Is Anglican leadership biblical?
In reading the headline, you might recall that I am nearly to explore some of the claims of the recent GAFCON meeting on whether the C of E is being led in the right management. But in fact I want to explore a much more bones question: are the patterns of ministry and leadership, and in particular the three-fold order of 'bishops, priests and deacons', plant in the New Testament, and does their practice follow the practice of New Testament leadership?
Someone might object: 'What is the point of asking that question, since the Church isn't nearly to throw away such a well-established historical precedent?' Simply in that location are immediately a couple of of import things to note. The starting time is that, in theBook of Common Prayer, there is a certain degree of circumspection equally to whether this pattern is Scriptural:
It is axiomatic unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture, and aboriginal Authors, That from the Apostles fourth dimension, in that location take been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. (The BCP Ordinal).
So these orders accept existed—only there is no explicit claim that they are essential (the following sentences of the ordinal focus on the need for careful examination of those called) nor that they are 'proved' equally necessary past the Scriptures (the examination ready out in Article VI of the XXXIX Articles).
Just the 2d thing to note is that the Church of England has itself answered the question of the relation between current patterns of leadership and New Testament patterns—in the written report from the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) of Jan 2015,Senior Church Leadership. which I explored in the first chapter of my Grove bookletEvangelical Leadership: opportunities and challenges.
Both the written report and my booklet begin by noting how important 'leadership' has become as an idea in both the world and the church. Since the 1990s, executive pay has moved from being around 60 times that of the average worker to almost 180 times information technology past final twelvemonth. There are complex reasons behind this, not to the lowest degree the nature of the 'closed shop' of executives who appoint one another, and it raises important ethical issues. Simply it is a stiff indicator of belief in the importance and value of leadership. The success of corporations oft appears tied to the presence of a particular leader as CEO; football game teams reply to success and failure by either lauding or sacking their managing director; even theological colleges tin thrive or fail depending on the principal information technology seems. And the FAOC reports notes how now, with the current focus on church growth, the spotlight has been turned on the leader.
In a Church of England printing release, Professor David Voas, one of the leaders of the enquiry, said that 'Growth is a product of practiced leadership (lay and ordained) working with a willing set of churchgoers in a favourable environment.' In the same printing release, 'leadership' tops the list of 'common ingredients strongly associated with growth,' a list that also includes 'clear mission and purpose,' 'being intentional' and 'vision.' The Programme'southward written report, From Chestnut to Evidence: Findings from the Church Growth Research Programme 2011–2013, makes it clear that the 'leadership' in question is a matter of 'motivating people, inspiring and generating enthusiasm to activeness' (p 8); that is what they have discovered is needed for growth. (FAOC report, para xvi).
This makes it all the more important to ask the question: what were NT patterns and practices of leadership, and how well do our ain match this? The most bones claiming is to notation the problem with the core question: it is non possible to name 'THE leader' in the church in Rome, Ephesus, Colossae, or any of the other places to which Paul writes. Leadership in the NT appears to be plural, as is fabricated explicit by the clarification of the church in Antioch in Acts thirteen.1.
The 2d challenge is to note the terms that are used for leadership in the NT, and the ones that are not. Despotes is used of masters who own slaves (ane Peter 2.xviii and elsewhere), and is applied to God (Acts 4.24) which fits well with Paul's cocky-designation equally 'bond slave' in the opening of his messages—only is never used of Christian leaders. The term kathegetes is expressly forbidden by Jesus in Matt 23.ten; the term means leader or teacher, only the teaching attribute is covered before in the passage, when Jesus also forbids the use of the term 'rabbi' since we have one teacher (didaskalos). Mayhap most hit is the absence of the normal term for ruler or leader, archon. It is used fairly neutrally of the rule of a synagogue (Matt 9.18), for leaders amongst the Pharisees (Luke 14.1) and for national leaders (Acts 3.17). Just, in keeping with Jesus alert in Matt 10.25 (and the parallel in Mark x.42), this term is never use for Christian leaders. There are 3 passages where nosotros find the term hegoumenos ('one who leads/guides') used of church building leaders (Hebrews xiii.seven, 17, 24; Acts 15.22 and Luke 22.26) but the related noun (hegemon) is used merely to refer to royal or imperial governors like Pilate (Matthew 27.2).
Instead, biblical linguistic communication virtually leadership tends to cluster effectually particular roles and draw on physical metaphors. There is a 'spiritual gift' that is usually translated as 'leadership' in 1 Cor 12.28, kubernesis, which literally means the steering of a gunkhole. We find kubernetes, stearsmen or pilots, mentioned in Acts 27.xi and Rev xviii.17. But it is striking that this souvenir is listed as ane among many, and is not given whatsoever prominence. (No-one was really interested in this souvenir when older Bibles translated it every bit 'administration'!)
How exercise we account for this striking rejection and reconfiguration of the language of leadership? The FAOC report accounts for this past expanding on the idea backside Jesus' prohibition in Matt 23. The suggest a 'triangular' agreement of leadership of the Christian community, noting that both the leader and the community itself depends on the call of God for their self-agreement and their identity.
At a very unproblematic level, we can represent the triangular dynamic of these relationships in the form of an equilateral triangle enclosed in a circle. In this diagram, the two 'sides' of the triangle represent this double calling: God calls his people; and God calls individuals to lead his people. The base of the triangle represents the complex two-manner relationship between people and leaders – a relationship created by God's double phone call. (p 23)
This has profound implications for the way leadership is understood, and therefore for the way we understand the do of authority:
They [the terms utilise for leadership] are used to distance the dominance of the leader from whatsoever sense of ownership or mastery, and to deflect attention back to the Lord of the church, who is the real source of the leader's authority. They reflect what we may call a refracted say-so, seen through a triangular prism that resists the structure of tiptop-down management structures. (p 29)
This is such a helpful, insightful and striking ascertainment about leadership in the NT that it is worth reflecting on for some time. Last calendar week, I was educational activity in Hereford Diocese on 'Biblical reflections on leadership', and intending this to be part of i of iv sessions throughout the day—but it was and then hitting that we concluded up spending most of the 24-hour interval discussing it!
It is helpful not to the lowest degree because it addresses 2 potent tendencies in church thinking about leadership. The first is a potent emphasis on the importance of leadership, and of the threefold offices of those ordained, which then struggles to find any role for the laity. Perhaps the worst of these was Linda Woodhead's notion, articulated in the Church Times, that if we dispensed with all congregations and just retained the buildings and the clergy, 'the almost important functions of the Church would continue'! Just it is equally present in whatever notion that the clergy, or one of the iii orders (usually bishops) somehow 'found' the church building itself.
The second tendency, present in Reformers like Luther, but also rediscovered in a slightly unlike mode in the charismatic renewal movement from the 1960s onwards, is the idea of the 'priesthood of all believers' which sees all the people of God equally, in some sense, having equal importance—so struggles to see the need for particular forms of leadership.
This triangular model of 'refracted authority' does see (ordained) leadership as important, and arising from a detail sense of calling (vocation) from God—but sees its importance in relation to the fulfilment of the calling (vocation) of the whole people of God to become what God wants them to be. This is, of course, expressedpar excellence in Paul's comment in Ephesians iv.xi–13:
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, then that the body of Christ may be built up until nosotros all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
It is striking that this passage onparticular ministries follows on from an exposition of theunity of the faith and of believers ('there is one body and one Spirit, simply equally you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one organized religion, one baptism…') and that both the unity of the torso and the unlike ministries ascend from the calling of God. This is the same pattern we notice in one Cor 12, where Paul moves repeatedly between the idea of 'to each' and 'for all'.
But the reason that, in Hereford, we spent so long on this model is that is raises two very important questions. Starting time, what does it mean for the practice of power and authority? If the vicar is not 'in charge', how do we always get anything washed? And is this a recipe for chaos, where either the unlike members of the congregation do their own thing or, worse notwithstanding, the dominant become their own way?
The answer to these questions is found in the unlike sides of the triangle. The calling of those in leadership is a calling to enable the people to fulfil their calling from God—they are leaders ofthe church, not just some random collection of people. So there is a real task of responsibility and accountability in both encouraging and enabling the people of God to grow in their maturity, discipleship and obedience to God. And this growth is something that the leaders themselves share, since they never cease to be part of thelaos of God:
Do the virtues being demanded of senior leaders today sit uneasily with the virtues of discipleship? A Christian leader is, later all, a disciple first and a leader second, and that means that he or she is and remains a follower even while beingness a leader. Furthermore, every bit a disciple a leader is chosen to display the fruit of the Spirit…
And the FAOC written report goes on to set out how the responsibility of leaders is exercised, in relation to the teaching of theword, in leading prayer andworship, in standing thework of service, ensuring all are cared for, and in engaging in thewider world.
Nevertheless, leaders are chosen to practise real dominance –they have a calling that instils conviction both in the leader and in other members of the church. From earliest times, the church has sensed a demand for order and focus, for a clarity of vision that looks to the needs of the whole body. This leadership is consensual. The social world of the New Testament was intensely hierarchical; authorisation was instantly recognized and respected (Luke vii.8). It is all the more than hit that leadership in the church is accorded by mutual recognition rather than imposedby external authority: it has to be 'recognized' (1 Corinthians 16.15, i Thessalonians 5.12). Constructive leadership depends on co-operation between leaders and led (Hebrews 13.17; 1 Peter 5.2). (para 114)
But the 2nd question is: if we are to inhabit this 'refracted leadership' model, can we relate it to the threefold lodge that we have? The FAOC study also engages with this question, and notes some of the tensions that arise. Early on, the formation of monarchical, geographical episcopacy conflated the ideas of local eldership and translocal apostolic ministry, in a way which (in some senses) compromised both, and the claiming to the threefold order is that, in the NT, it is very hard to relate presbyteral and episcopal ministry in any obvious way—indeed, the terms appear to be used interchangeably at some points.
Like observations tin can exist made at other critical points of history.
The Church of England's determination to retain the historic 3-fold order of bishop, priest and deacon also reflects the political realities of the Reformation in England. (para 151)
The study is really worth reading, non just as a reflection on structure issues, but in offering a biblical challenge to the ethos of all church building leadership. And my Grove bookletEvangelical Leadership goes on to look at what it means and so to exist leaders in mission, in being rooted in Scripture, and in engaging in the wider world.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, would you lot consideraltruistic £one.xx a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If yous enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance ground. If y'all have valued this mail service, you can make a single or echo donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Expert comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin add real value. Seek first to empathize, and so to be understood. Make the nearly charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/is-anglican-leadership-biblical/
0 Response to "Is Anglican leadership biblical?"
Post a Comment