This topic is related to the post “The ‘body’ metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12”. In that post I discussed how rather than informal, spontaneous meetings where each member had the opportunity to contribute and minister to the others using the gifts the Holy Spirit had given them, modern church meetings resemble what we see in the New Testament almost not at all. The only gift usually exercised is that of teaching, and it is done by one man up on a stage preaching to a passive group of observers who simply listen.
The topic of this post is related, but not quite the same. Similarly, I think it’s a phenomenon that is far removed from what we see in the New Testament and God’s purpose for the church.
That is, modern churches are top-down, authoritarian structures led by (usually) one man, perhaps with a small group of select people in an inner leadership circle. Decisions are made in secret, perhaps consulting a handful of people, and then announced to everyone else, who have no say in the matter. Rarely or never is the wider church body consulted, rarely is feedback solicited, welcomed, or acted upon.
Often while people may be named into “leadership” positions, in reality, the leadership is mainly token. They usually seem to be chosen for being compliant, agreeable, and willing to go along with whatever the pastor says.
In small churches, the circle of real leadership, the ones given most of the responsibilities and trusted with actual ministry leadership and decision-making, are often the family of the pastor himself.
I believe this is often what is behind the constant movement of Christians between churches. Very often “ordinary” believers, those who do not seek out leadership positions, nonetheless have spiritual wisdom and insight. They may perceive genuine problems with the church and its leadership, or ways the church could be better. And yet, there is little if any avenue for them to express their concerns or ideas, and less avenue yet for them to be taken seriously, much less implemented.
Thus with no choice but accept things the way they are, or move on hoping to find a healthier church, people often choose to move on. Or they may stay, feeling half-hearted and disillusioned because they realize there is no hope of change, but thinking it’s the best of a lot of bad options. Pastors often blame people for their lack of commitment, while never considering that they may have genuinely legitimate perceptions, which, if listened to, could benefit the church.
Pastors have a vision for the church, their vision, and that is that.
It strikes me when reading the book of Acts how utterly different the picture is, and how much unity, mutuality, and participation of all believers we see.
Rather than one man or a group in secret making decisions, we see the entire body of believers acting together in the Spirit of God.
Even the apostles, the special group of twelve whom Jesus appointed as leaders of his church, do not gather together in secret and make decisions on behalf of everyone else.
We see this all throughout the book of Acts, right from the beginning. In chapter one, we have the story of how the church chose someone to replace Judas, who betrayed Jesus and later committed suicide. Prior to that, we are told that the entire church, including the apostles, constantly gathered together in prayer (Acts 1:14). Peter stands up and addresses the entire gathering, explaining the decision to be made and the biblical reason behind it. Then the entire group nominates two men, they all pray together for God’s guidance, and cast lots.
Today, such an important decision would never be entrusted to the entire church.
We are given a beautiful summary picture of the life of the church in Acts 2:42-47:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
The mutuality, commonality, and equality of the group of believers contrasts strongly with what we see in churches today. I simply can’t imagine Peter and John getting together in secret and making decisions which affected everyone without consulting them.
We again see the entire church body involved in making an important decision in Acts 6:
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. (v.1)
First of all, we see that a group with a grievance had the ability to come to the church and make their case. They didn’t simply get disillusioned and drift away to form their own gathering. Not only that, they were heard and the need was met:
And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:2-6)
I find this fascinating. The apostles asked the entire church body to choose the people that they thought fit for this important duty. They did so, and then the apostles affirmed and appointed the men they chose.
I simply can’t imagine that happening in a church today. Church leadership would think this was far too important a decision to leave to the plebs. They would pick the men out, and appoint them later on in a service while everyone else passively watched. They would not even consult the entire church body on the decision, much less allow them to make it.
This has many damaging effects. Because there is no avenue for feedback, issues and problems go unaddressed and even unperceived. Leadership sins fester and grow. Theological errors go uncontested. Leaders are chosen for how well they support the vision of the pastor, not whether they might have valuable differing insight. People drift away because there is no way for them to have meaningful input. Pastors don’t realize the ways they and the church might benefit from hearing different perspectives, or the ways they suffer from not doing so.
Rather than being an organic, unified creation of the Spirit of God, churches are isolated silos of a pastor’s creation, shaped by his vision. Each church bears the stamp and imprint of its pastor’s personality and idiosyncrasies, and the hapless sheep are left to drift around trying to find one that fits the best or conflicts the least with what they believe biblical Christianity to be. They can only hope the church they end up with is relatively healthy, because if it’s not, there is nothing they can do about it.
Note that what I’m not saying is that there should not be leadership in a church. Scripture clearly indicates there should. What I am saying is that I do not think at all that the model we normally see in churches today fits with the biblical model of leadership. Good leaders facilitate the people they lead in doing the task they are leading them in. We see this in Ephesians:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…. (Ephesians 4:11-13)
We see here it is all the saints who are to do the work of ministry, and the task of leadership is to equip them to do it. It is not, as in almost all modern churches, to be the ones doing all the work of ministry while the majority passively receives it. The goal is for all to attain maturity in the faith and likeness to Christ, and to exercise the gifts God has given them for the good of the church.
What is the answer to this? I wish I knew. I fear there is little hope for almost any church to change from a top-down, authoritarian rule by a few people, to a genuinely mutual model of ministry involving the entire body. Most pastors would feel far too threatened by that. I have found in many years of experience with many churches that while giving lip service to wanting to hear input, most pastors really do not, and it would make no difference to give it.
This is yet another way in which I think the lack of the filling and presence of the Holy Spirit harms the church and keeps it far from being what we see it being in the New Testament, apart from the lack of spiritual gifts and miraculous activity.