Now as an elder myself and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to
be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend
the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not
under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it—not for sordid gain
but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in
your charge, but be examples to the flock. And
when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never
fades away. In the same way, you who are
younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must
clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for
“God opposes the proud,
but gives grace to the humble.”
--1 Peter
5:1-5 NRSV
In the evangelical
churches I grew up in, the pastor was often seen as a sort of super-Christian.
He (and it was always a he) was a combination prophet/CEO who stood over
and above the congregation. If the pastor lacked humility (a virtue in short
supply among clergy I knew growing up), his authority went unquestioned, at
least right up until the whispered news came out about scandal or abuse. It’s
funny how there often seemed to be a correspondence between authoritarian
pastors and scandals.
When I moved into
mainline congregations, it was a bit of a shock to see how little authority was
given to pastors. At church board meetings there have been times when I have
felt like the “paid Christian” only invited into the room to pray, occasionally
bring up scripture and insert Jesus into the conversation. My contributions
were ignored while board members made decisions according to whatever values
they imported from the business world or the community’s social scene. It was
fine to hear a sermon on Sunday, but when it came to money and property the
pastor’s voice was not welcome.
In the “free church”
tradition of which I am a part (Disciples of Christ/United Church of Christ), there is no bishop,
presbytery or ecclesiastical higher up to tell the local congregation what to
do. The local church makes its own decisions regarding ministers, property,
bylaws, etc. We also subscribe to the belief in the “priesthood of all
believers” which says each person has her own relationship with God and can
interpret scripture and tradition without an intermediary between her and God.
That’s a lot of freedom, and so figuring out the role of the pastor can be
difficult for churches like ours.
Ideally, there should be
a mix of authority and freedom: authority given to the minister to guide the
congregation with the understanding that each member of the congregation has
the freedom disagree with that guidance. All my life I have been leery of
churches with controlling pastors, but I have learned to be just as leery of
churches who dismiss the pastor’s calling to be shepherd and guide. The only
way I can see to hold this tension between authority of the minister and
freedom of the congregation in a healthy way is through humble commitment demonstrated
by all parties.
I don’t have room here to
discuss what the term “elder” means in the New Testament and how that relates
to how churches like the one I'm serving view clergy and elders, but for simplicity’s sake, we can
say the passage from 1 Peter printed above refers to spiritual leaders in the
faith community (elders) and the congregation (those who are younger). This
classification isn’t about age but about callings, giftedness and maturity in
the faith. The point of the passage is not about church organization but rather
that all people in the community must be committed to one another and do so
with humility.
All of this means that a
healthy church acts in a way that is radically counter-cultural. In our world
today, when a person disagrees with another, person 1 can simply “unfriend”
person 2 with a click of a mouse. Then both parties can retreat to their
separate cable news channel/internet news provider that will offer a worldview
distinct from that of the other person. Compromise is not valued. Healthy
disagreement is not allowed. True relationship does not occur. Our churches
mirror our culture and become more homogenous by the day. Yet, this is not the
kind of relationship we are called to as Christians.
From the beginnings of Christianity,
Christians have disagreed with one another. At worst, Christians have gone to
war against one another. At best, Christians have learned to have healthy
conflict where everyone remains committed to loving the other even when they
disagree. Committed relationships that can withstand conflict are rare in our
culture and increasingly more rare in churches.
To have a healthy future,
a church must learn to disagree in love and humility. That
means members must on occasion disagree with their pastor and vice-a-versa. We
humans learn best when we encounter views different from our own, the church is
no exception to that truth. Yet, many, if not most, churches today are so
worried about declining numbers they fear any kind of conflict whatsoever
dividing their already dwindling membership rolls. Such fear lacks trust among
church members and clergy, and it also lacks trust in God to hold a faith
community together in love.
So, go ahead and disagree
with your pastor, but do so with humility considering her point of view and
trusting she is offering it in love. When you disagree with your future pastor,
don’t fire of an email, but make an appointment for coffee. Sit down together,
listen and share your perspective. Have that conversation trusting your
relationship with your pastor will grow stronger from this exchange of ideas.
Demonstrate the kind of grace, compassion and commitment that our culture no
longer values. The church is called to be an alternative community, and in
today’s fractured and fragmented times, I can think of no greater alternative
than faithful people who can disagree in love while remaining in relationship
with each other.
Grace and Peace,
Chase
No comments:
Post a Comment