If the relationship left behind by Christendom between church and state is some kind of hierarchical fusion, then the relationship between church leaders and the laity might be described as hierarchical separation. Put another way, the closer the Church historically got the state, the further its leaders separated from the people. I wonder if we’re still living with that echo today.

Power attitudes bleed through from centuries of church-state fusion creating tangible distance between church leadership and everyday Christians. Certainly, this is true for the inherited Church of England, but this separation is also mirrored by newer denominations too. It has created, among other things, authoritarian structures, indecipherable decision-making mechanisms, and the outward impression of a largely unapproachable organisation.

The historic leaderships structures of Western churches are headed most often by ‘professionals’ who are designated by special clothes and access. They are often white, degree educated, middle-class men who are ordained to teach and authorised to administer sacraments. These leaders get locked into isolated positions that they are ill-equipped for and are frankly unhealthy both for them and ultimately their churches. The horrors stories really are stacking up now!

Bible Colleges, however, still largely (and, I believe, unwittingly) propagate this personality type of leader, and Christian institutions still seem to be drawn to this specific template for their CEOs and national directors too. It’s a little uncomfortable.

The Bible’s focus on the counter-cultural, humble, quiet, gentle, unassuming, behind-the-scenes, facilitating, empowering, grassroots-focused leader is really quite different to the world-challenging, strong authoritarian, society-contradicting tower of charismatic strength and intellectual clarity that we are all too often drawn to.

To society, these exclusive positions become the first impressions, and then the immediate role model for what the God of Christianity is like. Mark Driscoll (himself an awkward example of exactly this type of leader) with characteristic aplomb, pointed out that ‘young men will not go to church so long as there are guys in dresses preaching to grandmas’. It’s more than skin (or cassock) deep though. There’s a specific type of white, male, and middle-class that often rises into these positions. I felt very uncomfortable at Bible College by the lack of diversity – not just socio-culturally, but in sociometric personality typing too.

Thinking briefly about the complimentarian-egalitarian debate (although this is not that post) – it’s not just that it’s only men in these positions, but that it’s an extremely specific and hyper-focused type of man. I believe that we – perhaps subliminally – have learned to be far more exclusive than we realise.

This, of course, is not limited to the Church, but has been the purview of high-responsibility positions in the West ever since the Enlightenment, if not before. We’re unhealthily attracted to a certain shape of power, and I fear that ugly forms of this still dominate church leadership structures and occupy too many pulpits.

Why is this a problem?

When the messenger is confusing, abstract, aloof, or wholly other from those they are speaking to, then the message is lost. This is not just about the person type of the leader, but the structures that have been created by and for that person type.

For many churches, the authority structure is frankly bewildering to society – and even to the average churchgoer. It includes positions of status connected by arbitrary lines of accountability. This can exclude the laity from decision-making, and as Eddie Gibbs says, ‘hierarchical structures are increasingly problematic, because decision making has to go through a chain of command and levels of control’.* These authoritarian roles and structures reinforce an ‘us-and-them’ dynamic which, while problematic to relationships generally, is even more so in postmodern society where authority is treated with great suspicion.

To much of our society today then, this looks like just another power-play rather than the leadership displayed by Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus’ disciples had direct access to Him and witnessed much of His life (Lk. 9:18). They also had opportunities to ask questions (Mk. 10:10), try their strengths (Matt. 14:16), and be actively involved in His mission (Matt. 10). There is a clear difference between the rigid leadership structures of Christendom and the humble and accessible style of Christ.

This is a similar image to the qualifications for elders in Titus 1:5-9, who should be lovingly committed first to their own family (v.6), temperate and selfless (v.7), hospital, serving and open-handed (v.8), and faithfully connected to God’s word in a way that lovingly serves and protects others (v.9). There’s nothing aggressive, combative, martial, or even disruptive in this – and it certainly doesn’t point us towards a specific personality type. Unsurprisingly, all this is echoed in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 too.

The organisational approaches of Christendom, however, are largely inhospitable and detached. They polarise the clergy from the laity, isolating the former, and dulling the responsibilities of the latter. This is a problem for everybody! Isolated leaders do not thrive, and frankly, they do not lead well – regardless of their personality. This results in the propagation of an elitist leader stereotype that is completely different to the qualities shown by Jesus, leaving society bewildered and suspicious.

How do we begin to effect change in our leadership structures?

Rigid leadership structures need to be addressed from both the ground up (as top down has propagated many of these issues), and also by those currently in positions of power. Among the many things we should do, I’d like to suggest that three things stand out: First, Empowering the laity would develop a structure that more fully embraces mission within a post-Christendom culture while developing greater transparency as an organisation. Second, Looking back to the Early Church would give us a set of priorities and values by which to measure our ministry today. Finally, revisiting the ministry values of Paul for each member of the church, and their responsibilities in public worship, we should be able to recalibrate what we think the world sees and from who. Let’s look at each of these in a little more detail.

Empowering the laity

David Clark believes that Christendom failed to grasp ‘the importance of the laity in the ministry and mission of the church’.** Empowering the laity, however, has been incredibly successful within movements like Fresh Expressions. However, this too comes with its own issues – usually at the other end of the spectrum.***

George Lings of Church Army draws attention to the increasing success of projects run by a category of people he calls the ‘lay lay.’**** This group of untrained and non-vocational leaders has no official authorisation but make up 40% of the leaders across official Fresh Expression Projects. Within the apostolic structures of the early church, the laity was empowered to be involved across ministry and mission to great success. This, however, should still be held accountable to a clear and open leadership structure. The question then becomes ‘how can we do both-and?’

Looking back to the Early Church

Sometimes it’s a case of looking back rather than blindly driving forward. Some thinkers, such as Alan Kreider for instance, point us to the pre-Christendom church as a prototype for what the post-Christendom church should look like today. The Early Church, after all, had a clearly defined mission that incorporated all believers – not just specialists – to go make disciples. This came with an expectation of radical, counter-cultural living on the margins of society by every member of the community of faith.

The pre-Christendom church also frequently existed within community spaces (synagogue courts, homes, riverbanks etc.) rather than simply in separate buildings. It’s worth us remembering, however, that church today is in the wake of a history that pre-Christendom didn’t experience and operates within a diverse landscape that pre-Christendom could not fathom. Although pre-Christendom contains helpful examples, it alone does not provide adequately for an entire model of church today.

Revisiting Pauline leadership values

Adding to this then, 1 Corinthians 11-14 provides of pocketful of helpful public-worship ministry values to place alongside empowering the laity, and looking back to the Early Church. 1 Corinthians 12 places equal emphasis on both unity and diversity within the church body. This also is a divine characteristic of God as Trinity (vv.4-6), apparent in His equipping of believers (vv.7-11), and functions as a key ethic within our fellowship (vv.12-27).

Although there are clearly defined leadership positions within this (vv.28-31), every diverse member is a high-responsibility functional part of the united ministry of God’s Church on earth, and as such is a visible witness to those outside, and (for better or worse) should be treated as such. This is why church leaders need to be better at empowering their members, not just leading them. This also has a measurable impact when witnessing to a society that looks for intelligible clarity throughout the whole body (1 Corinthians 14:22-25).

Final thoughts

As David Gibbs says, ‘while organisational structures are necessary, they must function to facilitate rather than to frustrate the mission of the church’.* Clarifying and broadening the church’s organisational structures by empowering the laity, looking back to the values of the Early Church, and refocusing on some of Paul’s key ministry values for public worship, would naturally develop a transparency that would allow the message to be seen with less suspicion.

Throughout Christendom, leaders set the orthodoxy of the church and influenced society through their privileged connection with the state. Today, I hope, we should be looking for a whole church that knows the gospel, digs deep into theology, are growing as worshipers, and lives their out in their everyday lives as significant role models for the world to see Jesus. This can’t be left to the few at the top – especially when those few have been squeezed into a very specific version by the ongoing weight of history.

I really believe that we still need leaders – and are told to have them. We still need pastors, vicars, and team-leaders. But I also believe we should shift both the radius of power, and the functions of regular ministry, away from these central figures, and towards every member of God’s church.

I believe we should revise the personality types of who we put in charge of things – broadening that beyond the white, male, middle-class, type-A, and isolated typecast.

I would love to see leaders lead with more of a heart for facilitation, equipping, or empowering of all the Saints towards the goal of the Great Commission. Sometimes that means that some men – like myself – need to graciously get off the stage, cheer from the side, and provide all the help we can to get others to lead.

Notes

*Gibbs, E. (2009) ChurchMorph: how megatrends are reshaping Christian communities. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. (Allelon missional series; Allelon missional series), p. 12, (second ref: p. 197)

** Clark, D. (2005) Breaking the mould of Christendom: kingdom community and the diaconal church. Peterborugh: Epworth, p. 80

*** Gough T. How successful is Davison and Milbank’s critique of the Fresh Expressions movement in their book For the Parish (2010)? Missiology. September 2021. doi:10.1177/00918296211040306

**** Lings, G. (2014)  A 2014 report on the importance of ‘lay-lay’ leaders. Available at http://www.churcharmy.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=138464 (Accessed: March 2017).

Photo by Ruthson Zimmerman on Unsplash