You do realize that this is how cults, and cults of personality are formed, don't you?

It all begins with that simple little word...authority.

You, sure, I'm willing to grant that you have your moments of clarity and union with G-d's will, and I'm sure the pastor at my church has his moments as well; but the one, undergirding problem you both have in common, which oddly enough we all share on this lonely piece of rock is this...we're human, and thus, by definition, a failure looking for a place to happen.

Just because we all gave our hearts to G-d doesn't mean we surrendered our brains to one man claiming authority as well.

Harold Camping is a classic example of how people are led astray by...:::cough:::...authority.

I agree with what you've written, but it's not the whole story.

It doesn't seem that you've seriously wrestled with the clear moments in Scripture that clearly define there actually is a dimension of "control" and "ruling" to the role of elder.

It seems to me that your article would be the whole story if the word "pastor" is being very narrowly construed without the wider implications of elder rule.

I know words like "rule" don't sit well with autonomy driven evangelicals in North America, but it stands as a powerful corrective to what the actual problem is in our culture. Namely, we've elevated iniquity (i.e. Me doing MY will my own way) to a virtue.

This is the deep spiritual sickness of our culture. It requires resistance.

one more thing:

Paul actually DOES at certain moments and places assert his authority on the basis of his direct commission by and experience with the risen Christ.

It's not all one or the other.

On some level, a pastors authority IS like a mechanics.

I just don't get the persistent need by evangelicals to avoid this reality.

Again, it's not the whole story. This article explains well other dimensions of leadership in the Church, but we shouldn't be afraid of or deny the positional authority of elders that inheres in the position.

The role of the leader in the church is not "all responsibility" with "no real control" to enact those responsibilities.

Matt,

I love your heart here. I think your post comes from a very good desire.

But, I have to tell you, what you are proposing makes me very nervous.

Pators have power. They just do. Denying the power doesnt get rid of it...it just means the pastor is now leading with *unexamined* power.

I would be very very nervous to be under a pator who was not able to reflect on the power they bring to the relationship - regardless of if they are unable to reflect because they dont have enough self-awareness, or beause they deny its existence, even if they deny it by saying they simply submit to the community.

Wow – this blog post certainly gave me a lot to think about in terms of leadership and relationships. I've been leading my children's ministry program for about a year and a half now, and while I feel as though I'm a satisfactory leader, I don't believe that I'm as terrific as I know I could be. While you were speaking about pastors specifically, there was a lot that you mentioned that I feel can be applied to my personal situation and circumstance. Thank you for sharing!

This clearly reveals several different models of pastoral authority present among evangelicals. I'm definitely on board with pastoral authority as relational. For me, the conversation would have to go much deeper though when the issue of submission is held up as the highest standard of leadership.
The stories upon stories of women and men being abused in the name of submission and authority are legion in our present day. I know many have left evangelical communities where submission was some kind of litmus test and used as such to settle differences or even to create conflicts. Let's face it, "demands" can still thrive in communities that stress submission. Pastors who don't know their own power in submissive-oriented communities can still "demand" and be totally blind to it.

Couple of thoughts:

1) as others have noted, pastors do have a measure of authority. It should be handled with humility, and with acknowledgment of accompanying responsibility, but it's there. There is no room for running roughshod over those you lead... But lead, and lead well, you should. Servant leadership isn't about doing what others want but about seeing what they truly need and working with them, in humility, to help them get where they need to be.

2) I don't think it's a great idea to just do what mechanics say, either. Many are not as honest as your youth pastor; theyll use their authority to try to get you to pay for a lot more work than you really need.

So the key isn't just a person's position of authority, or knowledge, but trustworthiness. Whether pastor, mechanic, or doctor, look for integrity.

couple more thoughts:

1. I Peter 5 wouldn't admonish elders to not be domineering if there wasn't some kind of inherent power/control that resides in the role.

That being said, leadership is a function of relationship, and relationships take time.

2. the plurality of opinions/models on leadership in evangelicalism rises out of it's generally congregationalist/independent local church model. This lies at the heart of what is an inescapably deficient ecclesiology precisely because it misapplies "the priesthood of all believers" and worships the idol of the individual.

@Nathan: I think you need to consider the possibility that the way Scripture talks about authority deconstructs our notions of "inherently" powerful or controlling authority. Indeed, I think Matt is suggesting (directly or indirectly) that by drawing our attention to Christ and grounding authority in relationship, first with Christ then with one another, we begin to take apart our normal, fleshly notions of what it means to be "in authority" and find a different way of being together.

Christ and Paul persistently reverse expectations regarding the first and the last, masters and slaves, men and women, rich and poor, precisely when it comes to authority. Where do you see Christ, or Paul for that matter, exercising authority in the "usual way"?

Furthermore, none of this underwrites some persistently evangelical commitment to "autonomy." I assume you want to assert Roman Catholicism as the inherently controlling authority structure we should all submit to. But even Catholics have to match their exercise of authority with the teaching and life of Christ (or Paul for that matter). And they were, as I've noted, lives characterized by the persistent subversion of expectations regarding authority, purity, unity, etc. Every model of church governance has to come to terms with this. And find ways to live it out.

@Beau:

Why does it have to be the extreme of congregationalism that undermines the clearly mandated ability for elders to direct the life of a congregation OR the extreme of the RCC?

Scripture doesn't undermine or subvert the clear structure of elders who guide/direct the life of a church. It commissions it and then enjoins elders to conduct their "control" in ways that are not domineering or for selfish gain.

"Not being domineering" doesn't preclude being directive or having clear positional authority that exercises control within the parameters of elder responsibilities.

"Control" doesn't equal "domination".
That, my friend, is the nuance that we seek to live out. We don't have to run away from clear lines of invested positional authority as inherently bad or suspect.

Christ and Paul subverted very specific things for very specific reasons. This doesn't mean subversion is now a general principle to applied against the very positional structures the Scriptures endorse.

@Nathan: I don't see why congregationalism would be necessarily "extreme" but my larger point is simply that the question in any structure, when it comes to authority, is precisely the question Matt has asked here and any answer that ignores or minimizes the person of Christ, his example and mandates, in favor of the assertion of "position" and a general notion that "authority" is about control (albeit "nice" control) is a poor one.

You've simply assumed that there is a "control" that is commissioned. You'd need to prove that at the heart of eldership (or any position of "authority") is the mandate to control.

The assertion that control need not be domineering does not prove that authority is defined as control.

Christ and Paul did indeed subvert specific things for specific purposes but those reasons still persist today. Nowhere have I asserted we subvert willy-nilly just because. It's precisely the question of authority which is subverted (the washing of the feet, first to last, masters with a Master in heaven, rulers who are themselves under God). All of these things have analogs in our world today. And the act of subverting those things in our own lives and in our churches is still very relevant.

and yet the Master who washes feet is still Master.

@Nathan: And it's the assumption (seemingly unexamined by you) that "Master" means something other than "the one who washes feet" that needs to be questioned. Is Christ holding something in reserve in this act? Or is the whole point of his action and the action of the cross undermining what it means to simply say "master"? The whole point of this subversion is that you are no longer able to simply say the word and have its definition clearly at hand.

And is there something in "Master" that is absented simply because that Master washed feet?

I don't disagree that the God who serves is a powerful reality. It's just not the whole story.

In my experience I've seen more people use this rhetoric to validate what is really nothing more than the sinful impulse toward autonomy.

Pastors surely serve, but they aren't just servants here to do the bidding of the congregation. They also serve by guiding (scripture uses the word "rule" too many times in conjunction with enjoinders for non-elders to submit).

When low-church evangelicals write a plethora of robust articles about the nuanced, but hard, reality of submission to leaders then I'll maybe be able to understand why the persistent character of this perennial discussion seems to inordinately focus on pastors while we try to re-define "leadership" into oblivion.

Hear me, friend. I'm not trying to be contentious. It just seems to me that we carry deep within us the anxieties and rebellions that drive congregationalist ecclesiology even when we actually have a ton of options.

My concern is that, in my experience, the drive toward sinful autonomy and individualization baptized by the Church is far greater a cost to our souls.

@Nathan: I'm pretty sure we're the only two left here butI appreciate your thoughtful, civil, and continued engagement.

You of course can do what you want, but I am very much trying to be contentious.

People defending "inherent" or in this case "common-sense" notions of authority against the "idol" of "autonomy" sound a great deal like white people complaining about the "reverse racism" of black people. I'm sure there is such a thing and I'm sure it's bad. But it's hardly had the impact of the good old fashioned white on black racism. History is full of lives wrecked because some clown believed it was his "inherent" and "natural right" before God or under God or in the name of God to do whatever it is he wanted. It is historically a more significant problem, causing much more real damage than the bogeyman of autonomy-run-amok in evangelical Protestantism. Indeed I suspect such claims are themselves the autonomy you're so worried about wrapped up in the guise of inherent authority. I've very little notion of the "cost to our souls" your so concerned about it.

[Full disclosure: I myself am barely evangelical. My eyes often fly to Canterbury or Rome or even Constantinople. Though I'll probably end up with the Anabaptists . . . if they'll have me.]

Jesus's actions very much eliminate any claim to the inherent and natural right to authority--the "common sense" understanding of authority--exercised in the "usual" way and indeed ground it in the supernatural relationship with the risen Christ who is also the crucified Christ. This idea that there is of course an inherent authority and any questioning of that is proof positive you're a rebellious idol-worshiper is poppycock. Oh yeah. I said poppycock.

Furthermore, I don't think the kind of relational, foot washing, genuinely submitted-to-Christ leadership advocated for here would breed an idolatrous spirit of autonomy.

I'll keep this up as long as you'd like. But I'll understand if we've all had a enough and want to call it quits here . . .

@Beau.

Thanks for staying engaged. It seems that both of us have now "played our hand", as it were, and revealed what we're most concerned about. I wonder if our concerns are grounded in our own experiences/wounds more than anything else?

I would agree that the idea of "questioning authority = rebellion" is "poppycock". I think elder rule should be characterized by listening and seeking out input from the local assembly, but I don't think the "feet washing Master" means the local assembly has the right to reject directive input from elders.

input is a two way street. one is consultative, the other is directive.
I'll still believe that leadership is a function of relationship and relationships take time. So it's not like elders need to be running out willy-nilly barking orders or getting in people's back yards.

That being said, I don't buy your "history argument" when it comes to evangelicals.
Besides, if you have a controlling pastor, you can always leave and find another local assembly. The pastor will answer to God for the behavior, and I certainly wouldn't want to be in his/her shoes.

Thanks for engaging with me. It's actually rare on here other than people duke-ing it out with competing bible verses and loaded comments.

And I laughed out loud, in a good natured way, when you said you desired to be contentious and doubled-down on "Oh yeah. I said poppycock".

Funny thing too is that my own journey/inclinations cause me to cast my own gaze toward those same places you mentioned. It's a completely different discussion, but I would love to hear about your journey/process of searching.

Peace.

Fair enough.

Peace to you as well.