Comment Highlight: Leading by example
Art left a comment yesterday on my post “What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority.” His comment goes along well with my post from this morning called “In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?”
Without knowing what I was going to write about today, Art’s comment captures the distinctions between leadership based on positional authority and leadership based on living as an example and influencing others through that example.
Here is Art’s comment:
———————————
Most people assume that the way the world wields authority for leadership is the best method. One way or another, they seek to use the same methods and justify their use as the only effective way to get things done. If that is correct, then with our Lord’s denial of the use of this kind of authority for leadership in the church, is Jesus “tying one hand behind our back” to minimize the effectiveness of the church?
In leadership research, this type of authority is called “legitimate” power and “positional” power–the position itself grants legitimate authority/power over others. The leader doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their power–they can be an awful person, which is why you hear the phrase, “respect the office (or uniform) if not the person.”
Leadership research also recognizes another form of power, called “personal” power (and the one who “leads” solely by personal power is said to be a “lateral leader,” being alongside rather than over others). This power is granted voluntarily by those who allow themselves to be influenced solely based on their friend’s character and expertise observed over time through many circumstances.
Positional power usually results in compliance (willingness to do as told but apathetic about the request/requirement), sprinkled with some commitment and some resistance, and this compliance can be harshly enforced if desired. It is “reliable.” But positional power is very corrupting to those who exercise it. These leaders devalue their followers, are comfortable manipulating them, attribute any results to themselves, distance themselves from their followers, and tend to use rewards to reinforce those who comply.
Personal power usually results in commitment (high agreement and makes great effort to carry things out), sprinkled with some compliance and some resistance. This commitment cannot be enforced and the power cannot be misused (or it ceases to exist). Personal power does not corrupt the user, being self-correcting (easily lost) when abused.
The world will settle for compliance and corrupted leaders using a rewards based reinforcement and an escalating range of enforcement measures against those who do not comply. They have chosen their tool well, and it “works.” If your goal is reliable compliance.
Our Lord is seeking committed disciples who set an example for others to follow, who will teach the same to others, on and on.
In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?
This is the third post in my series on “Authority among the church.” In the “Introduction” post, I simply laid out the series of questions and issues that I plan to cover in this series. In the second post, I pointed out that Jesus responded negatively when asked about “positions of authority under his own authority.”
But, in the world today, it is assumed that leaders will be placed in positions of authority. We read about leaders among the church in Scripture (Luke 22:26, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 1 Timothy 5:17, Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17), so how are they supposed to lead without being in positions of authority?
(Some of the information in the post is taken from The Authority of Church Elders in the New Testament by Matthew McDill, available online at that link.)
In the New Testament, “leaders” are never given positional authority over others in the church. The verbal forms of “authority” are used several times in relation to the church in the New Testament, but the verbs are always used in the negative: i.e., do not exercise authority. (For example, see Matthew 20:25-26, Mark 10:42-43, Luke 22:25-26, 1 Peter 5:3.) They are never given “government or control, in the sense of the authority to make decisions for the church.”
So, how are these people supposed to “lead”? They are to lead by the influence that they possess among the other people who are part of the church. This influence is “based on respect that is earned in accordance with the character, skill, and knowledge.”
Two passages in particular highlight this kind of leading by influence because of their spiritual maturity. First, consider Hebrews 13:7:
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7 ESV)
Notice what is important about “remembering” these leaders (who are describing as having spoke to them regarding the word of God): 1) the result of their manner of life, and 2) their faith. These are the things that are to be imitated. Thus, the recipients of this letter are being encouraged to follow the example of life set by these leaders.
Next, consider 1 Peter 5:3 (in which Peter directly addresses “elders”):
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering [exercising authority] over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:1-3 ESV) – verse 3 is highlighted
Notice the 3 contrasting descriptions of who Peter expects these people to “shepherd the flock of God… exercising oversight”: 1) Not under compulsion, but willingly, 2) not for financial gain, but eagerly, and 3) not by exercising authority, but by being examples.
Now, some have suggested that the term translated “domineering” is stronger than “exercising authority.” Even if it is, Peter does not say, “Not by domineering, but by exercising authority properly.” Instead, he says, “Not by domineering, but by being examples.” This is an important contrast that tells us how Peter expected elders to act among others. They are supposed to lead by the influence of their life as examples among others in the church.
This type of leading (by influence/example instead of by authority) explains why others are exhorted to “submit themselves” to those leaders. (For example, see Hebrews 13:17.) This kind of submission is offered to those who live in a manner that is worthy of submission. This is not subservience that is given because a person holds a position of authority.
So, in Scripture, leaders among the church do not lead by exercising authority or by making decision for the church. Instead, they lead through the influence of their life, which must be a good example to the church – an example of serving others, loving others, being concerned for others, teaching, humbling themselves, considering others as more important, proclaiming the gospel, living in harmony with others, sharing their possessions with others, and trusting God (among other things).
———————————————-
“Authority Among the Church” Series
- Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
- What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
- In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?
- Does the existence and recognition of elders indicate that they have positional authority?
- Does shepherding and overseeing suggest exercising authority?
Addendum: The most pervasive argument against positional authority among the church
Missional Community: Those gathered by God and sent by God
Len at “NextReformation” has written a very good post called “rhythms of community life.”
The post begins with the phrase “Missional Community,” and throughout the post Len describes what it means to be a missional community. In fact, he puts the terms and the people’s identity in the very nature of God: “[I]n God’s very essence he is a loving community on a mission. As redeemed people in His image, we mirror His life together.”
While I don’t like to use buzzwords regularly, I do like the term “missional” (and other terms that I use occasionally). But, I try to make sure that they don’t become buzzwords that I just talk about but actual descriptions of my own way of life.
Here is part of Len’s post:
Neither mission nor community has priority; neither can exist without the other. Mission and community intertwine like the strands of DNA. We are a community because we share a common purpose — a mission that began when God sent Jesus. We are a mission because the reality of the Spirit in our common life generates an overflow of love…
In these times, when the church has been in a settled state for so long, we are more likely to have forgotten our mission and to be inward focused rather than outward focused. “Community” has become an idol for some, even though the rich qualities of community life are quickly lost when we lose our sense of common purpose. Where young leaders may make mission an idol, in too many places God’s mission in the world is taught, but not practiced.
There are many other very good parts of Len’s post. He quotes a book that I need to add to my reading list.
As I read this, I realized how much of what Len was writing paralleled by own concept of the church being those gathered by God and those sent by God. We are both. We become unhealthy when one or the other is neglected. Like Len says, today it seems that mission (sent) is neglected more than community (gathered).
In Christ, we are both: missional (sent) and community (gathered).
What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
This is the second post in my series on “Authority among the church.” In the “Introduction” post, I simply laid out the series of questions and issues that I plan to cover in this series.
To begin with, when talking about authority, no Christians desire to usurp Jesus’ authority. From those who believe that there is no kind of authority among the church to those who believe that there is one person who wields authority over everyone in the church alive today, all believe that Jesus remains the head of his church.
Thus, the question is not: Is Jesus the head of the church and does he have authority over his church? Instead, the question is this: Does Jesus allow others to have positions of authority under his own authority?
In Scripture, there is an example of two people coming to Jesus and asking for positions of authority. Actually, in Matthew’s account, their mother asked Jesus on their behalf, but Mark makes it clear that the request belonged to James and John. The story is told in Matthew 20:20-21 and Mark 10:35-37.
James and John (through their mother) came to Jesus with this request: “When you come into your kingdom (glory), allow us to sit at your right hand and your left hand.” They were admitting that Jesus was the supreme authority of the kingdom. They were asking for positions of authority under Jesus’ own authority. (Luke cuts out the part about James and John, but tells us that the request was about having a high position within Jesus’ kingdom – i.e., who would be the greatest.)
This is how Jesus responded (with only slight variation in each account):
And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.”
Jesus tells them that leaders among the nations (“Gentiles”) “exercise lordship” and “exercise authority” over others. But, he also says that it should be different “among you,” that is, among his followers. (In Matthew’s and Mark’s version, Jesus adamantly states, “It shall not be so among you.” – Matthew 20:26 and Mark 10:43) Among the church, Jesus says, things are reversed. The leaders are now those who humble themselves as the youngest and those who serves others.
In order to drive his point home, Jesus tells a short parable. He asks them to consider a dinner party. Who is the greater, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves food? Obviously, from a natural and culture perspective, the one who sits at the table is greater than the one who serves the food.
But, Jesus remind them, he came as one who serves others. Thus, Jesus is using is own life of service to others as a lesson for them. If he – the Lord of the kingdom – is a servant, then obviously in his kingdom the one serving is greater than the one reclining at the table.
At the dinner part, the person sitting at the table is in a position of authority over the one serving the food. Yet, to Jesus, the one serving is the leader, and he pointed his following toward being like the one who served. Even though the world might think the one seated at the table was greater, the church should think otherwise.
So, what was Jesus’ answer to a request for positions of authority? In his kingdom, the leaders are not those who seek or who are in positions of authority. The leaders are those who serve others.
———————————————-
“Authority Among the Church” Series
- Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
- What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
- In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?
- Does the existence and recognition of elders indicate that they have positional authority?
- Does shepherding and overseeing suggest exercising authority?
Addendum: The most pervasive argument against positional authority among the church
Scholars who recognize that the heartbeat of God is not for scholarship
Dave Black is a New Testament scholar who recognizes that the heartbeat of God is not for scholarship. (He also happens to be my PhD studies mentor.)
A couple of days ago, he talked about scholarship on his blog. (See his entry from Saturday, August 27, 2011 at 11:43 a.m.) I thought his exhortations were relevant to all of my readers, whether they consider themselves scholars or not.
The quote below begins with some of his personal reflections of his own days as a student and some of the decisions he made regarding scholarship. However, he quickly turns to a more general problem regarding scholarship:
We hear complaints about over-specialization, lack of breadth, and misuse of secondary sources. All well and good. And to be sure, had I to do it all over again, I would have not majored in Biblical Studies in my undergraduate program but in history or classical languages instead. As for breadth, the main reason I chose to write my doctoral dissertation on astheneia and its cognates in the Pauline epistles was the challenge this topic posed for me in a wide variety of disciplines, including biblical theology, lexicography, historiography, issues of pseudonymity, etc.
But surely there is something missing in this discussion, and it is the elephant in the room: It is sadly possible to be an “expert” in the New Testament and completely miss its heartbeat, which surely is something other than scholarship. The New Testament requires that we go out of our way, eagerly and voluntarily, to accept assignments that involve sacrifice, that we say no to upward mobility, that we even be willing to deny the normal minimum needs of the body for the sake of others’ souls. Yes, I realize that if you are a Greek scholar and start talking (and acting) like this you will be accused of “going off the deep end.” But, in my opinion, until we learn to lay aside our reliance on every human resource and learn to make waiting on God the number one priority in life, we will remain in the kindergarten of learning.
I’m convinced that, if more and more of those who profess to be New Testament scholars would adopt this kind of radical, sharing lifestyle of the New Testament, we would turn our world upside down for Christ.
“Going off the deep end…” Yep, and sometimes people may questions your “scholarship.” That’s fine.
I do not live for scholarship. I hope that’s true of every “New Testament Scholar,” but I know that it’s not.
Do you want to take a step toward being a scholar who recognizes that the heartbeat of God is not for scholarship? I’d suggest beginning by spending more time with people than you spend with books.
Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
I started writing this series on authority among the church several weeks ago, and, almost immediately, I began putting off publishing? Why? Because I honestly didn’t want to publish another blog post, much less another series, on the topic of authority.
Unfortunately, whenever I write about the church gathering together, authority pops up. Whenever I write about the Lord’s Supper, the topic of authority is raised. When I write about spiritual gifts, someone brings up authority. When I write about missional living and gathering new believers, authority is brought up.
Authority among the church is a topic that touches every aspect of our understanding of the church. And, if we don’t talk about it, it quickly becomes the “elephant in the room.” It may not be the elephant in the room that no one talks about. Instead, it’s the aspect of the church that everyone assumes and affects everything that it means to be and act as the church as as God’s children.
In the next post, I’m going to examine a passage of Scripture in which two people ask Jesus for a position of authority under his own authority. That’s right, they did not want to usurp Jesus’ authority. Instead, they wanted to exercise authority under Jesus’ authority. I think Jesus’ response is very important to this discussion.
In the third post, given Jesus’ response to authority in the previous post, I’m going to ask the question, “How does someone lead without exercising authority?” In this post, I hope to make a very important distinction between authority and influence.
In the fourth post, I want to answer another question: “Doesn’t the existence of elders indicate that they have some kind of authority?” In Scripture, it’s clear that there were elders among those early churches, and it’s clear that everyone believer was not considered an elder. Does this distinction indicate some type of authority?
In the final post – unless I change my mind – I’m going to look at the relationship between shepherding and overseeing and exercising authority. Elders were instructed to shepherd and to oversee the church. Again, doesn’t this indicate some kind of authority?
I’m assuming that some of my readers will disagree with me. That’s fine. I only ask that you consider what I write, and deal with my arguments. I’m willing to learn from my readers, but I’m also hoping that you would be willing to learn as well.
Finally, this topic needs more discussion… much, much more. So, please feel free to add your own thoughts to these posts.
———————————————-
“Authority Among the Church” Series
- Authority among the church? Starting a new series.
- What did Jesus say about positions of authority under his own authority?
- In the church, how does someone lead without exercising authority?
- Does the existence and recognition of elders indicate that they have positional authority?
- Does shepherding and overseeing suggest exercising authority?
Addendum: The most pervasive argument against positional authority among the church
An earthquake, water main breaks, and a hurricane
This has been an interesting and exciting week for us.
Obviously, almost everyone knows about the earthquake on Tuesday that was centered in Virginia and that was felt all up and and down the east coast of the USA. I was at work when it struck, and we definitely felt it in our office. It was my first earthquake experience. (And, I’ll confess that I tweeted about the earthquake while it was happening before I thought about seeking shelter.)
Then, on Wednesday morning, a water main broke near the campus where I work. We lost water for about 6 hours that day. (Welcome back to school, students!) The next day, Thursday, we came to work to find that another water main had broken, and again we were without water for about 6-7 hours.
And, of course, this weekend we’ve been dealing with Hurricane Irene. Where we live, just north east of “the triangle,” we only had rain and winds, some gusting up to 40-50 mph. But, many of my friends “down east” and on the coast had much worse weather to deal with.
So, this has been a unique week for us.
But, how did we deal with all of these natural disasters and inconveniences? Did we become scared or angry?
I think our reactions can help us measure how much we are trusting God.
Scripture… As We Live It #171
This is the 171st passage in “Scripture… As We Live It.”
But some believers unbelievers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5 re-mix)
(Please read the first post for an explanation of this series.)
Comment Highlight: The source of pure motivation
In this post, I want to highlight a comment that was left on my post “Motivated to missions because of duty, expectations, or something else?” The comment was left by a reader named Zach.
The first part of the comment is a long quote. The end of the quote is the part that I want to focus on. Plus, we find out that Zach has been reading (lurking) for a while, and doesn’t usually agree with me. 🙂
Here’s his comment:
The gist is this: Who is running the verbs, so to speak, in regards to conversion. Is it us? Or is God? The Holy Spirit reveals Christ to us. Christ reveals the Father to us. The Father sent His Son and His Spirit. God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) works out the whole process of salvation. We respond His work in us with His good works, His love, etc.
My two cents. I lurk around these parts and really enjoy your posts. Not sure we see eye to eye an awful lot, but you certainly cause me to think through a bunch of these issues regarding mission/ ecclesia/ etc.
Thanks for the great comment, Zach! And thanks for lurking, in spite of our differences of opinion.
Replay: Titles for Christians in Scripture
Four years ago, I wrote a post called “Titles Revisited.” In the post, I look at vocative nouns to see what titles are used in Scripture. Vocative nouns are nouns of direct address, that is, nouns used to refer to someone when speaking to that person. (I explain it with examples in the post.)
———————————–
I’ve previously discussed the use of titles between believers in a couple of posts (see “Dr. Anabaptist” and “Do titles matter?“). I thought it might be interesting to see what “titles” are used in Scripture. Specifically, I looked at vocative nouns… that is, nouns of direct address.
As an introduction, in the sentence, “My brother bought me a car”, the word “brother” is a noun being used as the subject of the sentence. But, in the sentence, “Brother, buy me a car”, the word “brother” is still a noun, but here it is used as a vocative. The person speaking is directly addressing someone by the designator “brother”. The subject of the second sentence is the implied “you” of the imperative verb “buy”.
So, I am looking at Scriptural uses of vocative nouns as they are used to address believers and others. What “titles” or “designators” did the biblical authors use to address their readers and other people?
Many times, a person is addressed by their name in the vocative case. For example, Theophilus, Ananias, Saul/Paul, Cornelius, Peter, Felix, King Agrippa, and Festus are all addressed by name in the book of Acts.
Sometimes, an author would address his readers by referring to their location: people of Jerusalem, Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. In each case, the person speaking or writing is addressing people from that location, and, in most instances, believers living in that location. (Thus, Aquila and Priscilla would be included in an address to “Ephesians” while they were living in Ephesus, but an address to “Romans” would include Aquila and Priscilla after they moved back to Rome.)
In another type of vocative address, the author would refer to his readers by designating them according to character traits. Thus, James referred to some of his readers as “Adulteresses”. Similarly, John referred to his readers based on either their age or their spiritual maturity: “Children”, “Young People”, “Older People”. Another favorite character trait used in an address is “beloved”. In fact, it is used 30 times in the New Testament. This makes it one of the most used “titles”.
But, what about the title “brother” (or “sister”). How often was this “title” used in the New Testament? Well, of the 640 nouns in the vocative case in the New Testament, 112 of those refer to others as “brothers” or “sisters”.
For the record, “brother” (or “sister”) is not the vocative noun with the most occurrences in the New Testament. That would be the noun “Lord”, which is used 124 times, primarily to refer to Jesus Christ.
It seems that, at least for the biblical authors, they preferred to think of and refer to other believers as “brothers” or “sisters”. I don’t think this is an accident. Instead, I believe that the idea of being adopted into the family of God was very important to the early believers. They recognized that when they were indwelled by the Holy Spirit, all of their relationships had changed. They took these words of Jesus very seriously:
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50 ESV)
As we follow Christ and as the Spirit transforms us, we stop treating one another like the world treats people (based on rank, popularity, wealth, power, education, abilities, etc.). Instead, we begin to treat one another like the family that we are. We are members of a new family – not a temporary, earthly family of flesh and blood, but an eternal family birthed by the Spirit.
Thus, “brother” and “sister” are not niceties to use to address other believers, but a reminder of our intimate relationship with one another in God by Jesus Christ and through the Spirit. We should not be embarrassed if someone calls us “brother” or “sister”. We should not be embarrassed to call other people “brother or “sister”. Why? Because it is less a “title” and more a reminder of who we are together because of God’s grace and power.