Chapter Six
Avoiding Oversimplification and
Acknowledging Complexity
An important challenge is silently confronting congregations today. It is the
challenge to become more biblical (thus more reasonable) in expectations of
leadership. The consequences of failing to acknowledge this challenge will be
nothing less than catastrophic. The consequences realistically may result in
numerous congregations no longer existing in the communities of our society.
Note the consequences that are already recognizable in numerous congregations.
First, Christian men who are responsible, dependable, and spiritual increasingly
have no desire to be congregational leaders. Spiritual-minded, knowledgeable,
mature Christians often refuse encouragements to serve as congregational
leaders. Yes, many reasons create this situation. However, congregational
expectations of leadership are among the significant reasons.
Second, men of questionable spirituality, who often acknowledge publicly that
they are unqualified for this role, are willing to take the leadership role in
congregations. Their lack of spiritual maturity coupled with the complex
problems in todays society too frequently result in attempts to lead by
authoritarian decree instead of by providing biblical guidance through faith in
God.
Third, in too many instances, there is a woeful disconnect between a
congregations leadership and a congregations followship. This disconnect
expresses itself in numerous ways that include but are not limited to the
following:
A Recognizable Problem
In this writing, there is no desire to oversimplify the problem.
Oversimplification occurs when (a) we seek to trace all difficulties to the
roots of one problem or (b) we seek to say THE reason we experience this problem
(or these problems) is because of this one reason that is the core of the
situation.
It is quite convenient to trace things to a single problem or to suggest a
situation exists because of one reason. It is convenient because such attempts
suggest that addressing one problem or one situation will cause all difficulties
in a congregation to evaporate (with sufficient time). Thus, correct THE problem
or situation, add sufficient time, and Poof!all difficulties are resolved.
Thus, if a congregation invests all its energies and resources in THE problem or
situation, congregational success is certain.
There are numerous difficulties with that concept. First, not all congregations
are the same. Therefore, all congregational problems are not the result of a
single cause. What may be wondrously helpful in some congregations may be
woefully ineffective in others. Just as one size does not actually fit all,
neither does one solution actually correct all congregational problems.
Second, congregations are complex organisms composed of extremely complicated
individuals. Each individual Christian is a composite of genetics, environment,
experiences, and influences. Those four factors do not have the same effect by
existing in the same combination in every person. Having faith in God and
undergoing genuine repentance do not eliminate any of those four influences.
Seemingly, the best that congregational leadership can hope for is (a) that each
member will acknowledge those forces exist in himself or herself, and (b) that
each member will seek to understand those forces as he or she continually seeks
to comprehend the role of faith and repentance in ongoing life. Every Christian
must realize that all other people are not just like me!
Third, despite what you think or hear, God is extremely complex! Consider this.
God Himself named Davids second son by Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:24, 25) because
God loved him. Gods name for the person we know as Solomon was Jedidiah, which
meant beloved of the Lord. Questions:
By todays common reasoning, surely precedent should have prevented any of that
from happening!
Have you considered the short writing of Jonah lately? While that short book of
only four chapters has been relegated by many Christians to childrens material
about a big fish, chapter four addressed some adult issues regarding God.
Consider Romans 14. Think about Gods different responses to a Jewish view of
Jesus Christ and a non-Jewish view of Jesus Christ. While we tend to blow off
the issues mentioned as insignificant secular matters, these matters were huge
religious issues among Christians. These matters involved concepts of purity at
the time Pauls message came to the Christians in Rome (those members were
culturally Jewish and non-Jewish).
Obviously God is even more complex than we are!
Fourth, not all congregational leaders are godly persons. Not all congregational
followers are godly persons. Some have their own agendas. Some, in ignorance of
Gods priorities and values, promote their own agenda as if it were Gods
agenda.
Some have, announce, and pursue their own concepts. If scripture calls their
concepts into question, scripture is attacked while they refuse to examine their
concept.
Some do not have godly concerns. They are primarily concerned about having or
exerting control. They are more concerned about protecting personal concerns
than they are about achieving Gods values. Often, such people conclude their
concerns are Gods values. Their principle concerns seem to rise from their need
to defend a position rather than from their need to understand God or people.
When evil agendas and evil motives become a part of the mix, the problems
change, the solutions change, and often the congregational dilemma becomes
highly individualized. Never forget that Paul had his Alexander (2 Timothy 4:14)
and John had his Diotrephes (3 John verses 9-11).
The Bond
Is there a bond between leaders and followers in a congregation? Is there a
sense of togetherness so they function as a team that seeks Gods objectives? Or
does the leadership role separate the leader from the congregation?
I have heard elders grieve because assuming the role of congregational leader
cost friendships in the congregation. Before a man became an elder, he was Tom,
or Sam, or Georgea person. When he became a leader, suddenly he was no longer a
person, but an elder. Others became cautious when around him. They were
hesitant to talk to him. They no longer could be with him to do common things
because he was an elder.
What if all you heard each time you met with other congregational leaders were
problems and/or demands? What if most of what you heard, saw, or dealt with were
the flaws, immaturities, and attitude defects of members who produced spiritual
challenges or actual problems for others? What if members of the congregation
turned their home lights out or ignored your knocks when you attempted to visit
and encourage? What if those who needed encouragement the most thought a visit
from an elder was a bad thing?
How long would it take for such negative reactions to impact you? How long would
it take for you to say, I have had enough!? How long would it take for
negative reactions to crush your spirit when with heart-felt prayers you wished
to be a positive, encouraging congregational force?
Hopefully congregations select men to lead because the men are spiritually
mature. If that is true, then why do congregations sometimes treat these men as
spiritually immature because they do not yield to our demands? Surely people in
a congregation understand that it is impossible for these men to yield to all
demands (financially or manpower-wise).
Why do we treat them as spiritually immature when they do not adopt our
priorities? Why do we assume that they are unchristian men if they do not see a
situation precisely as we see it? If we were a part of selecting these men
because they were spiritually mature, why do they suddenly become spiritually
immature because they do not agree with us?
Is leadership a control issue or a divine issue? Does everyone work together
to achieve Gods objectives, or do people in congregations seek to divide and
conquer? Is leadership an issue of status or an issue of service?
Is leadership in congregations just a matter of politics? Should winners in
congregational matters be determined by congregational politics? Are
congregational decisions just an extension of the demands and concepts of
democracy? Should the political system of our culture become the political
system of our congregations? Do we have prejudice against the political concepts
associated with kings? Do we object to Jesus being our King?
It took the twelve a long time (longer than Jesus lived!) to understand that
being the Messiahs disciple was about humble, sacrificial service rather than
status. Being a servant of the King Messiah commonly (in the first century)
resulted in physical suffering rather than status. The image of physical
suffering simply did not fit common Jewish expectations of their Messiah or his
followers! Nor does it fit our common expectations as Christians! We accept
Jesus Christ to find an end/answer to physical suffering, not to discover a
reason for embracing physical suffering.
Additional Important Questions
How can we as congregations end the all-too-common hostility between
congregational leaders and congregational members? Do we not realize what we do
to our credibility in our communities when our worst traits and flaws are
revealed in the way we treat each other? How can we be seen as people who are
God-taught to love when we vent our frustrations on those we chose to lead us?
Is it not obvious that congregations need effective training in the ways to view
and treat leaders?
Blessed is the congregation who knows how to encourage godly leaders in
difficult moments!
Chapter Six
Link to a summary of other books by David Chadwell
Link to
West-Ark Church of Christ Home Page