Continued (though lessened) Raw Frustration

For background to this post, please see the previous post.

Issue #3: The importance, roles, and dangers of investing authority.

As we consider the shape and direction of our local Body of Christ, the issue of authority is front and center. It never seemed to be an issue when there were only 8 or so of us. Now that we regularly have 16-20 people, it is much more of an issue. It became obvious to me when a friend and I were discussing how to define ourselves before we are defined from the outside. Right now, the core has a sense of what we are about and what we value. We share much of that in common. But if several people were to come into the community who are not familiar with those values and sense of direction, no one would have the authority (as it stands right now) to share with these new community members what our values are. Several could go up to them and share individually, but no one has explicit authority to represent the group.

For example, and to revisit the previous post, say a few people decide that they value a "Purpose Driven Church" model, and they start pushing for everyone to go along with this idea (speaking from experience, Jared and I tried this with the group of about 6 others, and it failed miserably... because it was not in line with our values nor our strengths). I could go up to one of them and say, "You know, I don't think this idea will work for this group. I don't think it is in line with our values, and I'm certainly not comfortable with it." They may or may not take it to heart. But that has a very different impact than someone who has authority vested in them from the group coming up to them and saying in love, "We appreciate the idea, but this isn't building on our group's strengths. It is not in line with our values. These are our values... "

In other words, "authority" or "leadership" has a very important role that I never really appreciated: Protection. Explicitly recognized leaders have vested authority to protect the values, goals, and intentions of the community.

But there is still the little problem of having someone speak for everyone. It is really only a modern problem, where everyone feels (rightly?) entitled to their voice and opinion. What if the leader says or does something that you don't agree with? Humility and submission are part of the equation, no doubt (from a Biblical standpoint), as 1 Peter and Hebrews 13 make clear. But what do those passages mean in today's context?

I can imagine several responses to this whole vein of thinking, largely based on personality and background. To those who grew up in authoritarian churches, where individuals had little or no real voice (and therefore power), two reactions are likely. Those who feel safe and function well in those environments (think SJs for you Meyers-Briggs aficionados) will likely wonder what all the hubbub is about. "Of course you need leaders!" For those who have been hurt in such churches, or who are more independent of mind and spirit (SPs and NTs), there is a tendency to be more egalitarian by nature, and would be resistant to repeating "mistakes" of the past. Power trips and egos seem to go with most "leaders" and also division. To those who grew up in very loose, egalitarian churches, this may seem like backsliding and promotion of division, since strong leadership tends to bring clarity of differences, not similarities. But, there are likely some from that background who would like to stand for something, and know that the community will stand with them. Leadership can provide that unifying force of focus.

Let me make this clear, lest any missed this in my posts: I'm very aware of the New Testament passages on authority. I grew up in a background that not only values authority, but Bible study and memorization (one of the many things I'm very grateful for). So I'm familiar with all the traditional (Church of Christ) arguments and logic for understanding authority. I have not forgotten these things. Notice, however, that I did not say that I know what the Bible says about authority and leadership. I am no longer confident in my understanding of what the Bible says to us today. I can confidently state what it said to the people of the 1st century, but even then I fear presumptuousness if I say that I know what it meant to the people of the 1st century.

All that to say that these issues are not as clear cut and black and white as they were for me in the past. Some will lament, others rejoice. I can do neither; those actions require grounds for making value judgments. I'm in the thick of it, with no place to look down from and make such judgments.

But Christ is faithful, and I know He loves me, and that this journey will grow my dependence on Him for clarification and perspective. Amen.

A (Rather Long) Moment of Raw Frustration

I was visiting with a couple from our house church tonight, and had some very deep, answerless, challenging discussions. I just have to take a moment and share some raw thoughts about one of the topics. There are no values placed on these statements… just pure frustration and emotion.

Authority. Legitimacy. Ideas and concepts that Jared has been wrestling with on his blog. Tonight, some of the reasons for the difficulty these concepts pose to me came to light. However, having light shine on a problem does not always guarantee quick resolution of the problem.

Issue #1: Systems always have unintended consequences, and there is no escaping a system. For example, we were talking about two different approaches to “operating” a faith community, for lack of a better word. One is a more egalitarian, fluid, organic, and, my default, democratic way of functioning (let’s call it the Democratic Model). People share their views, and the community discusses things and decides on activities more democratically. This allows diverse spiritual and theological views to remain (since it is more activities than beliefs that are concretely decided in a (default) democratic way). Another system in some way codifies a group’s values and actions, defining itself early on and allowing others to accept and co-exist or decline and not engage a particular group (let’s call it the Constitutional Model).

Why this issue? Because as a group, we have tremendously strong relationships and connections with strong spiritual focus. This has led to the happy yet troubling problem of growth. Issues weren’t really issues when you have only six or seven adults with the same background. It becomes more challenging with 15 adults with very different backgrounds.

So practically, what does this issue mean on the ground, for us in our home church? Everyone is a part of our church for some reason; everyone sees something they value in the group. It may be the freedom to grow and stretch spiritually, or the intimacy and love of the relationships, or it may be the simple fulfillment of friendship needs, or it may be the non-institutional, non-building oriented nature of the church. But as the group grows, the diversity of values (what is important to people) shift. So, if we take a more Democratic Model, as more voices add to the decision making process, the values that drew the initial core may change from being the majority to the minority. Then you are faced with the dilemma of staying where you no longer fit in or where your values are no longer guiding the actions of the group, or leaving the bonds of love and desires of unity to find a group more like-minded (birds of a feather, flock together). If a Constitutional Model is used, there would be an explicit shaping of the group, which might keep some away, and cause accusations of trying to be different, unique, and/or divisive, or the possibility of “rule by the minority” based on this codification of self-concept at a static point in time.

Ahhhhhh! Can you feel the frustration (confusion?) as your head spins?

So, being more concrete, let’s give a real possible question. Let’s assume for now that we have 15 adults, 9 of which don’t want to ever have a building, 2 of which would prefer a building, and 4 who don’t really care either way. We decide tomorrow that we are going to follow a Democratic Model. Let’s say that 8 more people join our group, and that they all happen to be open to having a building, and in fact, would like to work towards that. Now, the majority value of the group is to work towards a building (10), while 9 people think a building would destroy the very nature of the group. In a Democratic Model, the majority would win, and the new minority must decide if they should restart a group that has no plans to pursue a building, or stay where their values are no longer promoted as directly. If they did leave, then ultimately they would be assuming a default Constitutional Model by valuing this belief more than the voice of the majority, and in forming another group with that common belief, have an unofficial (non-explicit) constitution. But, if the group adopted a form of common framework that stated this group values being free from the burdens and financial drain of buildings and values the authenticity that meeting in homes allows, then as it grew, people would know that this is what this particular group believes, and if that doesn’t fit with the new person’s values, then they wouldn’t join. This model comes across judgmental, authoritarian, and divisive, at least to many. It might slow and prevent growth, but it may also slow or prevent later division.

What is better? What is right? What has more weight of tradition? What has more Biblical weight? My brain is frying!

Issue #2: Deciding a system is immensely more difficult than criticizing a system. It has always been easier to find fault in a system that I did not create nor approve of. I feel the weight of this decision, and it makes me want to run away, or abdicate. However, no decision is in fact a vote for the default, whatever that may be where you are. For us, that would be more of a Democratic Model. And at this point, I have as much say in a decision as anyone else.

Oh there is more. Much more. But this is way too long as it is. A glimpse into the future:

Issue #3: The importance, role, and dangers of investing authority.

Authority, Culture, and Tradition

There is a rather interesting discussion that my best friend Jared Coleman has started on his blog. The particular blog entry regards authority. The questions he raises are foreign and incomprehensible to many people from a traditional Christian background. You can not generate questions to analyze issues one has never conceived of before. That is why many will not understand the question, much less try to answer it.

I have thought of these very same questions that he raises. Because my particular spiritual background holds a self-conception of being the "New Testament church," I have at various times sought connection (and authority, by extension) to the early church. While doing my undergraduate work at Grand Canyon University, (a Southern Baptist college at the time), I took advantage of the expanded religious section at our university library and read about the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" as well as read some of their writings.

While I can't possibly begin to answer the questions that Jared poses, simply because I barely have enough foundational knowledge to begin such musings, something has been whirling in my head. I have been pondering the nature of the relationship between authority (legitimacy), culture, and tradition.

As you begin to pose challenging and exciting questions like Jared and Scott, it becomes difficult to tease out what is God's intention (Did God intend for there to be a physical, unified church?) and what is the result of the cultural interpretation of the Word (and the word), or even interpretations founded entirely on tradition. The early church (starting around 100 C.E.) apparently was organized with each church (congregation? city?) having one bishop, a board of elders (called the presbytery), and deacons. Authority and/or legitimization was established by the laying on of hands. To some extent, many feel that these early leaders were the "spiritual" inheritors of the apostles' teachings and authority. The implication is that orthodoxy was maintained by having a visible "seal of approval" by the laying on of hands by those with the most "knowledge" of these teachings and traditions.

Where am I going with this? I don't even know for sure. But I wonder, was this "chain of authority" inherent to God's design and plan, or inherent to the culture or traditions of those people? At that time, the written word was not available. All teachings were oral, with some letters sent around the Empire with brief references to widely held doctrine. It would have been culturally vital to show which individuals had been "taught" and which had not by something such as the laying on of hands. But does this cultural necessity require us to view it as God's intention?

This become more relevant as we apply this thinking and reasoning to other issues very similarly related. (Keep in mind, I am not taking a position; I'm just exploring ideas and toying with concepts.) Take, for example, the role and status of women. There is a very strong tradition codified with much authority, that keeps women out of direct spiritual leadership in the church. There seem to be some very direct "biblical" statements on this issue generating a view that the early church fathers certainly embraced. If we accept that authority and church structure can be passed down, doesn't that imply that such codified teaching should be too? Were those statements, and views, set contextually in that society, or set as inherent views of humanity?

Of course, there are other issues, and I'm still chewing on it. I look forward to seeing the discussion develop further.