In an anti-authority age, the exercise of authority - its cultural acceptance and the right way to negotiate the cultural minefield - is a difficult area for pastors wanting to avoid the Scylla of self-pleasing autocracy and the Charybdis of man- or, in the usual context of Anglican volunteerism, woman-pleasing appeasement. Principal Dr Mike Ovey's introduction to the Winter 2011/12 edition of Commentary deftly sets up the issue:
We become very used in our post-modern mood to being suspicious of leaders and their power, very understandably so. But I'm not sure if we have yet got to the point of being suspicious of the suspicions held by us who are led towards those who lead us. Perhaps it's as hard to be a humble led as it is to be a humble leader? And perhaps it's as necessary?
As a minister of Christ in an Anglican parish, Cranmer's Curate was particularly edified by the interview with the Revd Martin Woodroofe, whose book on church leadership Beyond Nice is due to be published this year. Mr Woodroofe observed:
One of the challenges for a pastor is the complexity of their relationships. So one moment you might be a buddy, and the next moment, in staff or volunteer terms, you might be a boss. If we compare it to secular work, I think that adds to an element of complexity, So how do you cope with that? I think you have to set boundaries and make clear what's happening in that space and at that time.
He continued with a specific practical example:
Say a pastor has a performance issue with a member of staff, or with a leading volunteer. If they go into the room and they're trying to play all the notes on the instrument - if they're trying to be their friend, their pastor, and their boss at the same time, then the messages will be all over the place. So they have to clear the space and say, this is what we're talking about and this is the context of what we're talking about.
It doesn't mean to say that I'm negating my other roles. I'm always your pastor. I'm always supportive. That's always the background narrative. But at this moment, we're talking about the fact that you don't turn up on time, or that you haven't fulfilled the tasks I've asked you to fulfil, or whatever the issues are.
It is hard to over-state how helpful that is for a parish plodder like cc.
Two observations arise from this interesting piece.
ReplyDeleteFirst, plainly Mr Woodroofe shares the mistaken assumption of the ever with us 'clergy/laity dichotomy. He assumes that "church" is somehow incomplete without a member of the 'clergy' presiding (whether "nice" or not). The first casualty of this false tradition is of course that it renders the gathered congregation in the church entirely passive and the true functioning of the priesthood of all believers, as opposed to one, is set aside.
Second, one wonders why the further assumption of the central role and place, commonly held, of an omnicompetent pastor?
Whilst apostles, teachers,evangelists and prophets are clearly identified in the NT, it is a fact that "pastor", as understood today as the professional clergyperson is not!
In fact, the noun "pastor" is used only once in the whole of the NT (Eph.4:11), and then it is used as a descriptive metaphor, not as an ecclesiastical 'office'.
The NT pattern was always, and without exception, a plurality of elders, co-equal, and co-responsible for oversight without any further distiction. Such an eldership was not a 'chain of command' or a hierarchical pyramid, so I wonder why the obsessional pre-occupation with the "pastor" which is entirely absent from the NT?
Whether you have a plurality of elders or a single overseer, the principle Mr Woodroofe identifies in terms of how to handle errant staff or volunteers is very helpful. If someone is behaving badly, someone has to deal with it.
ReplyDeleteJulian. I disagree with your comment and how to handle "errant staff", as being alien to a NT approach to relationships. If such a break occurs then surely the principle is to seek mutual reconciliation and forgiveness where required on a personal level - along the lines Jesus sets out in Matt. 18:15-19. That is, the two people concerned are in the first instance to "deal with it".
ReplyDeleteMr Woodroofe makes the mistaken assumption that the church and relationships within it can be equated with a commercial organisation. Fellow workers are not "staff", but surely brethren and sisters in Christ?
If the conflict is deeper, perhaps involving doctrinal matters that need to be resolved, then surely we have the further example of "take it to the church" found in Acts 15?
It is interesting too that in his dispute with the factious and personality driven Church in Corinth, Paul does not address any of the leaders in order to resolve these, but as in all his letters, to the whole church corporately to deal with. 1 Cor.1:1/2 and 2 Cor.1:1; and in addition his chapter on the exercise of mutual love in 13 must come into play.
Is that not the way forward?
Thank you Mr Wood for your comment. The Apostle Paul made provision for the appointment of elders for the post-apostolic era. Titus was commanded to remain on Crete and remedy what was defective, namely the fact that churches in towns on the island were without elders (Titus 1v5). Paul's epistle to Titus makes clear that these elders have the responsibility to uphold godly standards of belief and behaviour in God's church (see 1v5-16), standards that Titus himself is to model (see 2v1-10). Mr Woodroofe is running rightly with this NT understanding that pastoral leadership is a necessary reality in God's church.
ReplyDeleteThe Matthew 18v15-20 stipultation relates to the way to deal with personal wrongs amongst Christian brothers and sisters. But there are also wrongs against the church corporately and that's where teaching elders have a responsibility to uphold godly standards and should be supported by the church when they do that in the case of specific individuals.
Clearly, the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 has significant unique features attached to the apostolic era. But the principle of Peter's rebuking them on behalf of the church is present in the nature of eldership as it continues in the post-apostolic era.
Julian. I don't think there is any difference of opinion between us about the fact and need for pastoral oversight. But I don't think the cases of both Timothy & Titus can be correlated with the church of today. Of necessity they were Paul's Apostolic assistants and delegates and had a 'one off' ministry to found and consolidate the early church spiritually. Thus they were unique, but the principles of pastoral oversight in those epistles remain.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is about how to deal with what you call "wrongs against the church corporately"
Your reference to the corporate dimension is I'm sure right.
An assembly of believers (local) has authority to act on Christ's Word. If reconciliation does not take place at the lowest levels, then should not the provision of Matt. 18: 15-20 apply? If not, why not?
The leadership is certainly part of that process, but (they) are not the process itself. The idea that "take it to the church" means take it to the vicar, or other incumbent would not do justice to the clear teaching of the passage above. Surely ALL need to be involved in such circumstances?
In 1 Cor 5 Paul does not chide the leadership for not taking action in the Corinthian problem, but instead confronts the whole assembly. Likewise In 1 Cor 6:1-8 Paul assumes that the whole church, (including of course the leadership there) had the ability to work out their internal problems.
I suggest there is Divine wisdom in this pattern which is 'designed' to avoid the rise of authoritarianism in the church, and decision making being concentrated in the hands of one or two people.
Acts 15 illustrates this very point does it not? Especially Act 15:2, "the church" (v.3); and particularly v.22 where a corporate decision was taken, after all worked to, and found, consensus.
The take it to the whole church provision in Matthew 18 relates to a personal wrong. Certainly, serious cases of church discipline do need to be taken to the whole church by the leadership.
ReplyDeleteBut the question of a churchwarden being persistently late or leaving jobs undone doesn't need to go to the whole church. In that instance, the vicar needs to have a word with them. That's not authoritarianism - it's good practice.