Friends For The Journey

I have recently been going through a process of re-examination of the biblical teaching on spiritual authority. I think the motivating factor for me is my desire to effectively communicate good news to secular young people, although my reflection on the downside of my own personal pastoral and church planting ministry plays a part. Paul Petrie actually got me started down this track with his emphasis on the “Jesus and the Twelve” model.

I remember going through a similar process when I moved to Colombia and learned to view the word through Colombian eyes. I am revisiting the teaching of Jesus through secular eyes and ears.

Max Weber, the German sociologist who is famous for writing the The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, did a lot on the sociology of religion, the dynamics of social movements, modern institutions and the process of modernization. In his study of the development of religious movements, he distinguished between two kinds of authority: what he called ‘charismatic’ authority, and rational-bureaucratic authority. The main difference was that the founders of religions (such as Jesus and the apostles) had authority inherent in their persona: their humility, their servanthood, their passion and zeal, their confidence, boldness, and even their ability to move in the miraculous caused people to believe in them and follow them. Other ‘charismatic leaders in this mold would include Luther, Wesley, St. Francis, St. Ignatious and probably modern day leaders such as Bob or Charles could be included in this.

According to Weber, as a religious movement institutionalizes, it inevitably moves from charismatic authority to ‘rational-bureaucratic authority, where the distinguishing characteristic is that the authority is resident in the office, irregardless of the personal qualities of the individual possessing the office.

I think the distinction I am trying to make about authority is similar, although perhaps not exactly the same, as Weber’s distinction. I quoted John Maxwell at the beginning of the thread (or was it the last one?), saying “leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less.”

I have been reviewing Jesus’ teachings on authority and leadership. Interestingly, the word ‘authority’ appears 36 times in the gospels and only 20 times in the epistles. I began looking more closely at the teachings of Jesus (in an inductive fashion…thanks to my friend LeRoy) several years ago after hearing a comment on the importance of being disciples first to Jesus – before Paul.

I find nothing anywhere in the gospels that upholds the idea of any kind of authority inherent in an office apart from a relationship. It seems to me, that the tone and the overall intent of everything Jesus had to say about leadership, goes directly in opposition to the idea of ‘biblical patriarchy’ or ‘ordered leadership.’ You have to go to Paul to infer that.

In fact, Jesus was almost tediously repetitive on this subject. What was Jesus’ intent in Matt. 25:10? Jesus clearly tells us not to take the title “leader.” We need to grapple with that before we go to the Pauline epistles or Hebrews. Two times, Jesus specifically tells us not to place our selves in authority over others: Matthew 20:25, and Mark 10:42 (katexousiazo_ – to exercise authority over). Three times, he tells his disciples not to Lord it over others like the gentiles do (katakurieuo): the same two scriptures above and Luke 22:25. The only two times Jesus uses the word “leader” (NASV) is to tell us not use the title (MAT 23:10), and to tell us that the leader must be a servant (Luke 22:26).

No less than eight times, Jesus makes the point that in order to be a leader, one must become a servant and be the least of all. This brings to my mind the imagery of putting oneself “under’ others, regarding their best interests as more important than our own…along the lines of Phil 2:5. This seems highly repetitive to me, considering he never once said anything about women submitting to men, divine order or patriarchy. He was highly critical of the existing religious authority structures of the Jews.

Now, I am not saying that men should not lead, and women should not support, help and follow. What I AM saying, is that the authority is not inherent in the office… it is inherent in the virtue, humility and submission of the leader. Any husband who truly submitted to Christ and truly “loves” his wife as Christ has loved the church, will not have any difficulty winning her over to trust his influence.

An apostle who risks his life to bring good news to a new group of people will have great moral influence over his spiritual children, if they don’t kill him first. Any group of elders, who lay their lives down to shepherd the flock as overseers (episkopos), who release, nurture, equip, lift up and release their people into God’s destiny will have tremendous influence in their flock and will not have trouble exercising their servant-authority with those that God has truly given them (with the exception of church-hoppers). Like John Maxwell said: leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less.

What I resist is the idea that there is a divinely established patriarchal order that mandates obedience and submission to divine offices apart from the ‘charisma’ that I (with Jesus, Maxwell and Weber) have described above. There is no inherent authority in divinely established offices…only people called to responsibility and given the opportunity to serve and win the trust of people.

I seem to remember either Derek Prince or Ern Baxter talking about the fact that all spiritual authority depends on voluntary submission…there is no coercion in the kingdom of God, at least on this side of the judgment.

As soon as pastors feel they must say: “The bible says you must submit to me as your leader” they have lost their leadership. Ditto for husbands, apostles or any other conceivable office of “divine authority”. The idea that there is a divinely established order of authority seems to me to be institutional at the root. There was a time when the church taught the divine right of kings…but no more. I’m telling you men that the time that we can teach a divinely ordered structure of authority is past … to answer a question in a previous thread: yes, the battle for patriarchy is lost (unless we just talk among ourselves and stay isolated from the secular world). It is time to fall back and choose new ground to take our stand in the culture, or become irrelevant like the Catholic Church in the nineteenth century or the Fundamentalists in the 1920s.

I don’t want to fight over something Jesus never even talked about. I would rather give myself to sharing his teaching on the weightier matters of the law: Loving God, loving our neighbor, not judging. Loving one another; Loving our enemies; seeking first His kingdom and making disciples of the nations, just to mention a few.

Why do we focus on some of the more obscure parts of Paul’s letters and at least partially ignore the central commands of Christ? Do we feel a need to justify our existence as teachers, leaders and spiritual fathers? I love St. Paul, and I believe that his writings are inspired, and most of what he wrote is authoritive for those who follow Jesus (he himself distinguished between his personal opinions and divinely inspired teaching – 1CO 7:10 -12; 1Cor. 11:16). However, I invited Jesus into my heart and committed to follow him. If we interpret something out of Paul’s writings that Jesus never implied or mentioned…then I have to take a good long look at it before I am going to make it an issue of contention with the current secular culture.