Authority

An online discussion got some juices flowing:

The church, as a collective outside the individuals, has no authority. Bold statement? Yes, I agree. It flies into the face of much we've been taught, or we've caught, from church leaders, but it is true scripturally. Properly understood, church should be merely a community of individuals, not an institution or organization, but a community. Churches which are institution or organizations demand authority, and many do submit to the churches rather than the proper place - to God and to other individuals.

Authority is typically associated with power. But power is limited when it comes to authority as the word is used in scripture. Authority is from the Greek for a word that may be better translated "authorship". We typically think of author as a writer, but the original meaning is more to do with creativeness or creating. To bridge the gap from the original Greek meaning and the modern meaning, an author "creates" a written piece. Authority, in the original language the word originates, is to have the function to create or foster in others. A father is an authority in his household for the purpose of creating fully realized children and helping his wife fully realize her potential. He is not a ruler, but the authority. Some amount of "power" comes with that, but only in exercising a kind of discipline meant to foster growth and development. If this power is exercised to "keep things in line", it's an abuse of authority. When I submit to another, it is in the hopes they will exercise the authority I permit them to help me grow.

Authority within the church (not "of the church" but within the community) comes not because of a role, but because one recognizes in another the ability of that other to help one grow. In practice, it is almost always only for a season.

So authority comes by submission to one another for the benefit of creating in one another what we are meant to be fully as God's creation. We allow others to mold us, to shape or hone us, but submitting to them, by granting authority. We do not "recognize" another's authority - the only authority to be "recognized" is God. Authority within a community of believers does not come from a role, but from recognizing the ability of another to help one become more fulfilled as a child of God.

Someone explain to me this ...

I have a hard time understanding denominationalism as it is traditionally practiced.

Maybe it is because I grew up with and as an adult always attended independent churches - ones where the line of earth bound authority ended locally, within the congregation ... though I did attend a church plant once were there was a oversight board consisting of several about the country. But once a local board of elders was established, that oversight board was abolished.

If "our method is the message", then traditional denomination practice is sending a message contradictory to the Bible. Clearly, with the temple curtain torn with the cross, the barrier of a priesthood between God and the common man is gone. Hebrews explains as much. Peter expresses it as "the priesthood of all believers". We approach Jesus directly, and his Holy Spirit is our guide and counselor. The New Testament is clear - there is no mediator between God and the common man anymore other than Jesus. The priesthood as being separate from all believers is dead.

But the method of denominationalism seems to contradict. Decisions locally are limited, and direction is typically from another city, another state, or even another continent. There are layers of hierarchies and intermediates. The message is that the common man is not to be trusted to hear God - and for that matter, neither is the local pastor in "important matters".

The message of this method seems to so contradict the work of Christ. What am I missing in this equation?

Leadership

Alan Hirsch had some interesting thoughts this week in his blog (see here)

In the swirling world of living systems thinking there are comparison of two types of leadership: between what is called operational and adaptive leadership. Essentially, operational leadership is suited for organizations that are in relatively stable environments where maintenance and development of current programming is the core tasks of leadership. This form of leadership is built on the assumptions of social engineering and is thus built squarely on a more 'mechanistic' view of the world. And it does work, and is entirely appropriate for some organizations. Adaptive leadership on the other hand, is the type of leader who develops learning organizations and manages to help the organization transition into different forms or expression where agility, responsiveness, innovation and entrepreneurship are needed. Adaptive leaders are needed in times of significant threat or considerable new opportunity, or both. This has direct relevance to our situation at the dawn of the 21st century.

I'm going to disagree a bit on that last statement - I think the church should have always had adaptive leadership - but we settled for operational leadership. I will agree, however, that it is more crucial than ever to have bold new leadership that is adaptive. We need leadership that is equipping, the primary characteristic of adaptive leadership I believe, rather than commanding and authoritative. We need leadership that shows the way, rather than leadership that maintains and preserves.

Jesus said he who tries to save his life will lose it. I think that is true today of the church, that the church leaders who try to save the church as they know it will lose the church altogether ...

Leadership

My thoughts lately have turned to leadership.

I've been what some would say is the leader -- sometimes, that's just really the manager. I was in Boy Scouts and served as a patrol leader, senior patrol leader, and as a chapter chief in the Order of the Arrow. In the latter, I put together the first camporee for our district in a few years. Except for that latter one, in many ways I was in the role but not so much in the function perhaps. I was probably more of a leader at the National Boy Scout Jamboree in 1981, doing the function without a role.

Since high school, I've had a number of leadership roles, and many times functioned in those roles, and functioned as a leader outside of the role. When I try to function as a leader, I usually end up trying to manage more than lead.

I've tried to repress the leadership the last couple of years, however. Some of it is due to control issues, sometimes on my part, often with someone else feeling usurped. And maybe for a season that was right.

Clarifying my thoughts on leadership more this past week has been Seth Godin's book Tribes. The challenge is to be a leader in the way you are, not as a role. Modern leadership is in bringing together communities, and typically standing back and letting it happen. The community may have a mission, or simply a common interest. This kind of thought toward leadership is kind of fitting with some "apostolic" gifting some in the last few months have said they see in me. I try to see what that means ...