Leadership--Where to from here?

by Reuben Pauls

Canadian Mennonite Brethren have been blessed by strong leaders in the past century, but we are now seeing that change. A leadership crisis has been simmering for the past two decades, and with each passing year our pastoral needs increase. Fewer individuals are entering the pastorate, and of those who do, many leave pastoral ministry after only one or two short terms. Why?

These days we consistently have 20-25 senior pastoral vacancies at any given time. Often a pastor's resignation follows a serious conflict. Depending on the severity of the difficulty, the church may request an interim pastor, often a recent retiree, to "come and settle things down". We are fortunate to have about ten such pastors, who are in great demand.

For the pastor who has resigned, it is often difficult to re-engage in ministry. Suddenly "the call" appears to be in question. After only a few enquiries regarding further ministry appear, work outside the church begins to look rather appealing. It is fascinating that in the past month, two pastors, each in conflict situations, have suggested that upon completion of another term of office, they would like to "begin a retreat centre for wounded pastors".

What has contributed to this problem? Have our history or our theology contributed to it? Have the strong leaders of the past mentored others, or was that not part of our understanding of leadership? Is the problem more fundamental, in that God is no longer calling individuals into pastoral ministry? Have we distanced training from the local church? Or have we professionalized ministry, demanding such high standards that few are able to meet the expectations?

While I don't have answers to all of these questions, several aspects of the problem are clear.

* Distrust of Leadership. One issue in our society which plays into our church struggles is the mistrust directed toward leaders. As one looks at the political scene, those who mistrust leaders have good reason for it. Unfortunately, in the church a similar mistrust exists, often because we have adopted society's system of "democracy" as "at least partly spiritual".

* Democracy. Democracy has no biblical basis. While some suggest that democracy has its roots in the priesthood of all believers, an anabaptist value, biblically the priesthood of all believers addresses the issue of all persons ministering, not all people being involved in decision-making. This does not mean that issues should not be worked through, but that the vote system has little support in the New Testament.

* Loyal Opposition. Further, implied in democracy is the need for a "loyal opposition". It is puzzling that such a concept could be embraced in the church. Texts such as Ephesians 4:3 telling us to "keep the unity" and the various references in Acts to being "of one accord" (1:14; 2:1,46; 4:24; 5:12; 15:25) do not support opposition to leadership.

* The Two-Board System. Another factor that often creates difficulty within our churches is the two-board system. Many of us have grown up with this and find it hard to consider alternatives. Under this system, one board, call it the council, makes the business decisions, and the other board, call it the deacons, does the spiritual work or "soul care". It is not impossible to have each board come with a different recommendation on the same issue to a membership meeting. The result is confusion over the particular issue at hand, as well as confusion over who actually leads the church. The problem for the pastor is simple: "To which board am I accountable?"

* Church Family. Our history, anchored in the family setting of a single ethnic group, encouraged that all participants in the church community be consulted when decisions were made. Whatever the issue, it would be suggested, "Why not get everyone's opinion before moving ahead?" Even though some were only remotely interested in the issue, each member had a say in the outcome. It is not that a broad perspective is unimportant, but one must readily admit that not all individuals are at the same level of understanding and maturity. On a delicate issue, in a group which is nearly evenly divided, it may be the least mature individual who has the "swing vote". That is hardly biblical.

The Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15 has often been cited as the "consensus passage". However, closer examination of the text assists us in finding a reasonable balance between what leaders do and what followers do. This text may assist us in coming to an understanding which may once again make leadership a desired task in our denomination. After all, I Timothy 3:1 does say, "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task."

The issue in Acts 15 was clearly defined by the leaders: Must a non-Jew become a Jew in order to be a Christian? Some (those who valued tradition) said yes; others (those on the growing fringe) said no. Unfortunately, all too often in our churches, we would tackle an issue like this by saying "Let's vote, and the problem will be solved." We do not want to work through such an issue because it may take too long or the result may be different from what I want, so we resort to a simple vote. The votes that scare me the most are the ones where the first vote is on what percentage support something needs in order to pass.

The Acts 15 passage reveals several principles for how decision-making should be handled in the church.

1. The issue of whether all Christians needed to become Jews surfaced in a public meeting, with many people from both sides aware of it. The first principle is: Don't hide the issue from the community of faith.

2. However, it is also obvious that such an issue should not be processed where the best rhetoric or the best organized lobby group has the last word. The Acts 15 meeting was not one where everyone pooled their common wisdom or ignorance and decisions were made on the basis of inadequate information. It was not an open forum for all opinions. Instead, the apostles and elders met to discuss the issue (Acts 15:6). In this process, they considered information from the Bible (James, verses 16-18), history (Peter, verses 7-11) and the present-day context (Paul and Barnabas, verse 12). The second principle is: Those who are working with the situation and who understand its impact are the ones who should wrestle with the problem.

3. In many of our churches, we think the Acts 15 conversation happened at a congregational meeting. The text does not support this interpretation. However, the leaders' suggested solution was quickly shared with the larger crowd, with less background information than was shared in the leadership meeting, and the congregation celebrated leadership's direction. The vigorous debate occurred among leaders, who had the spiritual maturity to disagree but ultimately come to informed consent. The result was a unified decision, and a unified church. The third principle which emerges is: Leadership leads and followers follow.

4. The act of reaching a decision in Acts 15 was a spiritual one, which pleased first the Holy Spirit and then the people. There was no separation between business decisions and spiritual decisions. Here is the fourth principle: All business in the church is spiritual, and spiritually qualified leaders need to take responsibility for the direction and processing of these issues. Charles Olsen, in Transforming Church Boards, suggests that boards need to become places of worshipful work. The format at leadership meetings should resemble the church's worship experience. That's a far cry from the comment which is often voiced: "I like our church on Sundays, but we need to do something about the spirit of our congregational business meetings."

It is my sense that one of the reasons that fewer individuals are moving into full-time vocational ministry is that we have removed the task of decision-making from leadership. We expect all people to lead, and our pastors to minister, whereas the Scriptures call all to minister and a few to lead. Even a cursory reading of Romans 12:4-8 indicates that some are called to lead, not all. Ephesians 4:11-12 says that "some" are called to be apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists--"to prepare God's people for works of service".

A side note on terminology may be in order. Scripture uses three different terms for leaders in the church:

* Presbuteros (elder), which tells what an elder is--spiritually mature;

* Episkopos (overseer), which tells what an elder does--oversee; and

* Poimen"(pastor, shepherd), which tells how an elder leads--shepherds.

All three terms are used in I Peter 5:1-2. We as a denomination need to be open to all three aspects of biblical leadership.

The absence of emerging leaders within our denomination may well have common causes. If we over-value congregational decision-making as we have done in the past, and if we continue to interpret the priesthood of all believers as "all lead", then we will have tremendous difficulty filling the pastoral needs across our country. I often hear our pastors lament, "My congregation does not want me to lead." This does not mean that all pastors have the gift of leadership, but if they do have that gift, our history and our way of making decisions may be preventing them from exercising that gift.

The place to begin is within each church, where leaders are valued and spiritual counsel is followed. When boards are comprised of spiritually discerned individuals who have the required character qualities to be known as people of God, surely trust will follow, and our churches will be healthier. As we approach the year 2000, we will need to be open to a different understanding of leadership. Maybe then we will influence our society as powerfully as the New Testament church, where leadership was affirmed, trusted and followed.

Reuben Pauls is executive minister of the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches.

SIDEBAR

Charles M. Olsen, Transforming Church Boards into Communities of Spiritual Leaders (Alban Institute).

Edgar Stoesz and Chester Raber, Doing Good Better: How to be an Effective Board Member of a Nonprofit Organization (Good Books).

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 37, No. 21 Home Page