The Conundrum of Authority
January 17th, 2008 § 5 Comments
Eight women in Florida have given sworn depositions charging that a megachurch pastor coerced them into sex. The pastor, Earl Paulk, is being charged with perjury because he told investigators that he’d only had sex with one. (Local coverage here.)
So here we are again, back in the zone of abusive spiritual authority. When a pastor’s personal agenda is blatantly sinful, as Paulk’s allegedly was, believers are devastated. But they also feel manipulated when the agenda is mixed — when in the midst of pursuing godly goals a pastor doesn’t seem to notice his own vanity.
There is almost a sense now that any exercise of authority is abusive, and many believers question the legitimacy of pastoral leadership. The issue was featured in a couple of blogs this past week (unrelated to the Paulk story).
Robbymac offered a rich portrayal of servant leadership and its implications in a tale of two men in dialog about spiritual authority in a pub. The gruff barkeep becomes their model. Says one, “I’d like to suggest that real ‘apostles’ don’t need to trumpet their status or try to get people to agree to be ‘under’ their authority. They just serve and people recognize their authority based on character and not on their need to have people ‘submit’ to them.” Robbymac’s post gave me good ideas to feast on, and it was so evocative that I could almost smell the hops.
Kingdomgrace sparked some lively exchanges about pastoral authority with her usual clarity of expression. Reviewing a chapter in Pagan Christianity (Viola and Barna) about the history of the clerical tradition, Grace surveys the dubious mixture of contemporary ideas of pastoring with the ancient priesthood. She writes,
I don’t believe that one person should be responsible for the equipping of the body, but rather that you will find those equipping gifts among the body. The same is true with discipling, teaching, and mentoring. None of these things should be taken on solely by the leader.
Even if this is clear in your heart as the leader, as long as there is a full-time pastor, it will be an uphill battle to prevent passivity among the congregation regarding who is responsible for ministry.
An uphill battle indeed. In fighting the consumer mentality, a pastor will always face the question, “Why are you trying to get me to do your work?”
The intensity of the comments in response to Grace’s post shows how dire the collapse of spiritual authority has become. Participants were not so much questioning the character of pastors, as the legitimacy of having a paid pastor at all. Commenting on the aging evangelical base, one participant named Jerry expressed a sense of crisis many share:
I don’t think people realize how desperate a state the American church is really in. We’re less than 10 years from being exactly in the same state as Europe (barring a medical miracle).
We need Frank Viola’s and George Barna’s (and many others) to really shake this thing up. There’s a disaster pending the likes of which the church world has never seen. All we have to do to get there is hang on to the status quo.
No question, we’ve got trouble.
Believers have lost a sense of how authority is supposed to work biblically. Those who remember when pastors had a recognized civic role fantasize about the recovery of Christendom, while emergents at times seem frantic in their search for an egalitarian church structure. There are those who want to trust their pastors, many of whom end up getting burned like the eight women in Florida. But there are others who long ago resolved never to trust another pastor again.
We witness a bitter scattering. The question is how to return to the Shepherd.
For me, a purely egalitarian church structure — no leaders, no followers — is fast-acting conformism. The herd never tolerates dissent from its stampedes. Furthermore, I believe egalitarian promises are fraudulent: all groups have leaders. The informal ones who lead from charisma tend to be the least accountable.
But the old institutional hierarchies assume a cultural consensus that no longer exists. Christendom, as a cultural force, is on life-support in the U.S. In Europe, it’s dead. Pastors are not authority figures anymore. But they’re still acting like it.
I am trying to implement several principles as a pastor:
- Model submission for other believers: submission to the Lord, to the scriptures, and to the other leaders of the church.
- Lead only from the trust gained by modeling submission. This practice is empowered by the Holy Spirit (e.g. Ephesians 5.15-21).
- Lead not by casting visions, but by applying narrowly defined biblical principles to the next decision on the congregation’s horizon. Put another way, there’s no grand plan, just point-to-point navigation.
These principles help me eschew the power game and nurture unity. They do not bring hyper-growth. They do not empower a great career path. They don’t even eliminate conflict. But they do harness the forces of relationship, truth, and love to the work of change.
And in the bargain I will see my own soul saved — an end I pray for the eight women in Florida and for Earl Paulk.
Matt, this is an important issue, and one, as an itinerant, I’m faced with everyday.
It seems to me that authority is first in Christ and second in the congregation. Pastors, elders, deacons are appointed by the congregation for certain tasks… but they are to emerge from the congregation, not be imported from another place (unless it is on mission).
Some great thoughts in this post as well as implementation principles. The ‘point-by-point approach’ is a good name to call it (especially when my own pastor is in the middle of a vision casting series!). It gives the Holy Spirit a seat at the table to move the Body as a whole rather than merely steer it from the front.
If a CEO type pastor really let the Holy Spirit lead the church, it would look like a picture of a horse trying to stay in front of the cart because it didn’t realize the cart was a motorized car. Just appearing to be in charge isn’t any good either. The pastor sits in the cart with everyone else, all submitted to the Spirit. And, on my view, that’s his primary seat. The rest goes from there.
Thanks for the food for thought. I think ‘church polity’ ought to be a mandatory part of a ‘new members’ class! It safeguards protestants from the notion there’s a pope in every church, and keeps the pastor accountable from pretending to be one.
Dale,
I agree with everything you’ve said here. In particular, I like your point about elders and other leaders emerging from the congregation as Christ calls them. The body here has filled staff positions, sent missionaries, even put people through degree programs by calling on its own members. There are pitfalls, but this approach works because the Spirit is in it.
Also, the point-to-point navigation really does give the Spirit a lead role. We have done things as a body that I personally never desired to do. But the ministries have been incredibly fruitful. The pastor-as-CEO model does violence to an elder’s role of teaching the word without partiality to powerful people or to his own desires.
I also agree about new members being taught about the church’s polity. We are trying to use the assimilation process to secure people in a whole network of accountable relationships, not just get their buy-in for a program. You must have a good eye for “systems.”
Thanks for your thoughts!
I really appreciated this article and the points and observations. It has seemed to me for some time that we have worried and preached and focused on our “organization” as if we were the builders of it. It seems preachers are dismissed as often these days for a “lack of leadership” (see CEO) as they are for any other reasons, and many conferences and workshops who tackle the issue merely encourage pastors to assert their power, and be that CEO. And one wonders, can a church exist without a Rick Warren? Must every successful church be led by a CEO? Our practices seem to say yes, but I feel like we insult the Spirit of grace with our focus on our abilities, our organizations, and our vision statements.
Missionaries are often supported full-time by offerings from other Christians and other churches. They are asked to be a light shining in a dark place, to share their faith, and help others grow in their faith. I dare say we ask pastors to do far more than this, and often, these particular duties are considered secondary while management duties are paramount.
I would hope our churches can become more simple: Places of refuge from the world where people find knowledge, find belief, and find brothers and sisters. And that churches become incubators that don’t turn out programs, but grow strong and bold believers who know God’s Word in a world that doesn’t get it. It’s easier to say than to pull off, but I like the principles you are trying to implement.
You could almost smell the hops? I’m almost as happy about that as your kind words about the whole post!
Grace and peace!
[...] pastor, Joe Barron, in Texas yesterday, I thought I would link to a post from some months ago about the distrust of pastoral authority. The issue of sexual immorality hit home this week with our family, as my wife found out that a [...]