Knowtown…

There can be no doubt that God has given some gifted people to the church to serve it by exercising leadership. But what does this ecclesial leadership look like? 1 Peter 5:1-6 gives us a simple overview that echoes Mark 9:35-37 and Mark 10:35-45. Here, Peter follows the example of Christ and sets the created nature of rule in opposition to the corrupted nature of rule. Simply put, Christ followers will not “lead” in the same way the rest of the world does.

I think that last sentence is very important. In my experience, most arguments about ecclesial leadership (especially women in leadership) boil down to not wanting “them” to rule over “us”. In the created nature of rule this makes sense because we shouldn’t want anyone to rule over us. Instead, we should all be serving one another with full participation of the gifts God has given us for the benefit of all—building one another up, not tearing one another down. In this light it is nonsensical to say that women (or children, or “fill-in-your-blank-here”) are not allowed to participate. Are we really willing to exclude people from full participation in the God designed nature of rule?

On the other hand, if we adopt the corrupted nature of rule this kind of thinking makes perfect sense. When we see power and authority as limited resources that we fight for and take ownership of, it will eventually come to rest only with the strong and privileged few. The weak, the broken, the needy, the “different” are excluded and marginalized for the sake of efficiency or progress. While this may be a very good way for companies to be built to last or move from good to great, it is not the way to advance the Kingdom of Christ. The people of God are not to conform to the leadership paradigms of the world and lead in the same way under a corrupted nature of rule no matter how “successful” they may be.

In these corrupted systems, decisions on who can and cannot be a “leader” are made by those who already have the power. The often quoted Ephesians 4:1-16 passage tells us that leaders are gifts from God to the church. The telos of these gifted leaders is to equip others to do works of ministry. I would paraphrase that to say that goal of ecclesial leadership is to help others participate in the redeemed nature of rule. This places us back in the flow of God –> people of God –> creation. In this place we are invited to submit to one another in love, bear one another’s burdens, value others above ourselves, and forgive debts as our own debts are forgiven…

According to this article in the Rocky Mountain News and this one in the Denver Post and the many rumors going on around my place of employment–including an email I got this morning from the big boss–I may be unemployed very soon. I am going to attend a meeting today at 1:00 that is to reveal more information. It is going to be a long summer.

**Update** I think I survived the first round of cuts. The bumping of senior staff into lower positions will play out over the next several weeks…

For some, the blogging never stops. Check out this great read. I loved this quote:

bq. Where some frequent bloggers might label themselves merely ardent, Mr. Pierce is more realistic. “I wouldn’t call it dedicated, I would call it a problem,” he said. “If this were beer, I’d be an alcoholic.”

The people of God find themselves once again under the rule of other human beings. Their hope as a people is in the promised deliverer. But if they were waiting for one who would defeat the oppressors by wielding military strength or following the corrupted nature of rule they were certainly disappointed with the Christ. Jesus’ life and message is a reaffirmation/redemption of the original nature of rule. It is not about a quest for power or influence or coercion. It is about humility, servanthood, love, forgiveness, grace, reconciliation…

At times, we are told, his own disciples mistakenly thought that Christ was still operating out of the corrupted nature of rule and wondered which of them would be second in command. Christ’s replies to these inquiries were always the same. There is not room to seek to lord power over others in God’s nature of rule. Christ’s goal was not to develop leaders but to make disciples. In fact, the one who would be the greatest would be the one who emptied himself, became a servant to all, picked up his cross and followed. This theme is emphasized again and again and illustrated in Christ’s own submission to the created nature of rule that resulted in him giving everything he had for the benefit of others.

Christ realizes that in the redeemed nature of rule, power is not a limited resource. Christ does not see this authority as something to be owned but as a gift from God. As all authority is given to him, he extends it on to his faithful followers. Now, this side of the victory of Christ over the principalities and powers that corrupted the nature of rule, we are invited once again to participate in the redemptive, creative nature of rule. And once again we are not left without structural/organizational overseers. The apostle tells us that God has given us gifts to the church, namely prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. But certainly it would be a mistake to cast these gifted people in a leadership paradigm that operates under the corrupted nature of rule. (Romans 12:1-8 once again frames this in opposition to the corrupted nature of rule the rest of the world follows–see specifically verse 2). It is also problematic to assume one person/office holds all of these gifts or to elevate one of these gifts above another and preface it with the descriptive adjective of “senior” (I Corinthians 12:23-26).

If there is no room for a single person lording power over others than each person in the body has something that they can and should contribute. In the redeemed nature of rule we would cooperate together in mutual submission to one another for the benefit of all. When we gather together, we ALL need to contribute (1 Corinthians 14:26).

So the question remain– In the redeemed nature of rule just how are Christ’s followers to “lead”?

If we follow the narrative we begin to see how this corrupted nature of rule plays out in the story of the Hebrew people recorded in the Old Testament scriptures. Consider the story of Abraham, called to be the father of a people who are set apart to participate in the redemption of the rest of creation by being a blessing to all others (a calling that echoes the original nature of rule). The story shows these people being drawn into captivity and slavery. This is certainly not what God intended—human beings ruling over other human beings to the point of slavery! Eventually the people are delivered and meet with God at the mountain in the wilderness where the nature of rule for the people of God is reaffirmed. God’s first words in the Decalogue are, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery…” God’s desire from the beginning is that we be free from the rule of other human beings so that we can love and serve one another thus participating in the creative redemption of the rule of God. All of the commands and promises of the Covenant are based on God being the one whose desire is to set us free. The people of God are to follow a different nature of rule than the one the rest of the world follows.

But they were not left without meaningful structure and organizational oversight. God raised up prophets and judges and priest to serve (”lead”?) these people by pointing them towards and reminding them of the nature of rule–people loving and submitting to one another in obedience to God in order to be a blessing and participate in the redemption of all creation. But once again we witness a reverse of the flow. The ancient people of God demanded a king to rule over them like all the other nations and we are told that this was not a rejection of the gifts of prophet/judge/priest but a rejection of God (1 Samuel 8:5-7). When we displace the created nature of rule and adopt the corrupted one we begin to see power, influence and authority as a limited resource that grants privilege to those who hold it. This creates a competitive atmosphere where we can no longer serve and submit to one another in love because we are conditioned by a culture committed to the corrupted nature of rule to quest for power. In the corrupted nature of rule power, influence, and authority are not gifts that benefit all. When we substitute stewardship with ownership these gifts only benefit a select few.

Jeremiah 23 gives a glimpse of the trouble that comes from following a corrupted nature of rule. According to Jeremiah, the prophets “lead” by standing in the council of and speaking the words of God. When the people respond to this type of leadership they maintain a right relationship with God. The prophets were gifts of God that were supposed to serve the whole community. Their function can only be effective in the created nature of rule. When they begin speaking their own words or influencing the people to follow the corrupted nature of rule things didn’t go so well. The result for the ancients is a return to captivity and a need once again for deliverance.

In the concentric circles of relationships that I live in there seems to always be a discussion of “leadership” going on. For a group of people who are attempting to respond to a call to follow, it seems leading is much more on our minds. Sometimes the discussion revolves around the always popular gender issues (can/should women be pastors?) and other times it is about “leadership” itself—can this quality be taught, developed, etc…

There is this blanket accusation that I hear from time to time that some emerging ecclesial dreamers are anti-leadership. There is the even more popular response that “the answer to BAD leadership is not NO leadership, but GOOD leadership.” I have yet to actually meet any one in real life who is opposed to the role of leadership in an organizational/institutional structure so obviously the issue comes down to how we are defining “leadership“. Just why is this such a difficult topic to come to a consensus on? Maybe it is time to realize that “leadership” may not be a good word to use in an ecclesial context due to all of the connotations it carries.

I believe the conversation would be more productive if it were shaped by the concept of the “nature of rule”. In the creation narratives we read about the design of God that some things were made to rule over other things. (Gen 1:16, for example) No where in the creation narrative is it implied that God designed human beings to rule over one another. Even in the establishment of a marital relationship of a husband and wife (a passage many mistakenly believe gives ALL men authority over ALL women) we do not see one ruling over the other but a relationship of service and helping, guided by love and founded in mutual submission.

So I see the “nature of rule” along the lines of God ruling over all of creation, inviting men and women to participate in that rule over that creation as stewards who are designed to help one another. The flow of rule then would be:
God –> human beings (men and women, together) –> the rest of creation.

In a subsequent narrative, commonly referred to as “the fall”, we see human beings following a reversal of this “nature of rule”. A created being (Satan in the form as an animal) exercises rule over human beings (acting as individuals instead of in mutual submission to one another), who then conspire to be disobedient to God. In this passage the nature of rule flows:
Creation –> human beings (as individuals over and against one another) –> God.

As God reveals the consequences of this reversal of the nature of rule, for the first time in the narrative we hear of human beings seeking to rule over one another (Gen 3:16). But this was not part of the original design…

After about 2 years of dial-up access I am finally back on broadband. I am happy about that and wanted to share my joy.

I really appreciate everyone’s kind thoughts and interest in my job interview. I think I did OK with it but its hard for me to be objective about it. Hopefully I did well enough to at least get a second interview.

Either way I think I need to get a little more serious about searching for a new day job. There will be layoffs coming at my current employment starting in June and my position is very much on the chopping block. It is going to be an interesting summer.

Lately I have been thinking about the concept of the priesthood of all believers. I think it is hard for a good, independant, non-denominational, Protestant evangelical who has never been in a tradition that has a “priest” to fully grasp this concept. As a result, I think those like me may mistakenly equate the pastoral function with the priestly functiion. I think it is too easy for me to spin this concept into a justification of selfish individualism.

Once again I feel drawn to traditions that are different (maybe antithetical??) to the one I am coming from. I long to be in a more sacramental community but I really have a hard time with some of the hierarchical and gender-exclusive structures out there. Last week over lunch I was told by a friend that I need to “come home” to his particular tradition. That invitation was more tempting than you can know. I have to admit that it would be nice to be in a tradition that would see me as a hyper-conservative rather than a liberal heretic. Maybe that would give me more room to stretch. All I know is the more I explore some of the more historied Christian traditions the more I find myself in unfamiliar territory. It would be really nice to have a spiritual director to discuss some of this with.

I am on my way to a job interview. I am not as nervous as I used to get for stuff like this but I still do have a few butterflies. Strange. I wonder if I will ever get to the point where I don’t get nervous for stuff like this.