Community in the Image of God: Empowerment (p. 8)
Yesterday I posted my thoughts on the nature of power in Christian community. My difficulty in these posts is that there's too much ground to cover - it feels as though I'm slogging through knee deep snow. Every post reminds me of how much more needs to be said. Yesterday's was probably where I've felt most like that; it was honestly about half a post that I just had to conclude. Now I'm going to break another practice of mine - allowing a post to have its own focus for a few days before moving on to another topic - because I just can't let this one sit half-stated.
Here's the problem that I started to discuss but never quite articulated: most people, in my experience, who have issues with the way we practice Christian community immediately default to critiquing the structure. The problem, depending on who you're reading, is the senior pastor model, or it's the paid clergy model, or it's the congregational model, or it's the model that doesn't follow Paul's teachings on eldership (usually male), or it's the corporate model, or it's... well, you get the picture. It's the structure's fault, and what we need is a new way to think about the structure. Or, alternately, we need to just get back to that One True Structure that dropped down from heaven immediately following the ascension. That will fix everything.
My problem with this line of thought is that I think it bypasses the actual problems altogether. I don't think the structure is the problem at all. Now, don't get me wrong - some structures are certainly in need of critiquing. But structure isn't like the Grail - it's not as though we find that One True Structure and everything is now sunshine and daisies. The problem is that every structure is inhabited by people - people who sometimes don't use power in the image of God. And that problem is inherent to all structures, so in some sense there isn't One True Structure at all, only broken people who sometimes succeed and sometimes fail at serving God and each other.
One thing that comes up often it seems in emerging church circles is a critique of paid staff. The argument gets framed in a number of different ways, but invariably the criticism always comes back to the fact that paying someone to serve the community either disenfranchises the people in the community or it lets them off the hook. On the other hand, the Spirit has gifted everyone in the community, so we shouldn't separate out one or a few for positional, paid leadership - to do so denies the priesthood of all believers or some such. And I recognize that there is some legitimacy to this complaint, that at times these criticisms are valid and that sometimes the ways these structures play out are functionally unhelpful or even detrimental. But to dismiss paid staff entirely I suggest misses the point - it's the One True Structure fallacy. Or let's remove the "pay" function from the equation. How are we to think about "leadership" in the image of God, leadership that is cruciform in nature? Is positional authority ever valid?
I've been suggesting all along that the proper use of authority in the image of God involves empowering others. And this, I think, is what is beautiful about having healthy leadership in a community. I confess that I hate the word "leadership" because I think it borrows too much from corporatespeak and carries an unhelpful set of assumptions. But I can't think of a better word without needing another post to define it - so I'm going with the terminology for now but understand that I only mean here people who are called out from among the community for the purposes of directing, governing, or administering the work of the community. If you're reading that carefully, you'll see I'm already moving in a particular direction. Congregational leadership, at its best, is marked by empowerment. The community has recognized the need for setting aside a few people to attend more closely to the "stuff" of the community - leadership, at its best, is empowered by the congregation to lead. It's not a top-down, corporate model where the CEO calls the shots and everyone else jumps. Nothing makes me cringe more than hearing pastors or other staff refer to themselves by such terminology. Positional authority in the image of God is a matter of empowerment. The leaders are called to serve the community through the community's recognition of the empowerment of the Spirit on their lives for the task - in a sense, it's a double empowerment, both Spirit and community.
But what does that mean? What are these folks empowered to do? I suggest that the community empowers congregational leaders for the purpose of further empowerment. This is, I think, a fairly straightforward reading of Ephesians:
It was he [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.In other words, congregational leaders are to be about the task of helping the community image God. A community sets aside people who will help that community in their vocation as the people of God. This isn't about structure. It's about the way that a structure functions. Any structure can be a tool for helping a community more appropriately reflect the image of God. Any structure can be damaging to that vocation. What is important in any structure is the way in which the people within that structure use power. If it is hoarded and used for personal advancement or gain, then the community will suffer. If it is given away and used to empower others, then the community will flourish.
Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, power, community, theology
Hi Scott,
I just wanted you to know that I have read this several times. I've had a hard time commenting on it. It is the sort of topic I like to sit at a table with friends to discuss, where we can hammer out and challenge one another's ideas with the understanding that it is okay to disagree and the understanding that we are all just in the process of developing our ideas of leadership and what the expression of that should look like. There is a lot of friendly back and forth discussion that could happen here, and the internet isn't very conducive for that.
grace - I was wondering what your thoughts on this might be. ;) Please, I'd invite you to share whatever thoughts you might have without fear of offending me (perhaps that's not a concern ;). I'd love to know what you think is helpful and what is less so - I'm in the process of developing these thoughts myself, and constructive criticism would be of benefit. If you'd rather drop me an email, please feel free to do so as well.
It's kind of funny - I actually thought I'd get some interesting discussion on these last few posts, but they've sort of just sat there awkwardly. ;) I can hear the crickets chirping every time I look at them!
Posted by ScottB on October 17, 2006 12:54 PMHi Scott,
Are we still having fun? :)
According to your definition of authority, would you agree that we (believers) are all equally authorized to serve the community of faith and the world at large?
As to structure, I'm not particularly set on any particular form of gathering. My fantasy church is more of a medium to large public gathering rather than a house church, but I support the simple/house church idea 100%.
However, I am challenged with most government and leadership structures in the church. I am also aware that many really great churches function under government structures that I don't agree with. More power to them. ;)
To be honest, your One True Structure comments don't exactly welcome differing opinions. (still smiling here) I believe that many of the things that you dismissed contribute in a very real way to the abuse of power in churches.
I agree with you that power can be used well or misused in any type of structure. However, I disagree that the structure is not the problem at all. Hierarchial models are inherently flawed for the proper use of power in kingdom relationships.
Considering that the emerging conversation is predominantly pastors, theologians, and seminary students, it doesn't seem like a wise arena to oppose paid leadership. As a lay person, it would seem rude to voice ideas that oppose vocational ministry among a group that has a vested interest.
I think it is important that we don't confuse administrative function with spiritual leadership. I believe that with even the most well-intended servant leader, when you "set them aside" to serve the community, you remove them from true missional ministry and busy them with ministry that should be shared by the entire congregation.
At this point, it's likely that we will have to agree to disagree.
As I said earlier, there are many great churches that will accomplish wonderful things with structures and models that are different from my ideals. However, I am watching for those who are willing and daring to do church a completely different way.
"What is important in any structure is the way in which the people within that structure use power." Amen!
I agree wholeheartedly with your concept of empowering leadership. While we may differ in our ideas of how it is contextualized in church structures, I don't want to get sidetracked from the importance of imaging a correct use of power in our communities.
Discussions like this often flow better with a little wine. Personally, I've both been challenged by and enjoyed this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and responding to mine.
Since I've done most of my writing here this week, I think I'll link to these posts. You might get 2 or 3 more people here. :)
Posted by grace on October 19, 2006 09:23 PM
I found myself agreeing with the bulk of this post. And I am certainly in full agreement with you that it is integrally important how individuals within the church - in their particular structure - use their power in order, as a community, to properly image God.
I would, however, like to hear you tease out exactly what you mean by giving away power. Or, What does the cross of Christ teach us about our use of power? Or, How do we imitate Christ and His cross in our management or disbursement of power? Or, some clearer interrogative.
Anyway, until I read more, I'll leave it there.
Posted by Scott Lyons on October 19, 2006 11:03 PMAre we still having fun? :)Absolutely!
According to your definition of authority, would you agree that we (believers) are all equally authorized to serve the community of faith and the world at large?Most definitely. I think that's at the heart of the imago dei imagery, and central to why it is presented in Genesis in the way that it is.
As to structure, I'm not particularly set on any particular form of gathering. My fantasy church is more of a medium to large public gathering rather than a house church, but I support the simple/house church idea 100%.Also in agreement here. I'm not sold on the effectiveness of the house church model but I think it offers some helpful correctives to other models. Personally, I like a smallish gathering in the area of 100-200 folks. But that's just me. ;)
However, I am challenged with most government and leadership structures in the church. I am also aware that many really great churches function under government structures that I don't agree with. More power to them. ;)But why would anyone disagree with my great wisdom? :) Seriously, I didn't mean to come across in such a way. And to be fair, I'm making some generalizations here. I'd agree that there are some structures that are pretty flawed. And a number of churches - not all by any means - are organized in such a way that the use of power is institutionalized and centralized in the hands of a few, and that's quite flawed, I think. So in that sense the structure is a real symptom that must be addressed. But it's still only a symptom, which is more what I was trying to convey. The structure is what it is because we do not use power in the way of Jesus. We can spend all day fixing structures but until we deal with our own addiction to power then we'll really be accomplishing very little. So I probably should have spoken more carefully because I agree that some structures are bad but I need to nuance that a bit as well and I want to keep the focus on what I perceive to be the underlying issue.
To be honest, your One True Structure comments don't exactly welcome differing opinions. (still smiling here) I believe that many of the things that you dismissed contribute in a very real way to the abuse of power in churches.
I agree with you that power can be used well or misused in any type of structure. However, I disagree that the structure is not the problem at all. Hierarchial models are inherently flawed for the proper use of power in kingdom relationships.Can you elaborate on what you mean by "hierarchical models"? I think I agree but I want to be sure we're referencing the same thing here. More on this in a moment.
Considering that the emerging conversation is predominantly pastors, theologians, and seminary students, it doesn't seem like a wise arena to oppose paid leadership. As a lay person, it would seem rude to voice ideas that oppose vocational ministry among a group that has a vested interest.Not pulling any punches here, are you? ;) Here's my take on this, why I support paid leadership even though I'm not currently there and am not certain that I'll ever be. For one thing, it's a practice that dates to the very first days of the church. The community of believers has always done so, and I want to tread softly where the tradition is in nearly complete unanimity. Second, to my point in this post: pay is a form of empowerment. The community is saying by virtue of the financial support of some of the members of the community that those people have been entrusted with a different set of responsibilities than other members of the community - not better, not more important, just different - and that to fulfill those responsibilities we'd like those folks to not have the burden of also having to provide their own income. It's, at its best, a dynamic, relational, healthy thing. And certainly it's become other than that in many places. But I just want to recognize that it's also a healthy, organic practice in just as many.
I think it is important that we don't confuse administrative function with spiritual leadership. I believe that with even the most well-intended servant leader, when you "set them aside" to serve the community, you remove them from true missional ministry and busy them with ministry that should be shared by the entire congregation.I guess I just don't see that as being the case. I know of a number of folks who are in paid positions who are embedded in missional ministry all over the place. I guess I need to hear you unpack this a bit more. I'd like to hear more about what you mean by "true missional ministry" and how that contrasts with paid staff. So I'm not agreeing with you - at this point - but I'm also not dismissing your thoughts here because I want to make sure we're talking the same language first. Fair? ;)
At this point, it's likely that we will have to agree to disagree.I don't agree to that. ;)
As I said earlier, there are many great churches that will accomplish wonderful things with structures and models that are different from my ideals. However, I am watching for those who are willing and daring to do church a completely different way.I hear you, and I share some of that.
"What is important in any structure is the way in which the people within that structure use power." Amen!I agree completely - I think that if we can start to get the big picture right (proper use of power) a lot of the other stuff, like structure, will start to fall into place.
I agree wholeheartedly with your concept of empowering leadership. While we may differ in our ideas of how it is contextualized in church structures, I don't want to get sidetracked from the importance of imaging a correct use of power in our communities.
Discussions like this often flow better with a little wine. Personally, I've both been challenged by and enjoyed this topic. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and responding to mine.My thoughts as well - thanks for being gracious and patient and helping me to think through this with a bit more clarity. And I will absolutely second the thought of wine!
Posted by ScottB on October 19, 2006 11:48 PM
Scott wrote:
I would, however, like to hear you tease out exactly what you mean by giving away power. Or, What does the cross of Christ teach us about our use of power? Or, How do we imitate Christ and His cross in our management or disbursement of power? Or, some clearer interrogative.Fair question. It's hard to answer in brief - I've got a lot of thoughts about this that might need another post to tease out. Let me sleep on this and see if I can get an answer pulled together for tomorrow.
Posted by ScottB on October 19, 2006 11:51 PM
Hi again Scott,
A few final thoughts...
By hierarchial models, I was referring to centralized power, especially an individual senior leader. Even with a leadership team, I think it is a problem to have a perceived inner circle of power. Even though the congregation might be willing to default to this style, I believe that it is important for those on the leadership team to attempt to disperse both influence and responsibility to the community, hopefully imparting a sense of cooperation, openness, and inclusivity.
I've heard equally valid reasoning on both sides of the paid leadership issue. My point is not to say that it is wrong. I believe that it does contribute to the clergy/laity mentality. Realistically, in the size of community we are discussing, the budget would probably only allow for one paid position, the individual leader. This one person is then empowered to do what?
True missional ministry wasn't a good choice of words. (too idealistic and polarizing) I have trouble with the idea of "setting someone aside." It brings to mind the general in the office, the CEO in the ivory tower, the foreman with the white gloves. I know it isn't always that way, but again, I believe it contributes to a clergy/laity mentality and places responsibilites upon one individual that should be shared by the community.
We already know that church can be done with centralized paid leadership. As you said, it has been for thousands of years. Do I expect that will change? Not really. To be honest, that may be the only model I ever have the opportunity to be involved with, but hey, a girl can dream, right?
Have a great weekend.
Blessings to you.
By hierarchial models, I was referring to centralized power, especially an individual senior leader. Even with a leadership team, I think it is a problem to have a perceived inner circle of power. Even though the congregation might be willing to default to this style, I believe that it is important for those on the leadership team to attempt to disperse both influence and responsibility to the community, hopefully imparting a sense of cooperation, openness, and inclusivity.Absolutely - I couldn't agree more on this. I think that in the model where there is one or a few in positions of responsibility, it is incumbent on them to likewise empower others.
I've heard equally valid reasoning on both sides of the paid leadership issue. My point is not to say that it is wrong. I believe that it does contribute to the clergy/laity mentality. Realistically, in the size of community we are discussing, the budget would probably only allow for one paid position, the individual leader. This one person is then empowered to do what?Depends on the community, I think. Teaching is one thing that falls under this umbrella, and I think we'd be foolish to not continue to encourage that. I'd like to see, however, more missional networking here. I'd see the paid leader as sort of a missional scout, making contacts and building relationships with those in the community to open doors through which the Kingdom can enter. Can anyone do that? Absolutely - but one of the frustrations that I used to run into as a part time youth worker was the simple fact of business hours. Because I couldn't make contacts when places were open, I was limited in the opportunities that I could provide. For example, there was a food pantry in the area that I wanted to support, but because of their office hours I was never able to connect with them. That sort of thing is what I'm thinking about here.
True missional ministry wasn't a good choice of words. (too idealistic and polarizing) I have trouble with the idea of "setting someone aside." It brings to mind the general in the office, the CEO in the ivory tower, the foreman with the white gloves. I know it isn't always that way, but again, I believe it contributes to a clergy/laity mentality and places responsibilites upon one individual that should be shared by the community.Maybe setting aside is bad language too. I'm not sure of another way to articulate it. I hear you about the challenges - but I still default back to the question of whether that person is fulfilling his or her responsibilities if that's the way he or she envisions his or her role.
We already know that church can be done with centralized paid leadership. As you said, it has been for thousands of years. Do I expect that will change? Not really. To be honest, that may be the only model I ever have the opportunity to be involved with, but hey, a girl can dream, right?So can I send the question back in your direction - what would your ideal model look like? I'm not sure what "ideal" would be for me, but I'd love to hear more about that from you. ;)
Thanks for all the great thoughts this week. I just realized that I haven't posted an actual entry all week, even though I think I've written more than I have in ages! ;)
Posted by ScottB on October 21, 2006 10:34 PMI would, however, like to hear you tease out exactly what you mean by giving away power. Or, What does the cross of Christ teach us about our use of power? Or, How do we imitate Christ and His cross in our management or disbursement of power? Or, some clearer interrogative.Ok - I'm finally getting back to your question, Scott. This is really a profound question, in the sense that it's the sort of thing that I think needs a lifetime to answer. We're so used to something other that it's hard, I think, to conceptualize something more true. I think that power in the way of Jesus is, at the heart, self-giving rather than self-serving. In the community of faith, I think that means that we recognize that the Spirit speaks to everyone, and not just to the people "in charge". Ideally, that means that those with positional responsibility in a congregation will be looking to see how it is that the Spirit is already at work in the hearts of the people. Often, it's assumed that the pastor or the elders or (insert leadership model here) receives the "vision" and the people then busy themselves with carrying it out. I think that's backwards. I think that it's more a matter of coming alongside people who are already engaged in Kingdom work and finding out how the community can get behind those people. Or, it's a matter of awakening the Kingdom desire within people so that they begin to look for the activities of God where they already are.
That's pretty vague, I know - bottom line, for me, is that there are two ways of directing the work of a community. One comes from the leadership and flows down. The other comes from the community and flows up. My preference is the second one.
I recognize that this is pretty much an evangelical model as well - other traditions with different understandings of the form and function of the body would look at this quite differently, I'm sure. Thoughts on that?
Posted by ScottB on October 21, 2006 10:48 PMScott,
I'm not sure what my ideal is either. When we begin to envision how we could facilitate what is in our hearts, our greatest concern is that we would default to what we've known and what is familiar, succumbing to doubt that the "ideal" structure could actually work.
Your thoughts about coming alongside kingdom work that others are already involved in and awakening the kingdom desire within people are what I envision for a community.
Thanks again for the conversation. I wish a few others had joined in. I thought it was very interesting. :)
Posted by grace on October 23, 2006 08:23 AM"I think that it's more a matter of coming alongside people who are already engaged in Kingdom work and finding out how the community can get behind those people. Or, it's a matter of awakening the Kingdom desire within people so that they begin to look for the activities of God where they already are."
I'd agree, Scott. And I don't know that it's simply an evangelical model. With the exception, of course, that in Catholicism there couldn't be much fiddling with the structure of the Mass. However, I would imagine that your thoughts on giving away power would work similarly in the activity of a parish within its community.
Posted by Scott Lyons on October 24, 2006 10:55 PMgrace - thanks to you as well!
Scott - yeah, I think I phrased that poorly. I've read some great contextual theology works by folks in the Catholic tradition who talk about things from that perspective. And even with the liturgy they were talking about the variations within the structure - which I did find surprising, or at least unexpected. But that's my non-liturgical background for you. ;) I actually don't remember what I meant by the evangelical model now - there was something in particular that I was referencing but it doesn't connect with where that thought is in my comment. Ah, well - must not have been all that important. ;)
Posted by ScottB on October 25, 2006 12:02 AM