Here then are the words: leadership, accountability, submission, discipleship… and I am sure a host of other words that I don’t know or don’t know how to spell!
Words to have meaning but their effective meaning is more tied to how they are understood rather than ‘this word means…’
I remember talking to someone who was strongly in relationship with people he had been journeying with for decades but was not attending a regular gathering (to which had been ascribed the word ‘church’). He met one who was to be found ‘in the right place on a Sunday’ who was somewhat put out by his lack of attendance is such a setting. The conversation went,
Where do you worship?
With the response ‘Normally when I get out bed I turn my heart to the Lord, when I wash my face in the morning I am always thankful and praising God, then I take time to worship the Lord as I thank God for family, friends and the food on the table.Ilike to start the day in worship.’
Out of interest where do you worship?
That question was conveniently not responded to as the hard hitting, deeply penetrating question was next:
Who are you accountable to?
Such a penetrating question and the answer went as follows:
A great question, I guess I could answer that a number of ways, but as you are asking it, let me suggest I also become accountable to you, and maybe we could do something that is mutual. Here is the phone number of my wife why to give her a call and ask her to be honest about her observations and experience of me; I can easily give you access to my bank account and I would love to hear what you think about how I am stewarding what we have. How would that sound to you?
Surprise, surprise… that conversation ended there.
The questions were not the questions. The two questions were to find out if this person ticked the two boxes with the right answers. But the answers would not have answered the questions. I often think about Paul (did he write those ‘pastoral’ letters) and his check list for leadership. They essentially came down to two categories: go check out their home and find out from neighbours what they think. (Oh and something on having some ability to teach and not being a novice in the faith.) Wow… practical.
A few comments on those words above. If we think institutionally we might answer them one way but if we think relationally we will go down a different route.
Leadership is not title-oriented (Paul is not ‘Apostle Paul’) nor is it hierarchical. Tom Marshall said that when truth flows one way and honour and respect we have a problem. Jesus pointed out the leadership among the ‘gentiles’ with the statement that was not to be that way ‘among you’. And I think we have to extend this to affect our understanding of God. How does God ‘rule’? Top down? I understand what people mean by ‘God is in control’ but it often means that God is not taking any nonsense and controls, then we have a little internal conflict (did I write ‘little’?) because too much seems out of control! The mess is not down to God… and here comes another word (extra bonus I did not put it in the initial list) – delegate!
The way God works is to distribute not simply delegate. Leadership often delegates and at times there is the need to delegate, but God loves to divest. On the day of Pentecost there is not a delegated outpouring. First on Peter (that would help if we wanted to really think he was personally the ‘rock’) then Peter could bestow the Spirit to James and John… then we draw in the 12 and so on to the 120. God comes equally to all at the same time.
The work of God is hindered as ‘there is no king in the land and everyone does what is right in their own eyes’ and it is hindered as ‘there is a king in the land and no one can do what is right in their own eyes’ (second quote is not in the Bible!). The book of Judges has a ‘king is right’ lens and is very critical of the situation, and maybe a ‘king’ would have temporarily helped but it eventually led to Egypt coming back into Israel. We need an eye-test as not everything goes and we need corrective lenses (a Jesus-lens for life, Scripture, and particularly so as we no longer see people according to conventional categorisation). But with those lenses on – and getting them checked out regularly – we discover that there is to be no ‘king’ in the land and that we are to do what is right in our own eyes. Not stubbornly, nor independently but inter-relationally. So to one of the other words:
Submit… and always in the ‘middle voice’ and expressed relationally. Submit yourself to one another. Not I am at the top and I will subject you!
‘Where do I worship? And who am I accountable to?’ remain two really good questions. Imagine if we made the questions relational and not institutional. Maybe we could move toward ‘there was no king among them; there was a flow of life and openness; approval and push back was visible, and each person seemed to have sight on what they should do’. Maybe ‘the kingdom’ could just be ‘at hand’ if such was the case.