Over the last few decades the western world has experienced a cultural shift unseen in the history of man (well, since the Enlightenment). This post is concerned with how leadership within my church fellowship, though delayed, should now respond to these changes and how these changes in leadership style are more likely to build spirituality in those who follow. The history of western man is broken down into ancient history, the Middle Ages (Medieval times), Modern (Enlightenment, Industrial age, Reformation), and the Post-Modern age (postmodernism). The radical cultural shift being experienced by the present generation is a result of the seismic rejection of the modern age by the latest generation. The modern age has many characteristics, but the following are most relevant to leadership: Modernism holds that 1) the world can be transformed by the ingenuity and intervention of mankind; 2) the political institutions and corporate conglomerates have a patristic mandate to manage the goods, capital and people who live beyond their local area; and 3) that the increased complexity of the political and economic environments require increased specialization and division of labor. The overall perspective of leaders in this era can be summed up by Machiavelli's famous statement in The Prince that, for a sovereign, "... it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking" (The Prince, chapter 17). There are many other characteristics of modernity, but these are central to understanding the pressures and conflicts currently being experienced within my church and our broader fellowship.
Leaders of the modern age took on the role of a father – making decisions for and sometimes thinking for others. Society accepted these roles as natural. Fortunately for some groups (like mine) their leaders were benevolent and kept the best interests of the people in mind (though intent does not always meet target). The complexity of society grew and the modern leadership model was found insufficient to handle the diversity of questions and problems. Many church leaders were expected (remember culture demanded this of its leaders) to understand the Old and New Testaments, to have perfect understanding of all doctrines, to manage the financial aspects of a church, to provide marriage and family counseling, and such like. Most leaders across Christendom could not handle the pressure and either changed their model of leadership, failed to provide the best possible leadership, or undermined their leadership through a self-inflicted wound (usually by committing adultery) - read Overcoming the Dark Side of Leadership: The Paradox of Personal Dysfunction by Gary McIntosh and Samuel Rima for the statistics on the failures of leaders caused by unrealistic expectations.
A top-down hierarchy is not a sanctified leadership model – it has been, in reality, borrowed from the business, political and religious organizations of the modern age. In my opinion a hierarchical leadership model is not biblical – though, as stated above, it can have good results if the leader is benevolent. Any traction moderns feel between the biblical doctrine of leadership and what we've implemented is a result of anachronistic thinking. We've imposed leadership perspectives of the modern culture onto the words we read in scripture. Everyone does this to some degree in an attempt to communicate (whether written or personal). We employ a filter of presuppositions by which we interpret the words. I believe biblical leadership is servant leadership and it does not rule by compulsion or intimidation, but like God's example, it is a leadership that hopes for response. God does not come out of the clouds in full display of his glory and say, "believe in me I have phenomenal cosmic powers"; man would be disintegrated. Instead he influences us with the gentle leadings of his Spirit. The leaders of the restored church will be leaders who influence for results and never use the 'easy button' of control and domination.
Our churches are part of this world (not the worldliness of the world) and as such we are influenced by the culture (culture is not inherently bad). Whether we think so or not the culture works its way into our thinking. We are now being lead by men and women who were born and raised at the height of the modern age and they are leading men and women who were reared in postmodernism. Modern thinking is still, however, very much alive even in the latest generation depending on their exposure to outside influences. One aspect of postmodernism, in relation to leadership, is the collapse of centralized power structures and cultural hierarchies and the distribution of power and cultural formations across a plurality of leaders. As a thinker influenced by both perspectives I can see the advantages of both and I am particularly fond of the later. But, we are in danger of handing the exact same authority and power to a different group – maybe a less qualified group in the pursuit of change. Putting hipper, tech-savvy leaders in charge of the church is not any better than having the "un-hip, captains of industry in charge of the world". The postmodern leadership-by-committee leaders may be very nice people and they may even have the best of intentions, but they are just as dangerous as the preceding kingdom of CEOs.
What is the answer? I'm not sure. But, as long as leaders take either of the two extreme approaches our fellowship will not have the impact on the world it desires to have, because power (control) in the hands of many or few will be rejected by most. God does not control us, but uses divine influence. He has put into our hands, through his Spirit, the power to choose him by serving others. He has diffused his power by distributing it to all who call on his name. This distribution of power could be a hint to how we should work as leaders both in and among our various assemblies. When a person lives and behaves based on self-determination (free will) God is glorified. He created us to serve him from our heart and when leaders short-circuit that relationship by inserting themselves as a mediator then God is robbed of having his image-bearing creation serve him on their own. Leadership is dangerous and self-determination can be destructive, but both are necessary and should be held in tension (through prayer). Let's not seek the easiest solution. The reward is rich if we persist while seeking the road less travelled and God will be glorified if we seek his will in these matters – whatever the answer.
Next two blogs – 'How the devil made it through the flood' and 'Why spiritual men should wear green leprechaun hats'.
