly readily in community unless God is actually saying it.
Re: Paul’s writings. His suggestions for acting as an elder (older congregant) or deacon (helper) were all related to their horizontal relationships…. How well do they serve? seems to be the issue.
Re: profoundly Jewish. There WAS a religious office in Judaism. That title of “priest” became restated as a way to refer to ALL followers of Jesus, which was profoundly reJewish.
Again, the “words in Jesus’ mouth” thing. See my post on biblical authority. The community must act congruently with the Story of God’s people. The Spirit of God and the scriptures inform that acting. Even if I were putting words in Jesus’ mouth, the community would have the obligation to confirm or reject that my thoughts were consistent with the Story and the Spirit.
Its a different understanding of authority, not a rejection of it. IMO the old understanding of authority is too prone to misuse by individuals acting for personal gains in the name of Jesus. The new understanding has a broader grounding in the story of God’s people and the shared life of the church.
The church is waaaay behind on this shared leadership, shared authority thing. BTW - did Jesus ever actually make it to his planned obsolescence?
3 dansjourney // Jun 12, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Interesting push back and good clarity. Realize that I am not disputing that the authority is plural. Realize that I am not disputing shared authority.
Re: “The community must act in congruity with the story of God’s people” - Right. That’s what I am trying to do. It seems to be fashionable to focus all our attention on the gospels alone as if the rest of the Bible does not exist. That I think is tragic. Paul has so much to say about the leadership of the community. Acts describes it. Remember the Pauline corpus was written prior to the the Synoptic Gospel corpus and as a result, the Synoptic Gospels are to be interpreted through the Pauline lens. Not the other way around (John is the exception because there is no clear connection between John and Paul).
I challenge your definition of “Elder”. The reason is becuase Timothy was one and was clearly young!! The disciples themselves were not old and yet were the primary leaders of the community.
The body is under the head, I agree. But, it seems to me that we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Because authority has been abused in a top-down fundamentalist evangelical western culture we should set it aside. I don’t think so.
I think that what we need is a renewed understanding that the roles and spiritual leadership in the church are not to be held by only a few but that it is broader. In that though there is necessity for leadership among the community. It has been this way throughout the story of the people check out Genesis and Exodus and following.
Christ is the head. Amen. But, remember he himself called and selected 12 to lead (a plurality of leadership). In Antioch we see a plurality of leadership. In Ephesus there is a plurality of leadership.
Pastor driven leadership and authority is not what I am talking about. The clear biblical model is a plurality of leadership with each individual exercising their gifts. Not a rejection of horizontal authority.
BTW - Jesus clearly made it to his planned obsolescence or none of us would be here! Paul made it too.
This is good stuff man. Let’s keep rolling. I think we are closer than we realize. I suppose that I am coming from a tradition where plurality of leadership is commonplace and pastor driven leadership is not.
4 Who leads this whole thing? « Church Remix // Jun 13, 2008 at 8:06 am
[…] The answers are not easy in coming. But the list of questions continues to grow. Check out our conversation here. […]