Chapter Six

Admitting the Voids In Typical Concepts
of Congregational Leadership



Recently a comic strip character decided he would adopt as a career the work of a shepherd. His first step in becoming a shepherd was to write unknown people to ask them to send him a small flock. His second step was to ask these same unknown people for instructions on how to be a shepherd. That is at the same time both hilarious and pathetic.

Can a person choose to become a shepherd when he has never been around sheep? If so, poor sheep! Can a person choose to become a shepherd when he has no idea what the needs of the sheep are? If so, poor sheep! Is shepherding about the desires of the shepherd or the needs of the sheep? If the shepherd says, “My desires!” poor sheep!

Jesus said that he was the good shepherd who knew his flock, who was known by voice as well as sight by his flock, and who put his life “on the line” to protect the sheep from danger (John 10:11-18). The elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:28) were to view the Christians at Ephesus as “the flock” and to “shepherd the church of God” as bishops or overseers. Peter, as an elder, strongly urged his fellow elders to shepherd God’s flock with (1 Peter 5:1-5):

  1. Voluntary oversight that did not resort to compulsion.
  2. Oversight that was motivated by eagerness, not by monetary opportunity.
  3. Influence by example rather than by control.
  4. The constant awareness that they worked under the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ.
Most Christians in most congregations would agree that the biblical model for leadership is the shepherding style. However, the majority of Christians who agree that shepherding is the biblical style (for both those who follow and those who lead):
  1. Have never known a shepherd,
  2. Have never been around a flock,
  3. Do not know the characteristics of a shepherding style, and
  4. Do not know the distinctions between a modified “board of directors” style and a shepherding style.
One of the frustrations of congregational leaders who wish to learn and implement a shepherding style is the followers’ opposition to a shepherding style. Often congregations do not recognize the shepherding style of leadership as a legitimate form of leading.

The whole concept of considering elders as shepherds and the congregation as a flock of sheep poses questions that many congregations regard as issues settled long ago.
  1. Are Christians to see themselves as sheep? What does that mean?
  2. What is the basic FOCUS of congregational leadership?
  3. Where is authority, who should use authority, and for what purpose (purposes) should authority be used?
  4. To what degree is spiritual maturity an individual pursuit, and to what degree is spiritual maturity a congregational pursuit? Where is God’s balance located?
  5. When is diversity a blessing, and when is diversity a curse?
  6. Does the worship of the individual exist? What makes “group worship” a time of worship?
  7. Are congregations truly autonomous? Can congregations reach differing conclusions and still be “faithful” congregations?
The purpose of these challenges is to acknowledge that the issue of leading and following is complex, not simple. It is not as simple as taking a democratic position vote or articulating a stance.
 

Void # 1

Recognizing congregational leaders is not as simple as installing men “on a spirituality production line who are interchangeable parts” that fit in all models of congregations. All congregations are not basically the same. There is not a simple need for a “standard leadership” because spiritual needs are not the same in all spiritual contexts.

In the spiritual formation of the individual, it is extremely important that the congregational follower feel a positive bond of encouragement from the congregational leaders. For that bond to exist, it is quite helpful if the leader identifies with the world of the follower.

Example one: decades ago, as a church, we were primarily a rural, southern movement. Most of our members were farmers living on family farms doing farm chores. Today, as a church, we are primarily an urban movement. Most congregations are located in cities and towns. Many members are involved in jobs and occupations that did not even exist decades ago.

Urban contexts include a set of stresses that significantly differ from the stresses that existed in rural contexts. There are significant differences between worlds of broken checkreins on the harnesses of horses or mules and crashed computers, between broken butter churn paddles and failed delivery trucks, between smoked meats and refrigerated plastic shrink-wrapped packages of meats in a display case.

Effective leaders need to be able to relate to “the real world” frustrations of the congregation’s members. A person may be a highly effective leader in an urban context, but an ineffective leader in a rural context, or vice versa.

Example two: if you wish to lead in a congregation that primarily speaks Spanish, it would be extremely helpful to be able to communicate in Spanish. If you wish to lead a congregation principally composed of reformed but struggling addicts, you need an understanding of the world of addiction. The same can be said for the worlds of poverty, wealth, education, blue-collar lifestyles, white-collar lifestyles, etc. The relevancy of leadership will be equated with knowledge/understanding of the world of the followers.

The effectiveness of leaders in helping followers transform their lives in Christ commonly correlates to a leader being able to relate to the life of the follower. The spiritual formation principle used may be true whether the leader understands the follower’s world or not, but the follower may not consider the principle relevant. Why? The follower says, “You do not understand—that principle does not work in my world.” Unless the leader (a) understands the follower’s world and (b) can explain the relevance of the principle in the follower’s world, the follower will discard the principle.

Leading involves having a positive bond with followers as well as understanding the principles of Christ correctly. Leading is not as simple as correctly announcing what is right, expecting compliance, and exacting consequences.


Void # 2

Judaism was quite institutional. First, the Hebrew people began their existence as a nation upon delivery from Egyptian slavery. They were a large group of people (an extended family without a national structure) prior to release. They became a nation with a theocentric (God-centered) government after release. Second, they were provided a core law that was to define their behavior and regulate their relationship with God and each other. Third, they were instructed to build a tabernacle that became (by David’s request) a temple. Fourth, they had a high priest to serve as their mediator and a priesthood to perform their spiritual functions.

Also, in many forms of idolatry, there were regulations, temples, high priests, and priests. Idolatry, in its many forms, was also highly institutional. Idolatrous forms were the common, main religious expressions in the first-century world of the Roman Empire and the areas surrounding that empire.

Christianity at its inception was quite different. While it also had regulations, its regulations stressed treatment of people as respect for God and Jesus Christ.

  1. Treat people with respect. Refuse to commit adultery because of the value of the person. Be understandably honest. Be compassionate, not merely just. Love your enemies (Matthew 5:21-48).
  2. Treat people as you wish to be treated (Matthew 7:12).
  3. A person verified that God was at work as God promised by the way the person following God treated people (Matthew 11:4-6).
  4. Jesus’ great invitation was people-centered (Matthew 11:28-30).
  5. There is a horrible inconsistency when a person claims commitment to God while neglecting parents (Matthew 15:3-9).
  6. The kingdom of heaven is composed of people like children (Matthew 18:3-6).
  7. The consequences of causing people to stumble are horrible (Matthew 18:7-14).
  8. The willingness to forgive people should be unlimited (Matthew 18:21-35).
  9. Significance in God’s kingdom is determined by servitude to people (Matthew 20:25-28).
  10. God’s second greatest command was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:34-40).
  11. Jesus said the great separation in judgment would be based on the way people treated people (Matthew 25:31-46).
  12. The objective of the Great Commission was to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).
  13. God sent Jesus because of His love for people (John 3:16-21).
  14. Jesus revealed himself to a Samaritan adulteress who had been married and divorced five times (John 4:1-42).
  15. Discipleship is expressed in love (John 13:34, 35).
  16. It is impossible for Christians to honor God and curse people (James 3:8-12).
In early Christianity there were no temples. Early Christians did not assemble in buildings dedicated to their God. Christians existed as an extended family. Faith in God expressed by being disciples of Jesus Christ was not separated from everyday life. The resurrected Jesus was the only mediator that existed between people and God, and the resurrected Jesus made it possible for people to have direct access to God (see 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; and Hebrews 4:14-16). The Christian disciples were Christianity’s priests (1 Peter 2:9, 10). Christian disciples were God’s temple as individuals (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20) and as a group (1 Corinthians 3:16).

In contrast to Judaism and to most forms of idolatry, Christianity was people-centered in its earthly acts, had no holy building, and even had direct access to God. Disciples served as their own priesthood and temple. They were unique, not because of a claim, but because of their internal being, their relationship with God, their character, and their treatment of other people.

Their uniqueness existed for three reasons.
  1. They wished to make the character of God their character.
  2. They understood that people originally were created by God in His image.
  3. The primary way they expressed commitment to God was seen in their treatment of people.

Void # 3

Commonly the Greek word ekklessia is translated “church” in most English translations. The word denoted a people and not a place. The first place the ekklessia met after the conversion of the original 3000 (Acts 2:41) was in homes (Acts 2:46, 47). When the first problem arose (caused by the neglect of people), the twelve apostles asked the converted to resolve the situation within given guidelines (Acts 6:1-6). When a major doctrinal decision was made regarding Gentile converts’ responsibility and behavior, input was sought from the Jerusalem ekklessia. The ekklessia confirmed the action taken by the apostles and elders (Acts 15:6-22). This was unique religious behavior!

This is called to your attention for one reason: It is biblically evident that an incredible sense of partnership (we would say teamwork) existed between the followers and the leaders. Followers and leaders had the same basic objective and the same basic focus.

This incredible partnership did not work because there was an initial agreement, but because there was a shared objective and focus. That shared objective and focus was bigger and more important than an anxious individual or an anxious group. It worked because God (not people) caused it to work. It worked in spite of the anxiety of some believers in Jesus Christ, as Acts 15:5 and Acts 15:21 (synagogue assemblies on Saturdays continued as Jewish Christians emphasized Moses’ teachings) make evident.

When leaders in a congregation concern themselves primarily with preserving an institution rather than ministering to people, they act contrary to the original concerns of Christianity.

In the majority of ages, people do what they know how to do. Like an onion, Christians contend with layers upon layers of previous “Christian” thinking and the behavior it produced. We assume the core behavior was correctly settled long ago. We assume that congregational problems will disappear by changing methods rather than examining concepts.

As Christians contend with these layers, the easiest assumption is this: Permanent congregational improvement happens by adjusting methods, not by adjusting concepts. What if the methods are ineffective because the concepts have significant flaws? What if adjusting methodology never addresses ineffectiveness because the real flaw is in the concept? Do Christians have the courage to examine long-established concepts without losing faith in Jesus Christ? Is our desire to surrender to God’s intention when He gave people His son? Or, will Christians continue what they know how to do in the confidence that basic rethinking is unnecessary?

Can leaders and followers in a congregation think and study together?

IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE A SHEPHERD WALK, IN THE PASTURE, Chapter Six
Copyright © 2008, David Chadwell
Chapter Five Chapter Seven
table of contents

 Link to a summary of other books by David Chadwell

 Link to  West-Ark Church of Christ Home Page