Руководство - Духовное и Христианское

As I began to think about leadership for simple, organic churches, one major thought came to my mind.  Jesus was a cross-cultural revolutionary who came and turned the world upside down.  One only has to read the Sermon on the Mount to understand that following Christ makes no worldly sense – to be poor in spirit, to rejoice when persecuted, and to mourn are all counter-cultural ways of life and thinking.  And, this Jesus is our best example for leadership.  I have always been amazed that during discussions on leadership people so often revert to examples from the Old Testament and examples from successful organizational leadership rather than simply focusing on what Jesus said and did.  Is not Jesus our greatest and best example?  And, His example is that He had no political or organizational power, no wealth, no school, no position, nor any possessions.  He had no authority except that authority which was derived from His relationships.

---

Jesus in both Matthew 20:25-28 and Matthew 23:1-12 established a clear contrast between two leadership styles.  One is based on authority, position, and hierarchy and the other is based on relationship, function, and servant-hood.  Allow me to suggest that this contrast establishes two lenses for us to view all of scripture on the issues of leadership – a relational lens and an authority lens.

Before we look at several scriptures, let me say that the issue is never leadership versus no leadership, but simply how does leadership function.  Is it primarily founded on relationships or is it primarily founded on authority?

Jesus’ leadership was relational.  “He appointed twelve that they might be with Him…”
Mark 3:14

Paul’s example was relational.  “We were like young children among you…”
I Thess. 2:7-12.

Paul in addressing the Ephesians overseers says, “among (not over) the flock”.
Acts 20:28

One favorite verse used to promote the authority lens of leadership is Hebrews 13:17… “Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves…”  Yet looking closer at this verse, one must note that the word for obey is not the word which would be the word which would be normally used in the military sense of obedience, but the word used means “to allow yourselves to be persuaded”.

The central idea is relational.  Because these men are men of maturity and character, allow yourselves to be persuaded by them.

For us who are establishing simple organic churches, our leadership needs to be consistent with other core values for simple churches:

Leadership must be consistent with the practice of “allowing” the headship of Christ.
Ephesians 1:22

Leadership must be consistent with the practice of the priesthood of all believers. 
I Peter 2:9

Leadership must be consistent with the practice of participatory gatherings. 
I Cor. 14:26

Leadership must be consistent with the core practices of making disciples. 
Matthew 28:17-20

Which leadership lens – relational or authority – is most consistent with these values?  I would suggest that relational, functional leadership is the only leadership style which is consistent with these values.  Jesus, not man, is head of the church.  We are all priests – the clergy laity divide is unscriptural, as is spectatorism and how could we make disciples outside of relationships.

It is unfortunate that hierarchical, positional leadership is so often talked about and taught as the model of scripture.  The trinity, the church, and the family are presented as hierarchies of authority rather than mutually submissive and loving relationships.  Hierarchy is often wrongly used to maintain order, to oppress others, and to support social inequality and privileged interest, e.g. men over women, rich over poor, and clergy over laity.

Ultimately, our understanding of God and His nature will determine our concept of leadership.  Is God an authority creating rules which we should obey out of fear or is He a loving, relational God who most of all wants a relationship with us?

Healthy leadership is relational, spirit-filled, servant-like with roles to guard, govern, and guide (teach).  Unhealthy leadership is hierarchical and often “plays God”, protects the rights of leaders, has special privileges, controls others by rules and law, and elevates leaders.

Which lens of leadership will you look through?  Relational?  Authority via hierarchy?

The qualifications for leaders and the rule of leaders are not changed or challenged by relational leadership.  They remain the same in both cases.

One final thought on one of the roles of overseers or elders which is to teach.  The word means to “cause to learn”, and I would suggest that relational, participatory learning where people are allowed to actively interact with ideas, concepts and information is far better than our common practices of transferring information from the notes of one person to the notes of another without passing through the mind of either.

Once again the relational lens functions best and is by far the best way for people to learn and follow in obedience.

Most of us have primarily operated in a system which promotes authority as the foundation for leadership.  Jesus’ example should lead us to see relationships as the foundation of leadership and live according to His example.

Bless you as you search to see!

Rich Correll

{mos_fb_discuss:no_discuss}

{jcomments on}

Написать комментарий