History is littered with examples of the Church adopting models of leadership from its cultural contexts, which have often been at odds with the heart of the Gospel and the earliest church traditions. The development of autocratic styles of leadership which culminated in the institution of the Papacy is an obvious example and one that began relatively early in the history of the Church. The use of pagan methods and strategies of leadership in the Church does not just belong in the past. It is a powerful reality in the contemporary Western Church.

A recent development that perhaps epitomises the sanction of pagan notions of leadership, is the use of the title senior minister or senior pastor by a growing number of Christian Churches. The same phenomenon has occurred at denominational departmental levels, where titles such as executive director, chief executive officer, and conference officers are currently used. In some denominations Senior Ministers now have their own collegial group with a special emphasis on corporatist ecclesial models (usually with a trip to America every year or so). The problem is not about the titles per se. The problem is about the meaning that has been inscribed to these titles within our culture. Also, the problem is not about special positions in the life of the Church. I am not arguing for some utopian leaderless model of the Church. I really like the point that Garry Deverel, a Baptist minister in Australia makes in a recent sermon:

"It would be a mistake to assume, as many Protestants have done, that Jesus absolutely forbids, here [Matt 23:8-12], the use of titles for Christian leaders, or worse, that Christian communities ought have no teachers or leaders at all. Some have argued such positions from precisely these verses, and Baptists have been prominent amongst them. No. Were that the case, then Jesus would not have sent his disciples out, in chapter 10 of Matthew's gospel, with an explicit authority to preach, to teach, to heal, and to exorcise. Nor would he have said, in that same passage, that a disciple is certainly not above his teacher; that a disciple should be content to imitate his teacher. Clearly, then, there can be no fantasies in the Christian community about leaderless communes or 'anarcho-syndicalist collectives,' as Monty Python might have called them. What Matthew wants to say, rather, is this. That authority in the Christian community derives not from worldly status or popularity contests, but from a humble willingness to imitate Christ in his devotion to God and his service of others."

So the problem is not over the use of descriptions for leaders or positions of leadership. The issue I am addressing is about the kind of descriptions we use. It is right and proper and indeed socially necessary for us to use functional titles and we also need to honour those who have earned the places of God appointed leadership in the Christian Church. However, what is at stake is the kind of leadership and ecclesial structures we are constructing and promoting through the language we are choosing to use for leadership. We are in a position now, perhaps more than ever, to critically evaluate the language we use. Postmodern thinkers such as Derrida and Lacan and a host of others, show quite clearly the power of language in the construction of reality. Language is what makes being human possible. Language is consciousness. Language creates culture, enables communication, and with culture, forms identity. Yet language has been cheapened by Western society that has prepackaged it, commercialised it, and pulped it into shallow propaganda. A shallow language has created a shallow culture.

In relation to leadership and models of the Church, we need to be asking the question: are we merely trading the medieval language of the Church for new concepts largely defined by the language of an elitist, triumphalist, corporatist, dominant culture?

The use of these new titles is really the thin edge of the wedge. At issue, is what they imply and the kind of church order they encourage. They do not simply denote functionality, but suggest a new form of clericalism. By definition, senior minister suggests seniority; that is, the top position in a system of rank or chain of command within the church. Thus, the title of senior minister is the correct one for a hierarchical system, where power is centralised and there is little encouragement, if not denial of congregational access to the decision-making processes of the church. The orders are given from on high (clerical) and the rank and file (laity) are expected to obey. Subtly, the artificial distinction between cleric and people is reintroduced or reinforced.

These issues and questions demand a biblical reassessment:

LEADERSHIP IN THE EARLY CHURCHES

Biblical scholarship now almost universally appreciates that the New Testament reflects variety in church organisation. A New Testament blueprint for the Church does not exist. Instead the canon projects a story of many different groups of Christians struggling to define their identities in relationship to the dynamic forces of Judaism and Graeco-Roman culture. An important theme in this story of identity is the perennial tension between charismatic and hierarchical forms of leadership and ministry.

1. The Jerusalem Christians. (Luke's portrayal in Acts)

The Twelve and especially Peter and John were leaders in the very earliest period of the Jerusalem community (2:42; 3:1-4:22, 35; 6:2). But it appears that even they, did not dominate the leadership. The account of the Hellenists (6:1-6) indicates that others functioned as leaders. The Twelve in fact admitted the limits of their leadership (6:4). It was the community of disciples who elected the Seven and they who prayed and laid hands upon them. (6:5,6). The Jerusalem community was much more fluid and spontaneous with regard to authority than has sometimes been interpreted. In the early years particularly, ministry was exercised under the spontaneous power of the Spirit. Such was the situation in Antioch (13:2,4; 16:6f.; 18:9; 22:17f.), with the Hellenists, Stephen and Philip (6:8,10; 7:55; 8:26,29,39), and in Ananias' ministry to Saul (9:10-19). A charismatic authority is also evident in Judea with Peter, John and 'the brothers' (4:8; 10:10-16; 11:18). This overview within Acts is indicative but certainly not exhaustive.

Acts also records the development of a more institutionalised leadership, which stands in tension with the early days. This was about ten years on in the life of the church, as Jesus' brother James assumed a very prominent role (15:13ff.; 21:18f.; Gal.2:12). It was likely he who imposed an orthodox Jewish style of hierarchy upon the Jerusalem Christians (11:30; 15:2,4,6,22f.; 16:4; 21:18). Nevertheless, it is important to note that even by this stage, the whole congregation was consulted on the important matters in the church's life (15:22; Gal.2:2-5).

2. The Apostle Paul.

The body of Christ was Paul's pre-eminent metaphor for the Church (esp. Rom.12, 1Cor.12 and Eph.4). In common with the earlier stages of the Jerusalem group, Paul viewed this body as a charismatic community of faith. For Paul, the metaphor articulated the working of the Holy Spirit in the churches. The Spirit alone was the true authority; the divine source within the churches which became manifest through the charismata (grace-gifts) of all God's people. 'To each' is given some charisma (1Cor.7:7; 12:7,11). Technically therefore, according to Paul, all Christians are charismatics. That is, all have a special function within the body of Christ. Many different grace-gifts are required, just as a human body requires the co-operation of many different parts (Rom.12:4; 1Cor.12:4ff.,17,19). Thus, Paul exhorted the churches to organise themselves around the diversity of gifts that had been graced to individuals (Rom.12:5-8). Paul recognised that there were specialist ministries of leadership. Apostles, such as Paul, were gifted with the primary tasks of passing on the authentic Gospel and founding churches. They were highly regarded along with prophets and teachers (1Cor.12:28). However, nowhere does Paul indicate that these were offices. Rather, it followed from Paul's charismatic view that disciples exercised these roles spontaneously as a result of their recognised giftedness. This was also the case with a whole range of leadership responsibilities shared by the members of the Pauline churches - preaching, evangelism, mission, administration and much more (see esp. Rom.16:1,3,9,21; 1Cor.12:28; 16:13-18; 2Cor.8:23; Phil.1:1;2:25; 4:3; Col.1:7;4:7).

In Paul's overall view, ultimate authority and power lay with the individual congregations. We have noted that the government of a local church was shared amongst the people, according to individual gifts. Yet at the same time Paul recognised that there are tasks that all believers can participate in. Paul asserted that all members of the churches, are to teach, judge, admonish and comfort (Rom.15:14; 1Cor.5:4f.; 2Cor.2:7; Col.3:16; 1Thess.5:14). It is fascinating to observe that almost always Paul addressed the communities as a whole. His sermons and instructions were not directed at an elite. This is all the more interesting in view of the fact that Paul was a strong leader. Paul had no problem with strong leadership as long as it was genuine. Strong leadership was a product of the power of the Spirit. However, such authority was not to be centralised. Strong leadership was always accountable. When leadership was required, it was the community's role as a whole to discern the legitimacy of utterances, decisions and deeds by individuals claiming inspiration (1Cor.2:12,15; 14:16; 1Thess.5:12,20). Paul was likely not exempted from this congregational scrutiny either.

The authoritarian development that gradually overtook Jerusalem Christianity, eventually occurred in the later Pauline circles after the Apostle's death. The Deutero-Pauline Epistles such as the Pastorals particularly bear the marks of an institutionalising patriarchy within the Church. For the first and only time in the Pauline corpus we encounter Elders (1Tim.5:1f.,17,19; Titus 1:5). Bishops or Overseers and Deacons are presented as offices within a primitive hierarchy (1Tim.3:1-7; Titus1:7ff; 1Tim.3:8-13). Slowly but surely the inspiration of the Spirit was being undermined. Leadership was regimented against God's will and structured according to human nature. This process of course led to the eventual appointment of Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch early in the second century. The seeds of early catholicism had taken root.

3. Resistance.

Despite the evolution of hierarchy, the revolutionary power of the Holy Spirit would not die and continues to resist establishment religion. The New Testament also bears witness to churches represented in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Revelation which resisted later authoritarian trends.

a. Mark's Gospel reflects a Gentile-Christian audience and is radically opposed to hierarchy of any kind. The Gospel is a manifesto of God's total reordering of power.The author's theology of power and authority is quite shocking. Jesus, the archetypal leader, paradoxically receives his authority through a life and ministry of suffering service and ultimately through his obedient powerlessness upon the Cross (esp. 15:34). The Gospel also subverts conventional understandings of leadership through the characterisation of the Twelve. The Twelve continually misunderstand the nature of Jesus' mission. The request by James and John (10:35-40) is a metonym for this sub-plot in Mark. After Jesus private tuition to the Twelve upon the subject of hierarchy (9:33-37), James and John have the audacity to ask if they could be granted special status, 'one at your right hand and one at your left ...' (10:37). Jesus retorts that they do not know what they are asking (10:38). How prophetic this is. For in Mark, at the Cross '...with him they crucified two bandits, one at his right and one at his left'(15:27). The obtuseness of the Twelve reaches a crescendo in the closing chapters. Judas betrays him. Peter, James and John fail to minister to him in Gethsemane (14:32-42). Finally, they all desert Jesus and leave him for dead (14:50, 66-72).

In direct contrast to the male leadership in Mark, the women disciples show true leadership. Despite everything they continue to faithfully minister (esp. 7:24-03; 14:3-9; 15:40-41). In chapter 16, the women become the mentors of discipleship par excellence. They are the first witnesses of the empty tomb. As a result of their discipleship, they are entrusted with the news that Jesus has been raised (16:6,7). This tradition of Mary Magdalene and the other women at the empty tomb was so well known that it is reported in all four Gospels. The warning to the Church is explicit - God inspired leadership is not necessarily synonymous with the so-called official leadership and is certainly not bound to the male gender.

b. Matthew, reflects a Jewish-Christian constituency which appears to have been experimenting with a communitarian leadership style (esp. 18:1-20), while continuing to observe certain Jewish traditions. In 23:8-10 there is a warning to the Church against endowing anyone with title, rank or other special status. Rather like Paul, Matthew equates authority not with office but with serving others from a position of humility.

c. The author of Luke-Acts reminded his community that leaders are constantly under the human temptation, consciously or unconsciously, to create a personality cult around themselves, at the expense of those they lead (Luke 22:25; Acts 20:30). Consequently, leaders particularly, are called to account (Acts 4:25-28). Jesus was subjected to this kind of temptation. The paradigmatic episode occurs early in Luke when Jesus is tempted in the wilderness by the devil (Luke 4:1-11). However, Jesus successfully resists the seductions of '..the worldly kingdoms ... their glory and all this authority...'(Luke 4:5,6). So must our ministers resist the seductions of the worldly kingdoms. Instead, Luke reminds us that Jesus mirrored true leadership by becoming a servant of all (Luke 22:26,27).

d. John's Gospel is profoundly individualistic compared to the other Gospels. However, it is strikingly anti-institutional. While John's Gospel does not reflect anything like the charismatic interrelated communities of Paul, it does present discipleship as an egalitarian affair. There appears to be no thought of specialised ministries within the community. A believer is simply a disciple and is equal to all other disciples before God. Discipleship is characterised by involvement in mission and a life of love (14-16; 20:22).

e. In the Apocalypse too, images of hierarchy or centralised leadership are conspicuous by their absence. Though the Seer's Apocalyptic vision occurred toward the end of the first century when certain sections of Christianity were ossifying, there is no mention of bishops, teachers or deacons. The titles of priest and elders are used, but are radically redefined to refer to the whole Church. Saints is used in a similar way. All the righteous, according to Revelation, are kings, priests and servants (1:6; 5:10; 7:3; 20:6).

4. Jesus of Nazareth: the author of resistance.

Our brief excursus has clearly shown that the early churches were anything but uniform in terms of leadership and ministry. However, one recurring principle of the earliest Jesus movements was an apostolic approach of mutual ministry and accountability in regards to church governance. On all the critical issues and especially the appointment of leaders and the assessment of valid charismata, the whole congregation functioned as the final authority, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Leadership is to valued, honoured and followed so long as it remains accountable to the living body of Christ - the Church.

The New Testament shows that this situation was increasingly subverted by those intent on establishing an institutionalised Church. However, the spirit of resistance has persisted through the history of the Church to the present day. This resistance was the product of the early churches' struggle to keep alive the radical ministry of Jesus of Nazareth who defied, to the point of death, the alienating, demonic structures entrenched within the religion and society of the day. His lifestyle, ministry, death and Resurrection, challenged head on, the idolatrous edifices, the religious hierarchy and patriarchy that so oppressed the ones he loved so much. This Jesus of Nazareth, revealed the heart of God and the new value system of the Kingdom, where leadership and authority now meant strong, but humble, mutual ministry and service. No wonder he was such a threat to the religious oligarchies. No wonder they nailed him up. The body of Christ, the Church, continues to be nailed up.

Leaders who develop systems or groups that promote titles and attitudes of self-importance, oligarchies of power, rigid chains of command, or an official distinction between priest and laity; in short, any church practice that undermines mutual ministry or accountable leadership of the whole people of God, stand against the ethos of Jesus' ministry. The Gospel concerning Jesus Christ is in part a manifesto of resistance to the human tendency to centralise power and control. We are called to be a people of a new way. We are called not only to proclaim this new way, but we are called to live it out in our styles of leadership and organisation. Only then can we offer a broken world legitimate alternatives to the oppressive, authoritarian institutions that enslave the people God loves so dearly. We need a new language for leadership and ecclesial structures; a language that expresses the mind of Christ in the context of a post-Christian era.

KIM THODAY, HEWETT COMMUNITY CHURCH OF CHRIST,

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

http://www.hewett.org.au