|
Leadership and decision-making in the body of Christ
All Christians will agree that Christ Jesus is head of the church universal. But when it comes to making decisions on earth what form of government and decision-making process should we employ?
The church is not a democracy
Concerning the governing of a group of people, Winston Churchill remarked:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Although in the spectrum ranging between anarchy and totalitarianism, democracy seems a good ‘half-way house’, with all due respect to the great statesman, assuredly this is not the optimal form of government.
And, while Churchill probably did not include ‘theocracy’ in his assessment span, neither is this the situation into which God has called us.
Certainly the church is not a theocracy in the manner that Muslims view and practise their faith in Allah. Even in Old Testament times God was less than absolute in how he responded to the various situations of the day; otherwise Israel would never have had Saul and his successors as kings.
God does not dictate to us or enforce slavish obedience as puppets attached to celestial strings. He has given us free will, but also the injunction to exercise this freedom under the unction and guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf 1Cor. 2:13). So our ‘freedom’ is both a privilege and a serious responsibility.
Leadership and decision-making in the body of Christ
When it comes to ‘leadership’ in the body of Christ, the apostles were neither authoritarian nor democratic, but rather collegiate and consensual (with and under the Spirit of God) (cf Acts 15:22,25,28).
Whilst ‘delegation’ was sometimes the form that good leadership took, the consensual principle remained. (Acts 6:3b) Whichever way, after the Holy Spirit came, there was no such thing as ‘counting a vote’; and the last time that the followers of Christ ‘drew lots’ was prior to the Pentecost (Acts 1:26). The choosing of a replacement for Judas was the end of that practice.
Rather we find a prayerful consensus being reached when making decisions. Even at the Council in Jerusalem, whilst Paul and Barnabus had their say and James summed up, it is obvious that there was a shared agreement (Acts 15:22) regarding the conclusion and course of action.
However, whilst it is – practically speaking – easy for a small group in one place to arrive at a prayerful consensus, it is much less easy when the matter in question relates to and has import for a much larger and geographically-dispersed group of believers.
Denominations seek to get around this by centralised meetings for ‘leaders’, but this is surely a compromise. And indeed the best of systems have a ‘referral’ back process so that the wider body can participate before important decisions are finalised. (As an example the Church of Scotland has its ‘Barrier Act’ which prevents a General Assembly embarking on major revisions without consulting the membership at large. This act was most recently invoked in 2006 during the discussions surrounding clergy involvement in civil partnerships.)
Which way? Ahe consequences of making wrong choices.
For local churches......
At any one time there are very often a variety of options available in terms of projects, events and programmes. The question is:
“Are these merely ‘Good Ideas’ or are they ‘God ideas?’” The answer relating to any such proposal is vital.
We all know that the church can achieve a great deal in its own strength. And the remark (attributed to Billy Graham) suggested that if the Holy Spirit was removed from our churches, 90% of what we do would continue unabated.
If an individual or local congregation undertakes ‘uncommanded works’, whilst there are profound implications for time and resources, the wrong decision mainly impacts on those involved in making the decision.
....and in wide-area events
However, this situation changes more than somewhat if a proposal affects the Christian community across a wide geographic area. With God Ideas, we can look to Him to provide the resources and the means, but if an initiative is merely a ‘Good Idea’ the consequences are serious in terms of becoming both a major diversion from God’s best purposes and also the placing of a burden on believers and resources to execute a ‘man-made’ plan.
Traditionally small (core) gatherings – necessarily and because of the practical constraints of physically meeting together – have to come to take decisions affecting a (much) larger grouping. However, with the advent of modern communications this (geographically-constrained) scope of prayer and deliberation is no longer an unavoidable restriction.
Discussions and views can be shared at the speed of light across continents – and certainly within an area no bigger than (for instance) the Scottish Highlands it is no longer a problem. And a praying believer (or believers) in the smallest hamlet might have a clearer view on what the Spirit is saying to the churches than a centralised forum. Indeed in the Lewis revival it was two elderly sisters who had the mind of God, not the evangelist nor the churches.
A holy consensus - the Spirit and the body of Christ
In this context it is surely much safer, God-honouring and reassuring to allow views to be shared openly and widely in order that the view of the one Holy Spirit can, with a confidence, be established.
At the end of the day, this does not remove the need for leadership, rather it demonstrates a sound and sensitive form of leadership style and approach.
The days a few being loaded with the great responsibility to determine the perfect and pleasing will of God should be a thing of the past if we are to – with a greater confidence – discern the Master’s best purposes for us.
In the ways and perspectives of the world, this notion of collegiate consensus can be threatening to company chiefs, but within the church it allows us the freedom to search for the centre of Lord's will and then rest in the assurance that an achieved consensus in the Holy Spirit is pleasing to the God we all seek to serve (cf Ps 133:1).
And it is only at the centre of His will that we can expect to lay claim on an Amighty God with all the resources of heaven and earth at His disposal.
-----------
|
Christians Together, 05/10/2008 |
|
|
