GospelDrivenLife

Pastoral Weakness and Power

What do you admire in a leader?  What do you think makes a great leader? It is an age old question and one faced by the early Christians.  

 This last week, as I prepared to preach from 2 Corinthians, I asked those questions.  And I was a bit surprised by where I landed.

2 Corinthians may be the longest treatise in the Bible on leadership.  This is not Paul the Christian; this is Paul the apostle.  He argues against a secular view of leadership.

You see, Paul's critics in Corinth considered the apostle a less than adequate leader.  They believed leadership was a matter of charisma, powerful presence, strength and an air of triumphant confidence. They believed that real leaders were men on top of their game, especially leaders who preached the resurrection.  

Paul was weak. He changed his mind. He was not eloquent.  He suffered a great deal.  Surely, they concluded, this is not much of a leader. Paul argues quite a different perspective.  Gospel preaching leaders look like the Gospel.  Their lives and experience preach without words what they proclaim with words. This is where my world got rumbled.

You see, for Paul, and especially for Paul, a leaders’ life and experience and public persona are a constant display of their weakness and limitations and neediness, and a constant display of the power of Christ alone could accomplish much with such a person.

Christian leaders are not "wise men" with "brilliant and creative ideas."  They are certainly not celebrities.  They are the dregs of the earth, the humble caboose of the train.  They are the prisoners led behind the conquering general (2 Cor 2:14-17).

Paul discloses the pattern of ministry -- power in weakness,  sharing in the suffering of Christ, so that his comfort may be known as well.  

He defines what it means to enter into the suffering of Christ. 2 Cor 1:8-10 says it means being brought into circumstances so beyond us, so far above our powers, that we experience the sentence of death in ourselves.  This, Paul says, is so that we will not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead and thus experience his resurrecting power.

In other words, God designs the circumstances of leaders to reveal (to them and to others) their deficiencies, their emptiness, their neediness -- so that the work that is done is clearly a work of God.

Sometimes this means deliverance, sometimes not.  

In 2 Cor 12:7-10 Paul tells of the affliction God sent to him, a thorn in the flesh. I am not sure what the thorn is but I know it was some form of chronic pain.  It was a day in and day out reminder to Paul that he was mere dust, flesh and blood.  Migraines? Insomnia? Arthritis? Melancholy?  Those would be modern examples.

This thorn was designed by God, once again, to make clear to Paul and to others that God's grace is sufficient (therefore, Paul is not and we are not). This is to make clear that God's power is perfected in weakness, not in our strengths, or overcoming our own weakness.   Shockingly, power is most seen, not in healings, not in triumphant living, but in weakness and limitations and being in over our heads. 

The reason for this is simple: the treasure of the Gospel is located in earthen vessels (clay pots, brown paper bags) so it is clear to all that the pot is just a pot and the treasure is the treasure.  God designed leadership in the church to display his great power and glory. His ability to use such weak and broken vessels for his purposes of grace is remarkable. The skill of the workman is seen in what he can do with such limited tools.

And he designs the circumstances of leaders to remind them of their weakness again and again, and to display his sufficiency again and again.

The opponents of Paul looked on his suffering and weakness and said, "What kind of a leader is that? What is he hiding?  Surely the favor of God cannot rest on a man who suffers this much?"  

Paul says, "How can a man be a preacher of the Gospel and not experience such suffering and weakness? God displays the Gospel through words spoken and the life lived.  God alone saves in Christ.  So God makes that clear through the public display of the weaknesses and afflictions of leaders."

Leadership is a mix of God's glory and human frailty. As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor yet making many rich; as having nothing and yet possessing all things. (2 Cor 6:8-10)

In other words, God reenacts the Gospel in the experience of leaders so that the Gospel preached is matched by the life lived. "Always being given over to death for Jesus sake, so that the life of Christ may be seen in us" (4:8-10).

My surprise was this: I was more sympathetic with the opponents of Paul than with Paul.  I want strong and gifted and charismatic leaders.  I want to be a gifted leader, whose weaknesses and flaws are less obvious.  I want to lead with strength, not with weakness.  I want to fix my weaknesses, eliminate mistakes, hide my sin, or at least grow to the point where I am sufficient.  

In other words, and I paraphrase a friend, I want to get to the point in my life and circumstances where I am mature enough and gifted enough and skilled enough to no longer be desperately dependent on God. HA!  I want to preach the Gospel but not live by the Gospel.

And, I find around me people who want the same.  I find leadership idolatry.  I find people with very high expectations of leaders and people who get quite upset when leaders make mistakes and even more so when they do not see their own sin.  I understand.  What they desire is what I want and that forms an unholy co-dependency (co-idolatry is better to describe this).

It will not be so.  God seems to go overboard to make us as unimpressed with the heroes of the Bible as we can be.  Abraham -- the man of faith -- lied to protect his own skin.  Jacob, whom God blessed, was a cheat.  Moses, impulsive and easily angered, led the nation.  I could go on.

We come to the New Testament and we find Jesus with the twelve.  Now that is quite a contrast.  Peter, of course, is front and center, foot in mouth.  He is proud, self-confident, a selfish coward who denies his Lord.  Then, 15 years later, he denies him again in Antioch.  Hmmm, would I want as a leader a man who denied his Lord both before the crucifixion and did so again, years later, under pressure from his peers in Antioch? Yet he is an apostle.

I am not justifying sin.  Elders meet certain qualifications.  But read them again, that list is quite un-extraordinary.  And, given the background just noted, certainly not to be seen as a list of perfections. These are graces, marks of the work of the Spirit in their lives.

I think Bruce Winter (9 Marks interview) is correct.  We need to minimize our use of the word "leader" in our churches.  It is a good word, but is carries with it so much baggage, so many notions of power and skill and ability, that it corrupts our thinking.  I support his notion that the proper notion is people responsible to serve the church, to care for and love the people of God and the local church unto Christ. It is slave work, menial labor for the King.

 

Pastors: what is your perspective?

I came across contrasting texts the other day:

Paul wrote: I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14 ESV)

John wrote:

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.  So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. (3 John 1:9-10 ESV)

Do you see the contrast?

Paul views the church without control, with faith, with confidence in God and in them.  He is not denying the doctrine of sin. But he is amazed at the doctrine of regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit.

There is no suspicion in Paul.  There is no fear of what they might do without his immediate oversight.  He does not seem to need to micromanage their lives.  He does not think they must have close and detailed pastoral care or they will not make it.

John is writing about another kind of pastor -- the control freak. He is busy ruling the church, telling the church who they may or may not have dinner with. He is busy being discerning and critiquing other pastors.  He is lording it over the flock.  He is telling them where to school their kids and whether to jump and how high.

And what is the difference?

Paul knows who God is,  Diotrephes thinks he is God. He thinks he should be the center of things.  Paul does not.  He is content to be a servant of the living God.

I read these words and realize I would never write what Paul wrote.  I would be concerned if I heard someone preach those words today.  But the man writing them is inspired, writing the very word of God. He is right.  I am wrong.

Pastors: do you trust God to work in your people?  What would your people say about your control of their lives?  about your heart for them?  are you suspicious of them?  are you "careful" with them?  Or do you want them to see Christ?  Do you believe Christ is at work and keeping them?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer looked at this from a different angle.  He put it this way:

A pastor should not complain about his congregation, certainly never to other people, but also not to God. A congregation has not been entrusted to him in order that he should become its accuser before God and men.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, p 29

 

Humility and Pastoral Leadership

I have just finished relistening to the IX Marks interview with Bruce Winter.

Winter is a significant scholar, especially on historical backgrounds.  And in this interview he turns the world upside down on the issue of leadership.

In short, Dr Winter says that the notion of "leadership" as emphasized today in the church is counter to the New Testament.  The cult of leaders, the exaltation of leadership as the paradigm of ministry, the accent on teaching people to be followers -- all of these are, in his grasp of the ancient world and the New Testament, a great error. 

And he knows whereof he speaks, as his doctoral work is a direct study of how Paul refused to take up the mantle of leadership as understood in his day.  Most exceptionally, this is seen in 2 Corinthians.

Dever presses him multiple times, trying to push him into the notion of leadership, cites Scripture and practical example.  But Winters answers consistently.  Being a pastor in a church is a responsibility, and it calls for serving and feeding the people. It is not to be defined as an authority, but a service.  It is not a call to teach people to be followers, for only Christ is to be followed.  It is a familial role, not a hierarchical role. 

Winters issued a clear word to pastors, to think God's thoughts about leadership -- not secular thoughts.  

I commend this interview again, and want to get a hold of his book on Paul and the Sophists, found HERE. I am sure his book will give further food for thought. 

All of this begins to make sense. If Paul was the leader par excellence in the New Testament, what do we have?  Not a man of charisma, but a man of exceptional suffering, a man who was despised and maligned and considered to be the offscouring of all things.  He refused to live up to the charismatic leader model.

An Interview with Bruce Winter – Justin Taylor

Mark Dever interviews New Testament scholar Bruce Winter on “cultural contextualization in ministry, the importance of historical background for interpreting Scripture, and bad contemporary ideas of leadership.”

via thegospelcoalition.org

Dr Winter brings remarkable clarity to the nature of pastoral leadership in the church. He deals very strongly with how we have become secular in our models.

On Judging. Blogging, and White Christmas

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?  (James 4:11-12 ESV)

White Christmas is a holiday movie favorite.  At the core of the plot is the tension created by a judgment of character based on partial information.  Betty Haines, equipped with half truths by the mis-informed and eavesdropping  Emma, concludes that Bob Wallace is taking advantage of a retired General's hard luck to make a quick profit.  She and Emma judge harshly.  They judge wrongly. But they are convinced they have all the information. Their hearts are set and hardened toward the transgressor.  His heart is perplexed and confused at their manifest malice.  Then the air clears . . .  and it snows and all is well.

I make judgments like that all the time. Just the other day, I did it once more.  I observed behavior in someone I know.  It was, to my mind, obviously wrong behavior.  They spent money extravagantly, money they could not afford. I was convinced they were sinning once more.  I judged them in my heart.  The thought of judgment surfaced in my heart again and again. I said nothing to them.  After all, I had already said something to them a while ago.  I held this judgment in my heart, until . . . .

Until, unware of my judgment, they told a group about the gift someone had given them.  Guess what the gift was?  It was the item I thought they had bought for themselves.  Boy, was I ever wrong! Subsequent conversation revealed that they were living far more wisely than I had ever expected.

This was another instance of prejudiced judgment on my part.  I would say it was another instance among hundreds. And in most of those hundreds of examples, my premature judgments were wrong. When the facts come out, even just a few more facts, I discovered I was wrong, dead wrong.  I sinned against them in my heart and sometimes with my words.  And I was wrong.

How can this happen? 

I assume I see clearly and know all that there is to be known.  When questioned, I protest, "What other explanation is there?"  OR "What more is there to be learned?" Diligent investigation?  No need for that!  hearing all sides of the discussion?  No, I have the whole perspective!

I hear from a third party of what another person said or did, and I assume that their report is accurate.  I act upon it.  I judge based on it. If I share the ill-will, I pile on.

I insist I have the gift of discernment and by that I mean I see things others do not see.  I act like discernment is a 6th sense, and is not subject to diligent investigation and evaluation.

I assume the other person is willful, that they are doing this deliberately.  I assume there is no way they could be blind to their own sin. 

I am a hypocrite.  I would not want to be judged by the same standards.  I judge quickly, without investigation, speak ill of the other with conviction and certainty, but protest when I am treated to such arbitrary judgments. 

Why do I judge others so quickly?  Why do I jump to conclusions with so little evidence?  Have I ever heard one side of the story and found out it was entirely accurate? 

Why do I indulge in speculation -- guessing at what the real motives and actions were?  when I know little or nothing about it?

James says it is because of pride.  Judgment is the action of the Judge; Judgment is the action of the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver is able to give laws and judge by those laws.  The Lawgiver is omniscient and always judges according to truth, not hearsay.  He applies the law without prejudice. 

I am not omniscient.  I am not objective.  I twist the facts and distort their meaning in my heart, often without knowing it.  I color my judgments with my heart's affection or disaffection toward the person.  I often cover over the sins of the ones I love, and exaggerate the faults of those who have hurt me deeply. If I have a grudge against another, I interpret all their actions uncharitably.  If I have become impatient with their besetting sin, I judge harshly.

This is why the Bible insists that we are innocent until proven guilty, that a man may be found guilty only after thorough investigation and coroborating evidence. Hearsay is not enough.  One side of the story is never enough. This is why the ten commendments include not bearing false witness against our neighbor.  God wants to make clear that the pride of my heart that judges and maligns another is out of bounds.

In the presence of hearsay, one-side-of-the-story information, superficial observation, gossip, or obvious ill-will motivated backbiting -- I am best to refuse conclusions, to be silent, to insist on charitable judgments. 

But my heart does not find this easy.  I find help only in remembering the One who does not deal with me according to my sins or reward me according to my iniquities.  I consider the One who, on the night of his preparation for death, in the face of his disciples jockeying for suprior positions in the kingdom, commended them for continuing with him in his trials. 

If the thrice-holy God, whom I offend hourly, sees all and makes charitable judgments of his adopted child -- who am I to scrutinize and judge and condemn? 

But judgment sells.  Slander attracts a crowd.  People turn with indifference from a couple huddled in affection on a park bench, but gather in multitudes when a fight breaks out.  We have an ear for gossip.  We love to feed on the juicy tidbits of what is "really" happening.

Judgment and gossip are bad.  It is wicked enough that it goes on in my own heart.  It is compounded when it becomes circulated among friends.  But now we have a larger field for action. Today we do this over the internet. 

Does the internet mean that there is no more privacy?  That everybody's business is my business and my business is everybody's business? All because we now have a global living room?  Are we all in one household with one backyard, and it is our business to go about looking over everyone else's fence and commenting on what we see going on in their territory?  Or telling everyone of the fight we saw or overheard?

There have always been public debates and arguments.  Public people who write public opinions or engage in public debates understand that this is their calling and life.  People with large influence know that the price of their influence is a measure of loss of privacy. We can review their books, evaluate their addresses and sermons made in larger than local gatherings, and do so with humility, knowing we may have misunderstood them.  But their private and local life is not ours to evaluate or critique.

Pride lurks at the door.  We want to think we are important.  You see, 99.9% of us are not public people, and we are deluded if we think so. We are tempted to think that all our personal battles and perspectives are of greater significance than they really are.  We now have a loudspeaker to publish our personal conversations to the whole block -- or the whole world.  We can extend the argument to others and get them involved to see how right we are and how wrong the other is.

We are busy-bodies and the WWW offers us large playground for our voyeurism and our malice. We can engage in the private conversations of others.  Now, from the comfort our homes, we may move out of our own backyards to see the weeds in neighbors yards, and in yards of people in other cities and countries! We can get out our laser listening devices (google) and eavesdrop on publicized conversations that take place in the privacy of other's homes or churches. 

Then, without knowing the whole context, but certain that we do, we publish our conclusions and engage in the argument.  And we can now do this to thousands.  No more is my pride and malice confined to a handful of friends or a local church.  I can attract a large crowd (and a crowd will come) by taking my judgments into the net.

Imagine White Christmas was filmed in 2010.  What if the wrong judgments against Bob Wallace were published on the internet?  What is the eavesdropping housekeeper Emma had a facebook account and a blog?  And the Haines sisters each had their own public diary?  Slander against such public figures would have drawn thousands of hits.  They would have checked out their stats and congratulated themselves for unmarking the hypocrisy of the great Wallace and Davis. But they were wrong. How long would it have taken the wrongful judgment and slander to be erased from the hearts of their readers?

This blog is committed to edification.  This blogger wishes to feed the souls of people who read it.  That means offering up meditations and observations that make much of Christ.  This blogger wishes to keep his comments about others to a minimum, and only to their books or articles. 

This blogger finds plenty of weed-pulling work to do in my own backyard.  I have enough work to do to discern my own heart and sin, to keep my eyes upon the great Savior who has made me his adopted child, and to serve the church I love.