The Nature of Rule
The Nature of Rule Part I 1
In the concentric circles of relationships that I live in there seems to always be a discussion of leadership going on. For a group of people who are attempting to respond to a call to follow, it seems leading is much more on our minds. Sometimes the discussion revolves around the always popular gender issues (can/should women be pastors?) and other times it is about leadership itself–can this quality be taught, developed, etc…
There is this blanket accusation that I hear from time to time that some emerging ecclesial dreamers are anti-leadership. There is the even more popular response that “the answer to BAD leadership is not NO leadership, but GOOD leadership.” I have yet to actually meet any one in real life who is opposed to the role of leadership in an organizational/institutional structure so obviously the issue comes down to how we are defining leadership. Just why is this such a difficult topic to come to a consensus on? Maybe it is time to realize that leadership may not be a good word to use in an ecclesial context due to all of the connotations it carries.
I believe the conversation would be more productive if it were shaped by the concept of the “nature of rule.” In the creation narratives we read about the design of God that some things were made to rule over other things. (Gen 1:16, for example) No where in the creation narrative is it implied that God designed human beings to rule over one another. Even in the establishment of a marital relationship of a husband and wife (a passage many mistakenly believe gives ALL men authority over ALL women) we do not see one ruling over the other but a relationship of service and helping, guided by love and founded in mutual submission.
So I see the “nature of rule” along the lines of God ruling over all of creation, inviting men and women to participate in that rule over that creation as stewards who are designed to help one another. The flow of rule then would be:
God –> human beings (men and women, together) –> the rest of creation.
In a subsequent narrative, commonly referred to as the fall, we see human beings following a reversal of this “nature of rule.” A created being (Satan in the form as an animal) exercises rule over human beings (acting as individuals instead of in mutual submission to one another), who then conspire to be disobedient to God. In this passage the nature of rule flows:
Creation –>; human beings (as individuals over and against one another) –> God.
As God reveals the consequences of this reversal of the nature of rule, for the first time in the narrative we hear of human beings seeking to rule over one another (Gen 3:16). But this was not part of the original design…
The Nature of Rule Part II 2
If we follow the narrative we begin to see how this corrupted nature of rule plays out in the story of the Hebrew people recorded in the Old Testament scriptures. Consider the story of Abraham, called to be the father of a people who are set apart to participate in the redemption of the rest of creation by being a blessing to all others (a calling that echoes the original nature of rule). The story shows these people being drawn into captivity and slavery. This is certainly not what God intended–human beings ruling over other human beings to the point of slavery! Eventually the people are delivered and meet with God at the mountain in the wilderness where the nature of rule for the people of God is reaffirmed. God’s first words in the Decalogue are, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” God’s desire from the beginning is that we be free from the rule of other human beings so that we can love and serve one another thus participating in the creative redemption of the rule of God. All of the commands and promises of the Covenant are based on God being the one whose desire is to set us free. The people of God are to follow a different nature of rule than the one the rest of the world follows.
But they were not left without meaningful structure and organizational oversight. God raised up prophets and judges and priest to serve (“lead”?) these people by pointing them towards and reminding them of the nature of rule–people loving and submitting to one another in obedience to God in order to be a blessing and participate in the redemption of all creation. But once again we witness a reverse of the flow. The ancient people of God demanded a king to rule over them like all the other nations and we are told that this was not a rejection of the gifts of prophet/judge/priest but a rejection of God (1 Samuel 8:5-7). When we displace the created nature of rule and adopt the corrupted one we begin to see power, influence and authority as a limited resource that grants privilege to those who hold it. This creates a competitive atmosphere where we can no longer serve and submit to one another in love because we are conditioned by a culture committed to the corrupted nature of rule to quest for power. In the corrupted nature of rule power, influence, and authority are not gifts that benefit all. When we substitute stewardship with ownership these gifts only benefit a select few.
Jeremiah 23 gives a glimpse of the trouble that comes from following a corrupted nature of rule. According to Jeremiah, the prophets “lead” by standing in the council of and speaking the words of God. When the people respond to this type of leadership they maintain a right relationship with God. The prophets were gifts of God that were supposed to serve the whole community. Their function can only be effective in the created nature of rule. When they begin speaking their own words or influencing the people to follow the corrupted nature of rule things didn’t go so well. The result for the ancients is a return to captivity and a need once again for deliverance…
The Nature of Rule Part III 3
The people of God find themselves once again under the rule of other human beings. Their hope as a people is in the promised deliverer. But if they were waiting for one who would defeat the oppressors by wielding military strength or following the corrupted nature of rule they were certainly disappointed with the Christ. Jesus’ life and message is a reaffirmation/redemption of the original nature of rule. It is not about a quest for power or influence or coercion. It is about humility, servanthood, love, forgiveness, grace, reconciliation…
At times, we are told, his own disciples mistakenly thought that Christ was still operating out of the corrupted nature of rule and wondered which of them would be second in command. Christ’s replies to these inquiries were always the same. There is not room to seek to lord power over others in God’s nature of rule. Christ’s goal was not to develop leaders but to make disciples. In fact, the one who would be the greatest would be the one who emptied himself, became a servant to all, picked up his cross and followed. This theme is emphasized again and again and illustrated in Christ’s own submission to the created nature of rule that resulted in him giving everything he had for the benefit of others.
Christ realizes that in the redeemed nature of rule, power is not a limited resource. Christ does not see this authority as something to be owned but as a gift from God. As all authority is given to him, he extends it on to his faithful followers. Now, this side of the victory of Christ over the principalities and powers that corrupted the nature of rule, we are invited once again to participate in the redemptive, creative nature of rule. And once again we are not left without structural/organizational overseers. The apostle tells us that God has given us gifts to the church, namely prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. But certainly it would be a mistake to cast these gifted people in a leadership paradigm that operates under the corrupted nature of rule. (Romans 12:1-8 once again frames this in opposition to the corrupted nature of rule the rest of the world follows–see specifically verse 2). It is also problematic to assume one person/office holds all of these gifts or to elevate one of these gifts above another and preface it with the descriptive adjective of “senior” (I Corinthians 12:23-26).
If there is no room for a single person lording power over others than each person in the body has something that they can and should contribute. In the redeemed nature of rule we would cooperate together in mutual submission to one another for the benefit of all. When we gather together, we ALL need to contribute (1 Corinthians 14:26).
So the question remains: In the redeemed nature of rule just how are Christ’s followers to “lead?”
The Nature of Rule Part IV 4
There can be no doubt that God has given some gifted people to the church to serve it by exercising leadership. But what does this ecclesial leadership look like? 1 Peter 5:1-6 gives us a simple overview that echoes Mark 9:35-37 and Mark 10:35-45. Here, Peter follows the example of Christ and sets the created nature of rule in opposition to the corrupted nature of rule. Simply put, Christ followers will not “lead” in the same way the rest of the world does.
I think that last sentence is very important. In my experience, most arguments about ecclesial leadership (especially women in leadership) boil down to not wanting “them” to rule over “us.” In the created nature of rule this makes sense because we shouldn’t want anyone to rule over us. Instead, we should all be serving one another with full participation of the gifts God has given us for the benefit of all–building one another up, not tearing one another down. In this light it is nonsensical to say that women (or children, or “fill-in-your-blank-here”) are not allowed to participate. Are we really willing to exclude people from full participation in the God designed nature of rule?
On the other hand, if we adopt the corrupted nature of rule this kind of thinking makes perfect sense. When we see power and authority as limited resources that we fight for and take ownership of, it will eventually come to rest only with the strong and privileged few. The weak, the broken, the needy, the “different” are excluded and marginalized for the sake of efficiency or progress. While this may be a very good way for companies to be built to last or move from good to great, it is not the way to advance the Kingdom of Christ. The people of God are not to conform to the leadership paradigms of the world and lead in the same way under a corrupted nature of rule no matter how “successful” they may be.
In these corrupted systems, decisions on who can and cannot be a “leader” are made by those who already have the power. The often quoted Ephesians 4:1-16 passage tells us that leaders are gifts from God to the church. The telos of these gifted leaders is to equip others to do works of ministry. I would paraphrase that to say that goal of ecclesial leadership is to help others participate in the redeemed nature of rule. This places us back in the flow of
God –> people of God –> creation.
In this place we are invited to submit to one another in love, bear one another’s burdens, value others above ourselves, and forgive debts as our own debts are forgiven…
The Nature of Rule Part V 5
Maybe the reason we struggle with practicing/developing ecclesial leadership is not that we do not understand the nature of rule but that we have adopted/created ecclesial structures that are antithetical to it. Perhaps the problem lies not in our (mis)understanding of leadership but in our ecclesiology. For some reason we have reduced what it means to “equip” or “pastor” and placed it in a paradigm that is more in line with the corrupted nature of rule. We have adopted definitions of “leadership,” “mentoring” and even discipleship that are every bit as concerned with the quest for power as the world’s nature of rule. If we are honest, most of our pastoral development paradigms look more like the television show, 1 Peter 5:1-6.
What is it about our ecclesial structures that create this environment? I think in our attempts to include the “leadership principles” and techniques of the successful business administrators we have subtly adopted their corrupted nature of rule. In the context of modern bureaucracy, mentoring and leadership development take place because in the world of business you have to be able to make a profit. Effective leadership development in business is a byproduct or external good of the telos of the business. Usually, that telos is profit through the manufacture/sale/acquisition of some product. But these types of leadership development will not produce ecclesial leaders. Once again, this reverses the nature of rule. We replace prophets with profits and the nature of rule looks like this:
$$$$$ –> Created thing (whatever the “widget” happens to be) –> people competing against one another to make/sell/acquire more than everyone else –> ???
This type of leadership is not usually empowering others through mutual submission and service. More often it will enslave people to productivity. Wielding influence effectively and motivating people to participate is encouraged when it increases the margins. The more they increase the profit the more valuable they become and the more they can be rewarded. Conversely, if people cannot make/sell/acquire they have less value. When value and status of a person are measured on their ability to make/sell/acquire “widgets” they are in the same situation as the ancient people of God whose value was measured by how many bricks they could produce for Egypt. If you can gain enough power and influence you may get to a point where you gain from the productivity of others. Those who can influence and motivate enough people to participate in this unhealthy dependent relationship are seen as good leaders. In service to the almighty dollar this type of leadership ability is a valuable commodity.
Certainly, as people commissioned to participate in the restoration of creation, there are leadership things we can redeem from these contexts and use for the benefit of the church. Books like:
Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest,
Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform the Market(And How to Successfully Transform Them) ,
If it Ain’t Broke, Break It! : And Other Unconventional Wisdom for a Changing Business World, and
Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work and in Life, One Conversation at a Time are all valuable, in my humble opinion.
The problem is not redeeming many of the valid leadership skills but in adopting their telos. (I wonder if this is a portion of what Christ means when he says, “you cannot serve God and mammon.”) Our telos is not the sale of a product but the embodiment of a faithful community made up of the people of God. The moment we adopt the corrupted nature of rule and it’s corrupted telos we are forced to reduce Gospel to a marketable product. Leaders become salespeople and “disciples” become our consumers. This market-driven context is the only one our adopted leadership skills are effective in. When we think our job is to “sell” Gospel, we create ecclesial structures around the corrupted leadership paradigms. As we reward those that are successfully “selling the product,” we reinforce the corrupted structure.
What if we–the people of God–were trying to give ourselves away instead of trying to sell a product? What if we were trying to be a blessing to the world instead of attempting to take over the world? What if instead of conforming to the world’s corrupted nature of rule we lived as ambassadors of reconciliation? What would happen if we chose stewardship over ownership, service over self-interest, and creativity over conformity? What would “leadership” look like in a context that was based on not thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to and valuing others above ourselves? How would our ecclesial structures change in the light of this kind of leadership?
- originally posted at http://www.knowtown.com/james/?p=97 on May 26, 2004 [back]
- originally posted at http://www.knowtown.com/james/?p=98 on May 26, 2004 [back]
- originally posted at http://www.knowtown.com/james/?p=99 on May 27, 2004 [back]
- originally posted at http://www.knowtown.com/james/?p=102 on May 28, 2004 [back]
- originally posted at http://www.knowtown.com/james/?p=105 on June 3, 2004 [back]
