Markus Barth on Ephesians 4:16
Last weekend, someone mentioned Markus Barth’s (son of Karl Barth) commentary on Ephesians. During the conversation, I remembered this great paragraph concerning Ephesians 4:16 –
(1) It is Christ, the head, alone “from whom†the body derives unity, nourishment, growth – but Christ’s monarchy and monopoly do not exclude but rather create the activity of a church engaged in “its own†growth and upbuilding. (2) All that the body is, has, and does is determined by its (passive and active) relationship to the head – but this (“verticalâ€) relationship establishes an essential and indispensable (“horizontalâ€) interrelation among the church members. (3) While Christ provides for the body as a whole and makes it a unity, and while the body grows as a unit – no individual growth is mentioned here – the distinct personality of each church member is not wiped out but rather established by Christ’s rulership and the church’s community. What Christ is, does, and gives, is appropriate “to the needs†(lit. “to the measureâ€) “of each single part.†If the only things affirmed in Eph 4:16 were Christ’s own activity, Christ’s rule over all Christians, Christ’s relationship to the community, then this verse would have been phrased more clearly in Greek and could be more easily interpreted in a modern language. But in this verse there are several accents, not just one: the church’s and each member’s responsive activity is not only recognized or tolerated but receives an emphasis of its own: “The body makes its own growth so that it builds itself up in love.†(Markus Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4-6, Anchor Bible 34a, Garden City: Doubleday: 1974, 446-47)
Partners in the Good News
In Philippians 1:5, Paul thanks God for those in Philippi who were partners with him in the task of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ! The word “partner” and the idea of “fellowship” (same word in this case) are very important to Paul and the other authors of the New Testament.
I’m planning to go to Ethiopia this summer as part of a group led by Dave and BeckyLynn Black. One of the things that I’ve been struggling with over the last few weeks in how to go to Ethiopia as a partner, not as a specialist. How can I go in a way that engenders mutual learning, fellowship, and discipleship?
While I’m continuing to work out these issues, I was excited to read Dave Black’s latest essay called “Missions as Partnership.” Here is one paragraph:
Becky and I view our relationship with the Ethiopian churches as a partnership. Indeed, partnership is a very important word to us. Daniel Rickett, in his book Building Strategic Relationships: A Practical Guide to Partnering with Non-Western Missions (p. 1), defines partnership as “a complementary relationship driven by a common purpose and sustained by a willingness to learn and grow together in obedience to God.” Such is our desire everywhere we go in Ethiopia. Our goal is to establish partnerships between autonomous bodies in the U.S. and Ethiopia. This is one reason we prefer to work at the local church level rather than at the denominational level. A parallel commitment of ours is to develop a sense of interdependence among the churches we work with both in the States and in the Horn of Africa. We might call our work a joint venture between full partners.
This is very much in line with my study of mutuality. I am very excited about partnering together with brothers and sisters in Ethiopia. Not only do I hope and expect to help the churches of Alaba, Ethiopia, I also expect the churches of Alaba, Ethiopia to help me and the churches in my area. It’s a partnership.
Your Church Is Too Small
I just received another book in the mail: Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission is Vital to the Future of the Church by John H. Armstrong. Here is the blurb from the back cover:
In Your Church Is Too Small, John Armstrong shows that Jesus’ vision of Christian unity is for all of God’s people across social, cultural, racial, and denominational lines.
Too often, these words of Jesus from John 17:20-21 seem like an unreachable ideal:
“I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.”
But Your Church Is Too Small encourages Christians to rely on God – Father, Son, and Spirit – as they unite in mission and demonstrate his character to a watching world. Such reliance entails both a deeper experience in the triune life of God and a connection to the church’s past.
This challenging narrative is a call to leave behind placing limits on Christ’s church – with small, fractured sectarian views – and embrace the motivating vision of a church that is unified and rooted in core orthodoxy.
I’m planning on taking part in the Your Church is Too Small blog tour, so I guess I should read this book before the one that I received over the weekend.
Unlearning Protestantism
Last weekend, I received a new book in the mail called Unlearning Protestantism: Sustaining Christan Community in an Unstable Age by Gerald Schlabach. This is the publisher’s blurb:
In this clearly written and insightful book, Gerald Schlabach addresses the “Protestant dilemma” in ecclesiology: how to build lasting Christian community in a world of individualism and transience. Schlabach, a former Mennonite who is now Catholic, seeks not to encourage readers to abandon Protestant churches but to relearn some of the virtues that all Christian communities need to sustain their communal lives. He offers a vision for the right and faithful roles of authority, stability, and loyal dissent in Christian communal life. The book deals with issues that transcend denominations and will appeal to all readers, both Catholic and Protestant, interested in sustaining Christian tradition and community over time.
I don’t know what to expect, but I’m looking forward to reading and reviewing it.
As simple as knowing, hearing, and responding
Felicity at “Simple Church” wrote a very succinct, but thought-provoking post called “The One Key Skill in Simple Church.” She begins with this:
One of the main paradigm shifts within this movement of simple churches is the belief that ordinary men and women hear God. They can be entrusted with the affairs of the Kingdom. It does not need specially trained people to manage the church. The Holy Spirit is able to run the church by speaking directly to His people.  He will do a far better job of it than our organizations and denominations ever can.
Within simple church, we like to say that church is as simple as knowing God, hearing His voice and responding to what He tells us. Jesus is head of His church, and if we believe that we are to take this literally, it means that both at an individual and at a corporate level, He desires to communicate with us. It also presupposes that we have the ability to recognize His voice when He is speaking to us.
What Felicity is saying here is very similar to what I said in my post “Justification and the Church Meeting.” Those who have been saved, justified, indwelled, born again, etc. have everything necessary to be a functioning part of the church and even to take part (speaking and serving) in a church meeting.
In fact, most Christians would agree with what Felicity said… in theory. But, when it comes to practice, many feel that they must protect the church from themselves. That someone may say or do something wrong… unhelpful… selfish… heretical… etc. Therefore, only certain people are allowed to speak / serve when the church meets.
When I read Felicity’s post, I began asking myself these questions: Do I really trust God with his people and his church and his kingdom? Do I really believe that Jesus can build his church better than I can? Do I really believe that the Spirit can use any of God’s children to speak to or serve me and others in a way that helps me grow in maturity?
And finally this question: Is my life with my brothers and sisters in Christ demonstrating that I REALLY believe these things?
Transforming leadership is mutual leadership
In my research on the topic of mutuality, I’ve recently come across an article by Mary Miller called “Transformational Leadership and Mutuality.” (Transformation 24.3-4 (July-October 2007), 180-92) This is the abstract of her article:
What does leadership research and literature have to say about the mutuality of transforming leaders, and is being transforming synonymous with being charismatic? Transforming leadership and charismatic leadership are two distinct and different theories in the field of leadership research, so understanding the distinctive between these theories is essential. Importantly, the definition of ‘charismatic’ leaders within a church context is completely different from use of the term within leadership research. The discussion thus identifies the conceptual basis for the term ‘charismatic’ leadership within leadership research. The conceptual basis of transforming leadership within theory provides a frame from which mutuality between the leader and others can be understood. (p. 180)
There are a few definitions that are important to understand. For example, leadership research uses the term “charismatic leadership”, but the term “charismatic” does not indicate spiritual giftedness as it often does in theological discussions. Miller describes “charismatic leadership” as follows:
Charismatic leader takes time to enhance how they are perceived so they receive recognition from followers. This is because the charismatic leader is seeking for an emotional appeal, so his or her aura is the deciding factor of being a charismatic leader. It is through and from the use of emphasizing their personhood and their gifts that the charismatic leader has impact on the follower….
Central to the definition of charismatic leadership is the perception that the leader is exceptional in some way, and the charismatic leader has the ability to make followers believe in them. The belief in the charismatic leader is the main means of impact and influence on the follower….
The charismatic leader’s focus is on their own abilities as a charismatic leader to formulate, articulate, and motivate followers to join with him or her in fulfilling the vision. (p. 182)
What about “transforming leadership”? This is the way Miller describes “transforming leadership” from leadership research:
Transforming leadership was conceived… as leaders who valued a learning process, specifically leaders who were able to learn from others. The fact that the leader seeks to receive from the follower, in Burns’s definition, profiles the transformational leader as a learner, not the one who has all the answers. It is this modelling of learning that impacts the follower to perceive that they, as followers, are also learners and as such can enter into a free exchange with the leader.
The emphasis on mutuality [in transforming leadership] allows the follower to help frame her/his own vision as part of the overall vision setting process, as well as impacting the leader to further develop the vision. (p. 185)
Next, Miller compares and contrasts “charismatic leadership” and “transforming leadership”:
The process that is used by charismatic and transformational leader also has substantive differences. The charismatic leader is the ‘head of the show’, ultimately responsible to not only articulate his/her vision clearly, but also gain agreement and commitment to that specific vision. The transforming leader has openness to follower input and impact of the vision, which involves power sharing and participation….
The charismatic leader is responsible for ‘buy in’ of followers for the vision that s/he establishes. The dynamic in this type of process is leader focused. It is the leader’s responsibility to continue to stimulate and envision. In contrast, the transforming leader operates on the assumption that followers have vision and need to be able to have a context where that vision is allowed to come forward. There is respect towards the follower’s contribution to articulating the vision. (p. 185-86)
Don’t let the nomenclature become confusing. All leaders in the church have some type of charism and charisma, and all leaders desire to see lives transformed. But, that is not the point of the article above. Notice the definitions and distinctions between “charismatic leaders” and “transformational leaders” described above.
I can see how these different understandings of “leadership” come to play in our interpretation of Scripture. If the apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders, teachers, and other leaders in Scripture are to be “charismatic leaders” (as described above), then their leadership styles and methods and processes and goals will be different than if they are to be “transformational leaders” (as described above).
As far as I can tell, in order to determine how leaders in the church are to acts (i.e. as “charismatic leaders” or “transformational leaders”) we must answer the following question: Is the leadership that we see modelled and taught in Scripture a sole leadership style or a mutual leadership style?
According to Miller, transforming leadership is mutual leadership. If the Scriptures indicate a mutual leadership style (and I think they do), then we should see more of the “transformational leadership” style as described above. However, I think we primarily see the “charismatic leadership” style (as described above).
If you agree that we primarily see the “charismatic leadership” style, but should see the “transformational leadership” style, what suggestions would you have for churches to begin to see more “transformational leadership”?
If you primarily experience “transformational leadership,” share how leadership is mutual in the church.
If you disagree, and think that the “charismatic leadership” style is right for churches (that leadership should not be mutual), what brings you to this conclusion?
Mutual Shepherding Required
Dave Black posted this on his blog this afternoon (Monday, February 15, 2010 at 3:10 pm – emphasis in original):
Pastor friend: You can’t care for the flock yourself. The demands are too many. The needs are too diverse.
Pastor friends (note the plural; I am referring to a church that has multiple elders/pastors): You can’t care for the flock yourselves. The demands are too many. The needs are too diverse.
Whether your church has a single pastor or several, the message is the same: Every-member ministry will begin when you start to accept the limitations of your love, energy, and giftedness.
AMEN! Jesus shepherds the church through the whole church! Should elders shepherd? Yes, of course. But then, all believers are called to shepherd (care for) one another.
For better or for worse (but not about marriage)
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their love or lack of love by the way that they treat (for better or for worse) people who are different from them.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their sevant’s heart or lack thereof by the way that they serve (for better or for worse) others when they are at their neediest.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their fellowship or lack of fellowship by the way they share with one another (for better or for worse) when people are hurting and their lives are messy.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their hospitality or lack of hospitality by how they share their possessions and time (for better or for worse) when they have very little to share.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their unity or lack of unity by how they accept others (for better or for worse) when they are not accepted themselves.
The Scriptural Language of Membership
The language of “membership” (or more specifically “member”) is used in several places in the New Testament (primarily in Paul’s letters) to indicate our relationship to one another and to Christ:
For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:4-5 ESV)
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14 ESV. See also 1 Corinthians 12:18-27)
Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25 ESV)
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:29-30 ESV)
The misunderstanding in these passages, unfortunately, is that the English word “member” carries connotations that the Greek term translated “member” above does not carry. The Greek term translated “member” is closer to the English terms “limb” or “part”.
What’s the danger? Well, someone can become a “member” of a group by decision of either the individual or the group. However, a “limb” (i.e., arm or leg) does not decide to become part of a body, nor does a body decide that a “limb” is now part of it. The “limb” is part of the body by definition… identity.
In fact, this is exactly what Paul is teaching in the passages above. If you read the context, you’ll find that are “members” of one another – we do not have to choose to become “members” of one another. We find that God through his Spirit makes us “members” of one another, the group does not decide that someone may become a “member”. While this language of choosing and deciding is applicable for the English term “member”, it is not applicable in the Pauline usage of this concept.
Thus, we cannot translate the scriptural language of “members of one another” into an organizational concept of membership, in which either party can choose or decide to become a member of a group.
If God brings one of his children into my life, then we are automatically members of one another, we do not have to decide to become members of one another. Our relationship with one another is wrapped up in our identity as children of God and, therefore, we relate as brothers and sisters with one another, and are thus responsible for one another as family.
Unfortunately, too often, the scriptural language of “members of one another” is translated and interpreted as organizational membership. Thus, we choose who will be “members” with us, even though, according to Scripture, this is not our choice. We choose to be “members” with one person or group and choose NOT to be “members” with another person or group.
We need to understand that our organizational choices concerning “membership” bear no relationship to the scriptural idea of “members of one another”. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are members of one another in Christ, and are thus responsible to live as family with one another.
We can’t choose otherwise.
All felt themselves an important part of being together
Art from “Church Task Force” left the following as a comment on my post “The weaker are indispensable“:
At what great cost have we gained so little. We have ruled out 95% of the life of a family in our formality and in our quest to keep up appearances that meet the world’s approval.
I think we need to look past sizing up the importance of contributions–and the methods of these contributions–based on how they make us appear in the eyes of the world (and the eyes of those who are careless in their journey). Is speaking the only way to function (must all be mouths)?
And we cannot do this without also considering the environment we craft and choose for our gathering. I mean both physically and the atmosphere we create by our level of formality. Just the idea that a meeting “starts†and now everyone must shut up, only 1 person may speak from here on, and everyone must give undivided attention, and no one must move or do anything without permission–oh how very weird for a family to act like this together! These have a great impact in shutting out the natural functions of these important members of His body.
Sure, at a family reunion, someone may ask for everyone’s attention for a few moments. But it would be rare. Most often, people cuddle up in groups and jabber away, sometimes dragging someone over to join in on some particular point. No one is excluded from functioning in the most natural ways.
Look around, and you will see love and tenderness being meted out generously. You will see the young caring for the old, the children laughing and playing with freedom and security, the men sometimes pulling aside, the women, too, but the gathering continues to flex and flow as everyone interacts, gives, receives, appreciates, enjoys, loves.
There was one family, but it was not a singular meeting in an artificial, formal manner, and so all contributed in constantly shifting collections of people. Think back and recall the family times together with uncles and aunts and nieces, cousins, and nephews and gramma and grampa. Remember the chaotic, ordered, joy of being together? Who has such thoughts of Sundays at 11 AM to noon?
In the end, everyone was fed a meal, everyone found acceptance, everyone contributed in many ways at various opportunities that presented themselves quite naturally throughout the time together. Service–caring for the needs of others–is highly valued and esteemed in these families. All felt themselves an important part of being together; all had a place. Even those unskilled in public oratory.
If the church is a family (and I think it is, not just metaphorically, but really), then shouldn’t we look and act like a family, even when we meet together? One of the great things about what Art said above is that it is often difficult to tell where he’s talking about a family reunion and where he’s talking about a church meeting.