Community in the Image of God: Service (p. 7)
In my last post I began reflecting on the subject of power in the community of God. I referenced some of Yoder's excellent work on this subject in pointing to the cross as the foundation of NT ethics. I want to spend a bit more time unpacking this, because I think it is absolutely central to any discussion of ecclesiology (which is what this whole thing is supposed to be about ;). Unfortunately, I think it also happens to be most often one of the subjects that receives the least treatment, to our detriment.
"Power" is a loaded word, I freely admit. Often, when it's used about relationships or interactions between people, it seems to be used as a synonym for control or authority (in a negative sense). At its most basic, however, I think it's well within reason to simply use "power" to refer to the ability to act. This is, on the surface, an extraordinarily simplistic definition. However, a moment's thought should reveal that it is anything but. Take, for instance, this little blog of mine. Having a blog is a measure of power - I can post something, and my thoughts are distributed to a small number of folks who actually read what I say. In this sense, I have the ability to act, specifically as it relates to communication. I have power. Power, in this sense, is value-neutral; it simply represents my ability to distribute my ideas and thoughts. Many, many others also have this same power, some in greater measure (because of larger reader communities) and others less. Some do not have this power at all - perhaps they do not have access to an internet connection; perhaps they lack the knowledge of blogging; perhaps they cannot read or write. And here is where the question of power starts to move away from the realm of value-neutral: the question of who has power, in the sense of the ability to act, and who does not is sometimes (but not always) a question of justice. More on this later - we have some road yet to travel before we tackle the question of justice. There is a second, more immediate question that also confronts us as we move away from the value-neutral. Assuming that we are people who have the ability to act, what do we do with that power? This is, I'd argue, the central question of New Testament ethics from the vantage of the cross.
The cross only has meaning in the context of ethics if it can speak to the relationships between and interactions among people. This is, after all, the stuff of which ethics are made. And it is precisely in this context that the cross must - absolutely must - shape our understanding of authority. The premise of my argument is as follows: to be created in the image of God means to carry the delegated authority of God for accomplishing the divine task of completing the creation project. Christ is the one who demonstrates the perfect image of God. Christ's authority - authority received from the Father - is most perfectly demonstrated in his self-giving act on the cross. To use authority, then, as God's steward being formed in the image of Christ is to follow the example of Christ in self-giving. New Testament authority - Christian authority - is inherently cruciform. If it is not, then it is not Christian.
Ok - so that's a lot of hot air, unless it actually intersects with our day-to-day. Here, precisely here, is where I think church structures are often damaging to the purposes of the Kingdom. And it is precisely here where I think that many folks are starting to rethink existing structures - and I say for that Praise God. It cannot happen quickly or broadly enough. Daniel Kirk, who I met at a recent gathering of the Philly emergent cohort, recently posted these thoughts:
The servant/death model of ministerial leadership seems to be taking hold in missional circles, and once it's started to get inside your head you see that it's on nearly every page of the NT. This is one of those places where I think that conditions are right for more people giving a better reading to the idea of "Christian leadership" than has happened in the past. Corporate models don't work because they depend on a model of exercising coercive rather than self-sacrificial authority. (emphasis added)I think he's exactly right here. To my way of thinking, there are two ways that one can exercise power: keep it for oneself and one's own benefit, or give it away. I have no question which of those two is cruciform. I also have no question which of those is prevalent in most church structures today - or, to be more specific, most American evangelical churches, which is my own context.
Here is the problem: too many churches today are structured on the basis of control. Power is centralized in the hands of one, or a few, key "leaders" who determine what does or does not happen in the community. The ability to act narrows to a select few. This can be accomplished in many different ways - means is not key here; intent is. How do I know if I am a part of such a structure? If the church is organized so that the resources are directed to fulfill the purposes of one, or a few, key "leaders", then I'd suggest that there is a power problem. If one person has the "vision" or the "mission", there's a problem. If one person ideologically dominates the community so that a healthy atmosphere of diverse opinions are unwelcome, there's a problem. If, in short, nobody can act without the blessing of the "leader" - then that community has failed its task of imaging God.
It's really not about the actual structures here so much as it is about the way those structures operate. I've been in churches with a senior pastor model that were simply fantastic, healthy communities. I've been in churches with team structures that were oppressive and, at times, abusive. I'm in a church currently that, to my knowledge, is a stellar example of the best kind of use of power here. I've served in churches that shame me to remember how power was used and abused. What sets a church apart - what identifies a church in the image of God - is simply an emphasis on service. If serving is a part of the very culture of the community, embodied by those who are in positional authority and embraced by the community at large, then a church images God well. And this is especially true for those in positional authority. "Leadership" is not a biblical mandate for New Testament communities. Service, however, is. Those who are in positional authority are there because of their desire to serve - to empower - others. They do not keep power for their own purposes. They give it away - empowering others and enabling them to do the same. New Testament authority is not "power over". In fact, that is something that is explicitly forbidden by Christ. Instead, the greatest are to be distinguished by their great service - by their greatness in humility, in empowering others and in their self-giving.
I feel like there's more to say - but this is too long already. Let's see where the discussion heads.
Technorati Tags: cross, ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, power
Scott,
I'm mostly tracking with you on this post, so I'll start here. I agree with your thoughts about power. Sometimes I have to remind myself that power is value-neutral because it is easy to simply assign it a negative meaning. My definition of power - the ability to influence - is similar to yours. In that sense, it is value neutral.
As shown in the LOTR movies, I think that power is easily corruptible and the tendency of human nature in stewarding power is towards corruption and selfishness. This pessimistic view of power in relation to human nature colors many of my thoughts about leadership structures.
I am interested in exploring the idea of distribution of power as an issue of justice and how we can recognize and use the power we have for the kingdom.
In paragraph 3, I'm not sure that I understand the switch from discussing power to authority. They are very different concepts in my mind. My understanding of the delegated authority of God would be along the lines of missional assignment or purpose. However, I don't believe that gives me authority with people.
I agree that church structures can be damaging to the kingdom because I don't believe that authoritative power should be an element of kingdom relationships.
Your description of how power is typically exercised in churches is very good, and I would say that the majority of people believe in and approve of this model of centralized power. (BTW, I used to teach and promote aligning yourself with THE vision of THE leader.)
As you said, I believe the correct use of power is more dependent on the people involved than the actual structure of a church. However, I don't think that we can ignore the fact that form influences function and method influences the message.
I don't believe in positional authority, period. (smile) I agree with all that you said about willingness to serve, humility, empowering others, self-giving. In this, there will be those who are willing to lead and serve others. However, I believe that the authority that they have is given voluntarily to them by the person choosing to follow them for a time. I don't believe that it is ever positional, only relational.
I don't usually interact to this degree with a post, so please view it as an indication of my interest in and respect for the ideas that you share.
Consider this post covered in smilies. :)
I'm out of time, so I'll have to come back to this later.
Posted by grace on October 17, 2006 04:24 PM
Excellent thoughts. I'm going to respond line-by-line, as I think it will help clarify. I actually think that we're tracking very closely here.
I'm mostly tracking with you on this post, so I'll start here. I agree with your thoughts about power. Sometimes I have to remind myself that power is value-neutral because it is easy to simply assign it a negative meaning. My definition of power - the ability to influence - is similar to yours. In that sense, it is value neutral.My only distinction here is that I don't want to connect power and influence. I'm working with a pretty specific definition, largely because of how I see power working in the Kingdom. I find it harder to conceptualize "sharing" influence in the same way as I'm trying to discuss sharing power. That's why I'm going with something a bit more general in describing the ability to act - choice, for example, is very powerful. How we exercise our choices is a matter of power - economics are then matters of power, whereas I couldn't use that language if I were only referring to influence. So that might help clarify a bit why I'm using the words the way that I am.
As shown in the LOTR movies, I think that power is easily corruptible and the tendency of human nature in stewarding power is towards corruption and selfishness. This pessimistic view of power in relation to human nature colors many of my thoughts about leadership structures.
I am interested in exploring the idea of distribution of power as an issue of justice and how we can recognize and use the power we have for the kingdom.That's my next post. Or so. ;)
In paragraph 3, I'm not sure that I understand the switch from discussing power to authority. They are very different concepts in my mind. My understanding of the delegated authority of God would be along the lines of missional assignment or purpose. However, I don't believe that gives me authority with people.Ah - mea culpa. The problem here is that I'm trying to make the words do double duty. Sort of. ;) I've defined power, but I don't think I've ever defined authority, and that's actually on purpose. I think we come into this topic with a conception of authority already firmly in place, and I don't want the tail to wag the dog. The whole concept of the imago dei is inherently about authority, in the sense that we are stewards of God's purpose. So we're actually working with very similar definitions here. But in the Genesis 1 narrative, God's purpose is accomplished through empowerment - through his giving creation the ability to act. So that's the connection I'm making. Let me know if that's still not making sense - I'm not sure I'm communicating that in the best way.
I agree that church structures can be damaging to the kingdom because I don't believe that authoritative power should be an element of kingdom relationships.Well, I'd qualify that - authoritative power as is typically meant, yes. If we redefine "authority" and "power" in a Kingdom way, then perhaps we can redeem the concept. That I suppose remains to be seen. ;)
Your description of how power is typically exercised in churches is very good, and I would say that the majority of people believe in and approve of this model of centralized power. (BTW, I used to teach and promote aligning yourself with THE vision of THE leader.)I used to do the same thing. I think we have quite similar backgrounds. ;)
As you said, I believe the correct use of power is more dependent on the people involved than the actual structure of a church. However, I don't think that we can ignore the fact that form influences function and method influences the message.I agree on form and function. Heck, the medium/message thing was a big focus for me a few months ago. I just think that if we focus on the structure we'll miss the real issues. What we should be trying to do is identify the most contextually appropriate forms to convey a Kingdom approach to power.
I don't believe in positional authority, period. (smile) I agree with all that you said about willingness to serve, humility, empowering others, self-giving. In this, there will be those who are willing to lead and serve others. However, I believe that the authority that they have is given voluntarily to them by the person choosing to follow them for a time. I don't believe that it is ever positional, only relational.I agree - that's actually what I was trying to convey in my next post about empowerment. The leaders are empowered by the community, who then work towards empowering the community in turn. I think the confusion comes here from my use of the words "positional authority". What I mean is that the ones who lead and serve, as you said, need to view their own vocation as "serving" more than "leading". "Leading" carries too much of the "power over" sense for me, but I don't know of a better way to say it. The problem really comes when folks who have been entrusted with positional responsibility - there, that I think is a better way to say it - often (not always) hold to a view of power that involves control rather than empowerment. Control is not a Kingdom use of power - power in the Kingdom is given for the purposes of giving it away to others.
I don't usually interact to this degree with a post, so please view it as an indication of my interest in and respect for the ideas that you share.Absolutely - I'm glad you posted your thoughts. I think we're tracking along very similar lines thus far - the confusion no doubt comes from my use of words that carry connotations other than what I'm intending. I need to try to think of better ways to talk about these topics. ;)
Posted by ScottB on October 17, 2006 05:50 PM
Hi Scott,
Thanks for you indepth reply. I won't have time today to get into this again, but I just wanted you to know that I've read this.
I agree that we are probably tracking pretty close and that there are nuances of interpretation coloring what I am hearing. I'll admit to being a little "sensitive" to the word authority.
I am still cautious about where assumptions concerning our authority to steward are translated into authority in relationships and positions.
I am actually okay with the word leading in the sense of "going first." In my opinion a leader should be the person willing to step out and be an example by leading the way in mission, someone worthy of following. If it is simply an expert assigned to tell us his idea of how the mission should be done, I won't be following.
This hints at some of my thoughts about the next post. If you remove the leader from the actual mission and simply assign him the job of tending those on the front lines, what kind of a "leader" can he be? Chew on that for awhile. :)
Posted by grace on October 18, 2006 10:02 AM
I agree that we are probably tracking pretty close and that there are nuances of interpretation coloring what I am hearing. I'll admit to being a little "sensitive" to the word authority.I hear you - I share your caution and concern. In fact, one of the reasons that I began this series was that I think the common understanding of authority is broken. I want to try to rethink "authority" as "empowerment", which I hope retains that relational dynamic that we were discussing previously. And I want to ground that understanding in the biblical narrative, which I think is overwhelmingly clear in Genesis 1 - hence my fascination with the imago dei theme. ;)
I am still cautious about where assumptions concerning our authority to steward are translated into authority in relationships and positions.
I am actually okay with the word leading in the sense of "going first." In my opinion a leader should be the person willing to step out and be an example by leading the way in mission, someone worthy of following. If it is simply an expert assigned to tell us his idea of how the mission should be done, I won't be following.Oh, I'm not advocating anyone being removed from the mission. That would be an abrogation of our responsibilities as ones created in the image of God. The whole thrust of biblical mission, from Abram onwards, is to be a blessing to all people. I think that anyone with positional responsibility (I'm liking that phrase better ;) who doesn't actually get involved in the mission is not serving the community. An expert who tells us how things should be done sounds to me like hierarchy - and I'm resoundingly against any kind of hierarchy. There is absolutely no room in the body for anyone trying to hold "authority over" someone. That isn't in any way a view of ministry that can be called cruciform.
This hints at some of my thoughts about the next post. If you remove the leader from the actual mission and simply assign him the job of tending those on the front lines, what kind of a "leader" can he be? Chew on that for awhile. :)
Perhaps this will help - here's my working definition of authority. When I reference "authority" in this series, what I mean is that someone is empowered to serve the community of faith and the world at large. It means using power in the way of Jesus (self-sacrificially and cruciform) and in a way that empowers others rather than hoards it for their own purposes, however noble those purposes may be. Thoughts on that definition?
Posted by ScottB on October 18, 2006 10:58 PM