|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A question for leaders
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
A wee question particularly directed towards our ordained/non ordained leaders, whether active ir retired.
As a newcomer at a fairly advanced age to the world of Churchianity, I am amazed at the amount of insubordination which Christian leaders have to tolerate from their flocks. There seem to be some people who would pick an argument in an empty room and love to pick on others' minor faults. In the workplace or at school/college/university, you would not lightly question the decisions of your boss/teachers/professors. Yet this seems to happen all the time in churches. How do you deal with this behaviour? Does it affect your ministry eg do you become over time more hardened and less tolerant towards your flock in general and towards individuals who may have a genuine reason to seek your spiritual guidance and are not simply using your accessibility to get at you? Why are churches such disfunctional places when they are supposed to be salt and light to the heathens? I know someone will come up with the trite answer that churches are full of sinners etc. Sorry, that's not good enough for this outsider. Surely if an individual member of a congregation cannot submit to the authority of his/her pastor, s/he should leave or keep quiet.
[ 21. August 2013, 10:44: Message edited by: would love to belong ]
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
I consider it a category error to assume that people in my churches should submit to me as the minister. Personally I would hate to think the responsibility was on me always to discern alone what is right for that church or community.
It is a partnership. I have been offered space set aside to learn more theology, I am paid so that I can focus fully on serving the church. I have had a calling to this role recognised and affirmed by the wider church. None of these make me any better or more right.
I would expect debate and dispute, and consider it a sign of a healthy church - but this doesn't need to be in the aggressive, personal attack way that some of my colleagues experience, or between groups within congregations.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Churches are dysfunctional because all institutions formed of humans are dysfunctional to some extent, sadly.
Regarding insubordination, could you clarify what you mean exactly? Maybe some examples? I think there's a difference between disagreeing with clergy on theological issues (for example) and some kind of disrespect (maybe preaching without permission)? Clergy are just people like anyone else though, and certainly need correcting sometimes - and in a congregational denomination, this comes from the laity. Churches aren't like schools or the military, nobody has to be there and I would be horrified if any church used disciplinary measures on their laity! That is not what clergy are for. Clergy are teachers, distributors of the sacraments and providers of pastoral care, they're not employers or superior to the congregation in any way.
Also, not all churches have clergy - Quakers don't, for example.
I am speaking as a layperson. Obviously, attacks on clergy are terrible and shouldn't be tolerated, but that's because attacks on anyone shouldn't be tolerated. Clergy have to do their job properly, and have the right to be able to do their job - just like anyone else.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I consider it a category error to assume that people in my churches should submit to me as the minister. Personally I would hate to think the responsibility was on me always to discern alone what is right for that church or community.
It is a partnership. I have been offered space set aside to learn more theology, I am paid so that I can focus fully on serving the church. I have had a calling to this role recognised and affirmed by the wider church. None of these make me any better or more right.
I would expect debate and dispute, and consider it a sign of a healthy church - but this doesn't need to be in the aggressive, personal attack way that some of my colleagues experience, or between groups within congregations.
Surely as leader, the laity (for want of a better word) need to submit to your leadership, which means accepting your decisions unless clearly wrong or unbiblical or whatever measure is used. Most people are looking for leadership from their leaders.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Jesus seemed to be rather into overturning the established "I'm the leader and you do as I say" paradigm. What people look for and what God wants to give them may not be the same thing.
Python were good on this as well:
quote:
BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I'm not.
ARTHUR: Shhhh.
FOLLOWERS: Shh. Shhhh. Shhh.
BRIAN: You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN: Exactly!
FOLLOWERS: Tell us more!
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
I consider it a category error to assume that people in my churches should submit to me as the minister. Personally I would hate to think the responsibility was on me always to discern alone what is right for that church or community.
It is a partnership. I have been offered space set aside to learn more theology, I am paid so that I can focus fully on serving the church. I have had a calling to this role recognised and affirmed by the wider church. None of these make me any better or more right.
I would expect debate and dispute, and consider it a sign of a healthy church - but this doesn't need to be in the aggressive, personal attack way that some of my colleagues experience, or between groups within congregations.
Surely as leader, the laity (for want of a better word) need to submit to your leadership, which means accepting your decisions unless clearly wrong or unbiblical or whatever measure is used. Most people are looking for leadership from their leaders.
Leadership models vary between denominations, surely? I can see how some evangelicals would want more defined leadership roles, but in sacramental traditions that's not what the clergy are for. My priest isn't my boss.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
As a Methodist the decision making body of the local church is the church council. I can offer guidance but their vote is the decision.
I can lead, but only by consenus - although I may need to keep them to the rulebook from time to time. And I can communicate in various ways to persuade them of matters of theology, mission, behaviour (being welcoming and hospitable etc).
I try to avoid the view that if the minister/preacher says it it must be right in favour of giving people confidence and tools to explore and test things themselves, disciples wrestling with issues of faith not mere pew yes folk.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
IMO congregations and clergy often have conflicting ideas of what leadership is. Perhaps if the subject were discussed openly they could come to a mutual understanding.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
If it's just each individual following his/her conscience, how is that different from the world in general? I am sure Hitler thought he was following his conscience with the Final Solution.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
If it's just each individual following his/her conscience, how is that different from the world in general? I am sure Hitler thought he was following his conscience with the Final Solution.
I think those situations are quite different from each other ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Clergy are certainly there to guide laity, and of course we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But guiding doesn't mean domineering or even supervising. A leader guiding his or her congregation doesn't mean the congregation can't ever criticise that leader. Constructive criticism is a good thing!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Surely the role of the priest/minister/leader is to help the laity in moving towards God, or at least some understanding of God?
But, at the same time, that P/M/L is human and has no more than a partial understanding of God, just like the rest of us. For him/(her) to demand subjugation to his/her idea of God would be a) to demand that the free will given by God should be denied, and b) to replace any understanding of God with a flawed set of rules.
As pointed out upthread, the Leader is the chairman of the meeting, not the Infallible Fount of Wisdom Who Holds the Key to All Understanding. Someone who understands the rules of the meeting is necessary, although the Quakers have this in the form of the Meeting as a whole rather than in one person.
We all know horror stories of those led astray by excessive demands for conformity, whether it is in the Inquisition, the Kool-Aid drinkers or the local witch-hunt, a.k.a. congregational meeting.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
On a different tack but alluded to in the opening post, leaders (being human) must surely be affected (over the long term) by everyday(unconstructive) criticism and back-biting from the congregation. How do leaders deal with that?
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
On a different tack but alluded to in the opening post, leaders (being human) must surely be affected (over the long term) by everyday(unconstructive) criticism and back-biting from the congregation. How do leaders deal with that?
On one level, you simply have to accept that this comes with the job. If you can't handle the idea of being the target for constant criticism, then being a church leader is not for you.
Over time, of course it wears you down. But that's where it becomes important to have strategies to cope with it. You need to have family and friends onto whom you can off-load in safety. You need to have people you can trust who will help you differentiate between valid and invalid criticism. You need to have other people in the leadership of the church who can share the burden and pain and help you maintain a sense of proportion. And most of all, you need to be able to laugh and then go off and do something you enjoy doing - an escape route.
But there can also develop a culture of criticism and backbiting which is intolerable - what is sometimes called a toxic congregation. Such congregations seem to go out of their way to destroy clergy or browbeat them into abject submission. And these congregations need to be confronted and challenged - not just by the church leader but by the denominational/organisational hierarchy. Sadly, this rarely happens. Usually, if church leaders finds themselves with toxic congregations, the hierarchy find all sorts of reasons not to get involved. The church leader is left to fight alone and ends up battered, disillusioned and demoralised. It's sad but unfortunately it happens too often.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
Count me as another one who finds the idea of 'insubordination' very odd in a church context. I might talk of disobedience, but only for those under a vow of obedience (monastics to their superior and secular priests to their bishop, but most Christians not to anybody!).
However, this hits more to home:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
On a different tack but alluded to in the opening post, leaders (being human) must surely be affected (over the long term) by everyday(unconstructive) criticism and back-biting from the congregation. How do leaders deal with that?
I'm not an ordained person (deo gratias!), but in my experience, methods of coping deal from the saintly (offering it up) to the pathological (substance abuse). Some degree of bitching about their congregations to friends who are also in parochial ministry tends to be pretty universal as well.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
My former Methodist minister often grumbled about the congregation. He didn't accuse them of 'insubordination', but I've heard more than preacher say that congregations tend not to listen to what they've been told, that they don't put advice from the pulpit into effect.
I'm not keen on this sort of talk. As a trainee teacher I was told that if the children misbehave it's the teacher's fault. Ministers don't consider that complaining about their congregations might reflect badly on themselves as leaders.
There must be a communication failure at the heart of the system if congregations and clergy are frequently in a cycle of not listening to each other and not respecting each other. Again, I think the clergy/laity divide makes this kind of problem inevitable.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I think talk of "insubordination" is confusing for many of us, me at least. However, there are times when members of a congregation, or a congregation as a whole, actively seek to undermine their leader/priest/minister. From personal experience (not an ordained leader but have served on lay leadership) this is extraordinarily destructive, and once it starts it is very difficult to prevent getting out of control and tearing a fellowship to bits.
My suspicion is that more leaders, priests and ministers experience this sort of behaviour from congregations than us laity imagine. Two recent incidents come to my mind.
First was recently at our church where I got into conversation with a retired Vicar (in his 70s) who was visiting for a concert. Knowing that our Priest in Charge had newly been licensed at the parish he asked me in a rather wavering tone of voice "I do hope people are being supportive of the new Vicar?". My response was "Yes, of course" but secretly I wondered what had happened to him in his own ministry to prompt this.
Secondly was at my parents church in a provincial county town. The new(ish) Vicar there is sadly not very popular: his churchmanship is quite different from the parish tradition (which he does respect), it's an extremely poor parish in a relatively wealthy town with a very expensive church building to maintain, and there are very different interests at play amongst the congregation. I also know that there are those amongst the congregation who will do whatever they can to undermine and embarrass the Vicar. I find the Vicar a little strange personally (but which one of us isn't), but he's a decent bloke and clearly loves the Lord.
Having gone up to the communion rail to receive with our four month old baby, the Vicar knelt down to bless our little one prompting him to start screaming his head off - a not unusual occurrence for any time of the day. The chalice assistant as he served me - as he gave me God's own bloody blood - muttered to me "I don't like the Vicar either". As we sat down an old lady sat near to us said "That's enough to put him off Vicars for life". It left me feeling hugely sad for this man, and for this congregation.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for all serving in church leadership, lay and ordained, and particularly for those who are wondering what on earth they did to deserve the treatment they're receiving.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Surely if an individual member of a congregation cannot submit to the authority of his/her pastor, s/he should leave or keep quiet.
Why would you think that if you are an outsider to Christianity? Is there a theological reason why you think all Christians should submit to the authority of a Church leader?
Where you see insubordination, perhaps others see healthy discussion and debate. Where you see questioning the authority of the leader, others see the exercise of the authority of the people.
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
If it's just each individual following his/her conscience, how is that different from the world in general? I am sure Hitler thought he was following his conscience with the Final Solution.
If everyone should obey the authority of the leader then how is that different from what the Germans were doing with Hitler?
Its a question of whose conscience you follow. Do you pick one man and follow his conscience. Or do you all get together and try and work it out in collaborative discussion, with submission not to one man, but to one God, as revealed in scripture.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
As one who ministers within the catholic tradition of Anglicanism, I might be expected to set great store on 'leadership' and 'authority'.
In fact, i think it is a temptation to be resisted.
Any 'authority' is that 'committed to/vested in me'.
'Leader' is not a biblical word. If someone comments on any expertise i might have after a sermon I've preached, I point to them being experts in whatever field they are in - as parents, doctors, whatever.
[ 21. August 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I don't like the language and context of the OP, but the thread does raise some interesting and important issues. I've witnessed friends 'go under' in spectacular fashion from what might be called a 'toxic' congregation, and there was total (scarily almost unanimous) denial on the part of the congregation and an all too quick willingness by church hierarchy to brush it all under the carpet and pretend there wasn't a problem. It is an issue that needs to be tackled in the open. I know things have been written on this in the past, and sometimes in a most unsatisfactory, almost salacious way; but it would be useful if the church could sit down and be honest about it. Of course it would help if the term 'toxic parish' were better defined so as not to allow it to be a term bandied about unfairly about a parish that clergy and laity with a vendetta. But I do think it would be worthwhile for parishes to look at the issue, know its causes and understand just how easily it can happen.
The other issue, probably more related to the OP is the issue of bullying. Clergy can be magnets for bullying,and some end up transferring that stress onto others and bullying entirely innocent souls. Again, it's helpful if there is a defined understanding of what bullying is (ie, it's not someone who disagrees with you). Bullying of the clergy in my experience is the least talked of issue in ministry today. There is a cloak of shame around it and a veil of secrecy that means many suffer in complete silence and isolation, and the bullying can be extreme in many cases. When spoken about sometimes it is dismissed as minor, but what is often not recognised is that the behaviour can be sustained and over many, many years. In many ways the church seems incapable of dealing with it effectively and I've witnessed clerical colleagues label bullied clergy as 'weak' or 'shouldn't be in the job because they can't handle it'. It's a very difficult situation and I have seen it take place in a parish where I attempted to help tackle it, but the result was that it became more targeted and focused and more secretive.
Both of these things are issues the church does need to look at seriously. I've done our child protection training, which also covers issues of bullying among adults in a congregation, but I was shocked to discover that there is a full and supported process for adults in the laity, but no such process or support existed for the clergy.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
The OP is a foreign language to me. Insubordination? Clergy as the boss? Except for a few discredited brief movements like "shepherding," - well, OK, individual clergy have tried to set themselves up as boss, you will do what I tell you to do and you will believe what I tell you to believe. Most people ignore those claims.
Clergy aren't the boss/teacher/discipliner, at most they are a coach or adviser, signpost might be better wording, pointing the way (or what they think is the way, no one is perfect just because they hold a church position) but it's each person's own decision whether to follow the way pointed to.
Having never been clergy I can't know much about what they have to deal with in us the congregation. I hear mutterings about lack of support or complaints, I have no idea if this is like or unlike the experiences in many secular jobs.
I've worked in non-profits, and government, and secular jobs. My experience is - no one says thank you. You get told, regularly, to work harder, work more, work faster, get stuff done that they haven't given you the tools or time to do, and you get criticized for any mistake, and get criticized even if you didn't make a mistake. Charities can be the worst to work for (in offering thanks for good work) because the need is greater than the staff, so anything you do is not enough.
The paycheck is the only thing that says "we value your work (somewhat)." I stick my card key into the slot, it still opens the door, I smile because it means they haven't fired me yet.
Is that the way the work world should be? No. But it is reality for many of us. You work because you believe in the contribution you are making, you work for the money, you do not work to be thanked.
That said, there are toxic bosses (and websites collecting stories about them) and toxic work environments. It's important to know when you are being abused and find a way to change what's happening or get out of there.
Are there web sites or other materials to help clergy identify the difference between normal lack of expressed appreciation and normal demands for more/better work, vs an abusive environment?
[ 21. August 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
Surely if an individual member of a congregation cannot submit to the authority of his/her pastor, s/he should leave or keep quiet.
Why would you think that if you are an outsider to Christianity? Is there a theological reason why you think all Christians should submit to the authority of a Church leader?
Where you see insubordination, perhaps others see healthy discussion and debate. Where you see questioning the authority of the leader, others see the exercise of the authority of the people.
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
If it's just each individual following his/her conscience, how is that different from the world in general? I am sure Hitler thought he was following his conscience with the Final Solution.
If everyone should obey the authority of the leader then how is that different from what the Germans were doing with Hitler?
Its a question of whose conscience you follow. Do you pick one man and follow his conscience. Or do you all get together and try and work it out in collaborative discussion, with submission not to one man, but to one God, as revealed in scripture.
Re Hitler, the majority (not all) did obey his authority, probably through fear or a belief that he was right or maybe both. I don't think I ever said that they were right to submit to him (if indeed it was purely voluntary submission and not coerced) as he was clearly not a godly leader following biblical principles.
I am assuming (for the purpose of the argument) that a church leader is exercising godly authority and leading his flock in accordance with biblical principles. Surely these are not open for individual interpretation?
On the question of church authority more generally, are priests/ministers not expected to submit to the authority (assumption as above) of their bishop in episcopalian systems? In the RCC, does the Pope not exercise authority? In a presbyterian system, do not individual clergy (and their congregations) submit to the authority of their presbyteries?
I am not suggesting that authority should not be challenged where it is exercised oppressively or wrongly.
What I have seen (which surprises me as an outsider) is professing Christians seeking to undermine their spiritual leader(s) constantly, over issues large and small. And I don't mean asking good questions, I mean undermining by constantly and inappropriately questioning. A leader needs the space to lead, and to expect others to follow where it is appropriate to do so, otherwise there is no leadership worthy of the name.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I didn't know Hitler was a pastor.
(please let's not go here!)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm not sure blind obedience is a great idea in any situation except where there is an imminent threat to life and limb and you have a known expert on hand.
I can't speak for all workplaces but teachers habitually question and disagree with the instruction of the head. A good head will explain their reasoning and having proven themselves with a succession of rational and sensible decisions will get the benefit of the doubt for more adventurous and untested propositions.
That said I do try, as a layperson, to support the decisions made by my priest or minister unless I have good reason to dissent from them. I've certainly never (and I hope I would never) seek to deliberately undermine a minister in their work or try to force them from office. My presumption is always in support of the minister and the church in general.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
I am assuming (for the purpose of the argument) that a church leader is exercising godly authority and leading his flock in accordance with biblical principles. Surely these are not open for individual interpretation?
On the question of church authority more generally, are priests/ministers not expected to submit to the authority (assumption as above) of their bishop in episcopalian systems? In the RCC, does the Pope not exercise authority? In a presbyterian system, do not individual clergy (and their congregations) submit to the authority of their presbyteries?
I am not suggesting that authority should not be challenged where it is exercised oppressively or wrongly.
What I have seen (which surprises me as an outsider) is professing Christians seeking to undermine their spiritual leader(s) constantly, over issues large and small. And I don't mean asking good questions, I mean undermining by constantly and inappropriately questioning. A leader needs the space to lead, and to expect others to follow where it is appropriate to do so, otherwise there is no leadership worthy of the name.
I think the RCC has a different understanding of priestly leadership. I read somewhere that each Catholic priest is meant to be interchangeable, i.e. there's no requirement for a particular parish priest to be a 'good' leader, or to be popular with his congregation, because his authority is invested in his office, not in his skills, nor even in the saintly qualities that he may well possess.
But IMO this isn't how it works for many Protestants, especially in denominations that have travelled a long away from their RC heritage. In Protestantism, there's a greater sense of the requirement for the minister to be 'worthy', to earn respect as a person, not simply by reference to a clerical title. ISTM that the theoretical emphasis on the priesthood of all believers makes it harder for Protestant clergy to justify their special status, and this makes them more susceptible to criticism and unreasonable expectations from the laity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
I am assuming (for the purpose of the argument) that a church leader is exercising godly authority and leading his flock in accordance with biblical principles. Surely these are not open for individual interpretation?
I suspect many here might disagree with you about what is and isn't open to individual interpretation! "godly authority" and "biblical principles" according to whom? The conservative viewpoint? The liberal viewpoint? The catholic viewpoint? The evangelical viewpoint? The pentecostal viewpoint? According to a particular minister? According to his/her congregation? According to his/her bishop/archbishop/patriarch/pope?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Some of the high profile cases of a church going seriously astray were because the members didn't question the leaders. I guess what matters isn't that the leaders are questioned but how they are questioned. Most churches have checks in place - committees, oversight by experienced senior clergy, etc. so that if people have a concern they can find out who to go to and express that concern via the correct channels. Surely that is the healthy way to go about the process, rather than undermining behind someone's back.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
gog
Shipmate
# 15615
|
Posted
I have to echo many of the comments here about the nature of leadership. I see my role as a guide, not a commander. I my invite people to join on a journey, but if they ain't going to come, they ain't going to come.
The term I'll put alongside "priesthood of all believers" is "representative ministry". To me this is a case of being the representative of the wider church to the local, the local to the wider, the church to the world and the world to the church (though not all at the same time, or to the same degree). And before I forget there is also the need to represent God to the people and the world. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
However in all of this, the leadership role is one done alongside others, with me providing the "specialist" theological reflection and so forth, but not being the person in charge.
I'd say I have authority - which is granted by the role I'm given by the church. And as to:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In Protestantism, there's a greater sense of the requirement for the minister to be 'worthy', to earn respect as a person, not simply by reference to a clerical title.
at least for Methodist the current call of worthiness has been lifted from the Orthodox liturgy. It is a case of being worthy to be admitted into a role within the church.
Then as to this one:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
What I have seen (which surprises me as an outsider) is professing Christians seeking to undermine their spiritual leader(s) constantly, over issues large and small. And I don't mean asking good questions, I mean undermining by constantly and inappropriately questioning. A leader needs the space to lead, and to expect others to follow where it is appropriate to do so, otherwise there is no leadership worthy of the name.
This can often be due to a lack of understanding and a culture clash. Also that many churches, are not run by the ordained but by the congregation, or a joint lay and ordained team. And as with any human system there is problems. Also there is personality clashes as well.
However in all of this, the priest/minister/lay leader in my opinion is not a line manager, or a teacher. They are a person called to a role in the church that is formed around the gifts they have, and yes it is difficult at times. But I can think of other times and places where it has been as difficult.
Posts: 103 | From: somewhere over the border | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
The priest/pastor/minister is not the boss of a congregation. The congregation attends worship out of their own free will. In the tradition I am from, Presbyterian, the minister is considered to be the teaching elder, but is, in structural terms, a member of the parish session (or board of management, depending on your particular flavour). The session is made up of worthies from the congregation and they all have a say on how things happen in the parish.
The bishop/archdeacon/presbytery IS in a position of authority over the priest/pastor/minister, because the priest/pastor/minister is employed to do a job (I know the church has fancy words for it, but that's essentially what it is).
Every church does it differently, but it is rare that the person up the front is entirely in charge.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Having just returned from "worship leading" aka music rehearsal, occurs to me this is somewhat parallel. The group has a leader. He announced rehearsals time and place, hoping some people would show up, and personally recruited a few. He is selecting the music to be done this year, but also asking for ideas from the rest of us.
If you want to be in the group, come! We will meet when and where he says to meet - but he will choose a time a place that seems to work well for each of us. We will sing the songs he says to sing - but he is asking us which ones we like.
Is he the boss? In a sense yes, but not in the dictator model because if he tries to order us around in ways we dislike we'll stop showing up. He is the leader, we follow, but it's much more interactive than that. It's more of a mutual need. Without a leader shaping the group we wouldn't be singing together. Without us being comfortable with the rehearsal times and the music selections, he wouldn't have a group to lead. It really is not a one way hierarchy!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not keen on this sort of talk. As a trainee teacher I was told that if the children misbehave it's the teacher's fault. Ministers don't consider that complaining about their congregations might reflect badly on themselves as leaders.
Teaching and ministry are very different IME. In teaching you are expected to exert authority and have a range of sanctions. Teachers aren't used to being questioned (ever tried employing even positive feedback as a parent?) and can easily become defensive. In Ministry none of this applies (you are often open season especially in those churches which have a reputation for doing it, which is why some teachers who become ministers find the change too much to cope with.
There are arguably only 2 or 3 references to leadership in the NT but many about servanthood. Leo is right - a minister does what he or she does by virtue of the latitude and permission granted to them by the congregation. One person can do loads, another will be restricted - there must be a point of reference but day to day flexibility works on trust. Trust is only partly governed by position but mostly by character. In other words a miserable so and so who can't relate to real life but who is a brilliant bible scholar will struggle more than an average bible teacher but who's great with people.
Different churches are looking for different things too depending on their emphasis of ministry. Churches where the minister or whatever has different understandings or perceptions of where God is taking things will find it hard to get by.
There is no other form of employment that attracts the same possibilities of face to face confrontation, as Ministry. In the church behaviour that is illegal as well as immoral in the work place, hardly rates a second mention. Bullying is a classic example: the denominations and "line managers" usually run a mile when it comes to light. I speak as someone who has counselled people who have been bullied in ministry - and it's happened to me.
It's not all bad but it can be. Focus on the ways God is at work and you'll be best off.
.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
... In the workplace or at school/college/university, you would not lightly question the decisions of your boss/teachers/professors. Yet this seems to happen all the time in churches. ...
That isn't because nobody is questioning them. It's because your teacher used to be able to thrash you, now superseded by detention, and your boss can sack you.
As used to be said in East Germany, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".
In the medieval church, your priest could deny you salvation. Now all you need to do is to change denomination.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
As long as the churches put themselves outside normal law governing employment and rely on the specialness of "call," there will be problems such as you describe. I left the church after being bullied by a minister for several years, so it goes both ways.
As a health professional I am subject to registration and recertification every four years and I am answerable to a professional body for any misconduct. Ministers aren't accountable in the same way, and many of them receive little or no regular supervision. It worried me when I was a church member, as I had seen a number of ministers who were so burnt out that they were treating themselves and their congregations with little respect or warmth.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by would love to belong:
... In the workplace or at school/college/university, you would not lightly question the decisions of your boss/teachers/professors. Yet this seems to happen all the time in churches. ...
That isn't because nobody is questioning them. It's because your teacher used to be able to thrash you, now superseded by detention, and your boss can sack you.
As used to be said in East Germany, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".
In the medieval church, your priest could deny you salvation. Now all you need to do is to change denomination.
Speaking as a wayward Anglican I would say that you don't even have to change denominations ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
There are various styles of leadership, though. And to work best, there needs to be a good fit between the leader's personality and the style he or she adopts.
For some people, the most effective style might be a co-operative one, where the leader keeps people on board by listening to their opinions, discussing options with them and coming to a group decision.
For others, the role of 'benevolent autocrat' works best - what he says goes, but it is administered with a light and kindly touch.
I have seen both in action - in churches, on the ship, and in secular organisations. And both can work, given the right match of people to style.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Subordination in a hierarchy - a sect
Servant leadership in a community – a church, even the pope is servus servorum Dei
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
, even the pope is servus servorum Dei
Well, that's the idea I suppose but reality and idealism are not necessarily bedfellows.
To the outside world the Pope's position in the RCC comes across as autocracy - if it wasn't intended that way then why did the RCC ever consider infallibility? Rather conflicts with servanthood.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Leader' is not a biblical word.
Yes it is.
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Romans 12:6-8
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17
Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Hebrews 13:24
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Leader' is not a biblical word.
Yes it is.
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Romans 12:6-8
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17
Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Hebrews 13:24
I wouldn't dispute any of that Daron.
I do think that some people protest too much about leaders, pretending to be servants and failing to see (or choosing not to see) that they are acting as leaders (in a non scriptural sense), that doesn't build the body as Romans 12 suggests that spiritual leadership must do.
The context of "leadership" is vital: it is not leadership as is often assumed in the secular world. This leadership is not assumed (taken on) but which is entrusted as a gift, with love and after prayer and reflection. It is not to be elevated as a gift above others but as a grace to be expressed in community, for the community.
just the same thing themselves
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
Interesting debate, despite OP being in gyprygelise.
I still think as a matter of simple courtesy that a leader's decisions should not be questioned except where it matters.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Leader' is not a biblical word.
Yes it is.
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Romans 12:6-8
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17
Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Hebrews 13:24
Wonder what version those are from and what the Greek for 'leader' is. Will get back to this when i have done some homework to confirm my hunches.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It looks to be something close to NRSV - that was what I had to hand and the text is mostly identical, though the Romans passage is slightly different.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) (And in maybe 7 years aboard Ship, I've never used that emoticon)
Blind and unquestioning submission to leaders has lead to so many catastrophes in Christendom. Google "priest" and "scandal" if you so desire a quick example.
If you're worshipping at a place where you even feel motivated to ask the OP's question, then you are fortunate. Not all Christians can say the same.
[ 24. August 2013, 19:50: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
In my view righteous authority is the antidote to authoritarianism. The true leader is one who protects the flock from petty tyrants - those wannabe leaders forever rising up to create their own cults and cliques within the larger body. True leadership is there to command and protect freedom. And I have no problem submitting to that kind of leadership.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Leader' is not a biblical word.
Yes it is.
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. Romans 12:6-8
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17
Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Hebrews 13:24
Romans 12:6-8 …….if it is to lead, do it diligently…..
- This is in the context of within a total communal relationship of the gifts where each person exerts the authority of his/her gift in submission to the others.
προίστημι (proistēmi) – probably means ‘preside’ = Eucharistic celebrant? Certainly not ‘leader’ in the sense business uses the term.
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7
ἡγέομαι (hēgeomai) – someone who led the way – presumably a missionary/preacher – again, not the way business uses ‘leader’ The writer goes on to urge his readers to ‘imitate’ them – not to obey them. These ‘leaders’ are responsible for and accountable to God for them.
(‘leader’ suggests ‘followers’ yet the Greek words often translated ‘follow’: mimêtês, summimêtês and mimeomai. refer to “imitating”)
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17
ἡγέομαι (hēgeomai) – again, as above
Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Hebrews 13:24
ἡγέομαι (hēgeomai) – again, as above
The New Testament writers generally avoid using secular or Old Testament (Septuagint) titles for authoritative office.
Hans Kung reckoned that they saw that any words which suggest a relationship of rulers and the ruled were unusable in the new community context (The Church pp. 498-502).
Jesus seems to have subverted ‘leadership’: “If any one wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:35). “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. Because the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27).
He forbade titles of the secular authorities including religious (Rabbi) and family (father).
Paul suggested that leaders act out of the authority of their gifts as received from Christ: But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people. (Eph 4:7)
And remember the admonition: To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. I Pet. 5:3
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
That's a lot of exegesis for an "unbiblical" word, leo.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's a lot of exegesis for an "unbiblical" word, leo.
So what do you make of it?
I thinks it shows that leader is a biblical word which requires suitable exegesis.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. Hebrews 13:17
ἡγέομαι (hēgeomai) – again, as above
What is the original of "submit" in that passage? Only it does seem to imply obedience being demanded.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
But we also have Ephesians 5:21, which says 'submit to one another out of reverence for Christ'. Assuming it's the same Greek word, whatever is implied in the Hebrews verse is supposed to be a two-way thing, not something just supposed to be given to those in leadership roles. Or so ISTM.
Then there are also the passages leo mentioned upthread about Jesus subverting secular concepts of leadership. I'd say the kind of leadership that's to be exercised among the people of God is meant to look very different than that we might see in government, business and so on.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
