Shepherding the Flock of God

It is not uncommon for informal or even formal power and control to appear within ecclesias. Often, well-intentioned members dedicated to serving the Lord can become dominant in their ecclesias.

The very subject line of this editorial probably makes you feel uncomfortable. Ecclesias purposely were modeled to be absent from formal hierarchy. We have one leader, the Lord Jesus Christ. The most outstanding title we will ever have is “brother” or “sister.”

Informal Power in Ecclesias

Yet, it is not uncommon for informal or even formal power and control to appear within ecclesias. Often, well-intentioned members dedicated to serving the Lord can become dominant in their ecclesias. For many reasons, they gain a strong influence on the decisions of the ecclesia. Initially, they may have obtained that influence through their Scriptural knowledge, administrative capability, having a track record of spiritual support, or by demonstrating wisdom in ecclesial interactions. Having such brothers and sisters in our ecclesias can be a huge advantage. 

But there is an equally substantial risk for abuse. It’s a slippery slope between being an influential servant and one whose personal preferences and needs may suffocate life in the ecclesia. In the ecclesial body described in 1 Corinthians 12, these dominant brothers and sisters can function as surrogate heads of the body. They can make authoritative decisions for the ecclesia, sometimes without debate or challenge. Ecclesial members bow to their authority, either because they have confidence in them or because they feel it is pointless to challenge them.

Robert Roberts wrote, “Little or no government would be necessary were we to profess the name of Christ animated by a controlling deference to the mind of Christ.” Roberts continues by speaking about authority in Christadelphian meetings. “The ecclesia does not appoint masters, but servants.”

In Christadelphia, we are freed from one of the most alluring reasons for power and control—money. No one will get rich from being a Christadelphian! Leaders aren’t captive to worrying whether their message or position on an issue may result in a loss of income, which is a very real issue in some churches. Thankfully, money isn’t at stake for us.

However, there may be an equally powerful reason for someone to desire extraordinary influence in our community. Some have an unspoken desire to be revered by others, and we often unwittingly contribute to this. We heap praise on the talented speaker. We honor those who serve in certain visible positions or organizations. These accolades can quickly intoxicate if you need to be accepted and recognized as a leader. It can become your identity in the community and what you feed on. Such leaders are sure that they know better than the brothers and sisters in the ecclesia. In some cases, they may be correct.

Behaviors of Abusive Power

Such informal power and control are always at risk. Pushing others down to increase or maintain influence may be necessary. Here are a few behaviors identified by other churches when power and control were abused.

Hyper-Competitiveness: The individual needs to show others that they are better than them.

Jealousy: They constantly compare their service to others they consider more successful or receive greater recognition.

Defensiveness: When people try to correct them, they quickly offer excuses for fear of being exposed as weak.

Argumentativeness: Defending oneself isn’t enough. They need to go on the offensive and actively work to silence dissenting voices.

Risk Aversion: They fear that any challenge will expose a lack of competence, so they always play it safe or position any threat as Humanism or a compromise to the Truth.

Unforgiving: They are easily hurt, finding it hard to “turn the other cheek” to their critics. They can be ardent “letter writers” across the community, urging the taking of sides.

Legalism: They create artificial measurements, which make it difficult for others to challenge them or measure up.

Intimidation: members might walk on eggshells around them, fearing a conflict or having an opposing view.1

Judgmental: Feeling superior to others and critiquing their efforts because they won’t do things their way. This results in volunteers no longer being willing to step up and clears the way for the leader to dominate alone.

You may have seen some of these behaviors manifested. We may dabble in a few of these from time to time. But they suppress and even extinguish the love of Christ. We should be better than this.

Authority in New Testament Times

There are many examples of leadership in the first-century churches. The Apostle Paul stands out as the most influential leader, with his impact felt in both Gentile and Jewish quarters. Paul was headstrong. He had a clear vision from the Lord about how the ecclesial body should operate and interact. As time passed, he appointed elders in ecclesias, which he had helped establish. Even from his prison home in Rome, Paul continued to provide ecclesial leadership to the infant church.

Paul could be intimidating for many. He never backed down when he felt that rebuke was needed. Paul challenged Peter when he thought that Peter’s actions were inconsistent and opposed to the intended direction of the Lord. When warned not to go to Jerusalem, even through the Spirit, he went anyway. Paul was a masterful writer, a talented debater, and a man with Scriptural knowledge that few had ever seen. Yet, as we see with Barnabas, he could take strong opinions.

Interestingly, Paul was not always accepted as an “authority” in many churches. In Corinth, he spent eighteen months helping to form the ecclesia. However, the ecclesia divided itself to identify with iconic leaders. Paul was only one of them. Some rejected his instruction in favor of the words of others who preached “another gospel.” His work in ecclesias was trailed by the Judaizers, who attempted to pull Gentile Christians into following the Law. In his letters, Paul spoke directly to these challenges. He frequently called out the motives behind the missteps. He used words such as “foolish” to describe the Galatians. “Puffed up” to describe the Corinthians that had failed to administer ecclesial discipline. 

But is there anyone like Paul who was so committed to supporting and recognizing brothers and sisters? He often ended letters naming the brothers and sisters who had labored in the faith. He appears to have had a protracted prayer list for which he daily sought the Lord. To save some, Paul would do nearly anything, including going back into a town (Lystra) that had stoned him and dragged him away as dead. Paul was, first and foremost, a servant of the Lord. He wasn’t after fame (or fortune), and he was not to be deterred from his work.

Even the way Paul describes the oversight of the flock is interesting.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28).

The first place for leaders to look is at themselves. Leaders misaligned with the spirit of Christ cannot be effective leaders. How can one shepherd the flock if they are motivated by things the Lord rejected, such as envy and power? Further, shepherding in the ecclesia is all about feeding, not about being fed. The needs of the sheep come well before the needs of the shepherd. This duty is in stark contrast to the shepherds of Israel, who, in their self-interest, fed themselves and not the flock (Ezekiel 34:8). Peter exhorts shepherds and elders to take the “oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind [ready to serve—NIV).”(1 Peter 5:2.) Further, Peter clarifies they are never to be “lords” over God’s heritage, but by being examples (v. 3.) It is a temporary job elders do until the “chief Shepherd shall appear.” (1 Peter 5:4).

Accountability and Rotation in Leadership

The first thing to recognize is when accountability to the ecclesia is no longer in view. We are all accountable to one another. No appointed position in the ecclesia is outside of these checks and balances. A recording brother is not at liberty to communicate ecclesial positions when they have not been previously agreed to by the ecclesia. Most ecclesias have constitutions that deal with this. If we don’t see everyone as accountable to the ecclesia, we are walking in dangerous territory.

Sometimes, well-intentioned brothers and sisters can “gobble up” ecclesial responsibilities. This situation can happen for many reasons. Sometimes, it happens (and should never happen) because the ecclesial members are unwilling to do some necessary work in the meeting. Neglected work can cripple an ecclesia, and dedicated elders would sooner do the work themselves than permit the need to go untended.

Of course, there is another side to this. Leaders in the ecclesia may feel that there’s no one qualified or dependable to delegate work to. When this happens, one or two people dominate almost every important ecclesial committee. They are on the arranging board, they lead the program committee, they head up the preaching committee, etc. Nothing much can happen in the ecclesia without their control. I believe that this is insidious. No one thinks they are dominating; if they are, there is a good reason for it. Sadly, as time passes, it is possible that even when there are qualified members to do the work, they will feel unwanted. 

Most ecclesias have either annual or biannual elections for serving positions. It is a promising idea for servants to rotate on and off most positions, assuming the ecclesia is large enough. In a prior ecclesia in the 1980s, the ecclesia decided to limit the recording brother’s term to a maximum of six consecutive years (three elections). After this, the individual could serve in other capacities but not as a recording brother for at least the next election term.

I was uncertain of the wisdom of this when it first occurred. But I found it extremely useful in our ecclesia. It is a very impactful way of reminding us that we are servants. I am sure you have heard ecclesias referred to as “So and So’s Ecclesia” because of the longstanding position a recorder may have. This statement may be a tip-off to us that the humble spirit of brethren serving together may have been unwittingly sacrificed. 

At times, there can be positions taken by “ecclesias” where the members know nothing about the matter or have never agreed to it. Positions taken are to be ecclesial positions, not positions by the few. When these occur, the ecclesia needs to take note and hold these leaders accountable to the authority of the ecclesia.

Further, some brothers and sisters are easily hurt, finding it hard to “turn the other cheek” to their critics. As was noted above, they can be ardent “letter writers” across the community, urging the taking of sides. When personal letters are written and circulated, they may be mistakenly identified as reflective of their ecclesia’s thinking. Such letters rarely edify, but if written, they need to be identified as being from the brother or sister only and not the ecclesia to which they belong. 

Emphasis on Humility

We should not seek out recognition and power. As Peter said, we should do the work willingly, not by grumbling. If you find yourself feeling this way, take note. The ecclesia is at risk, and so are you. Insist that appointed committees make decisions, or even the entire ecclesia. Follow proper delegation techniques. Support the worker when work is accepted, but don’t abdicate responsibility. Like any good leader, you must ensure that when work is received, the individual has all the support and training necessary. But check in regularly to make sure the work is progressing. Change your identity from being an irreplaceable individual contributor to a committed mentor, especially of younger brothers and sisters.

You can step away for a while. When the ecclesial elections occur, don’t accept the nomination for a leadership position. You will find countless other ways to serve in the ecclesia. If, by God’s grace, you wish to return to that job later, be careful to take it on with a renewed commitment to not accepting the power or control you may have had previously.

But what if you find yourself in a small ecclesia with few leadership options? There may not be an alternative to your serving. If so, it is incumbent on you to ensure that all decisions are openly discussed with the ecclesial members, attempting to engage as many of them as possible (when it is sensible) in any decisions the ecclesia makes. Promote having the ecclesia engage in an open Biblical discussion about the principles governing the decisions to be made. Let the authority come from the Scriptures themselves.

If you cannot fully back away from leadership responsibilities, here are some ideas for spreading responsibility and ownership to others.

Delegate parts of a job to others (e.g., Moses and the princes of the tribes, the appointment of the seven for the needs of the widows in Acts 6).

Mentor younger members to take on progressively more responsibilities over time.

Be as transparent as possible, sharing information and context as appropriate.

Seek the advice of those with more expertise than you, for instance, carpentry, purchasing, insurance review, or preaching.

Obey Them That Have Rule Over You

Hebrews 13:17 has occasionally been taken out of context over the years, suggesting that ecclesial members should “obey” and “submit” to the leaders of the ecclesia. The Apostle Peter was clear that there was to be no “lording” over the ecclesial members. He wrote,

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. (1 Peter 5:2-3 ESV).

As Bro. Alfred Nicholls pointed out in “Take a Marginal Note” in The Christadelphian Magazine in 1994, the KJV margin note tells us that the phrase is not “rule over you,” but “guide you;” the Greek word is also the word for “lead.” He added this.

Such a responsibility devolves upon the twentieth-century brethren no less than upon those of the first century, though they have been elected rather than “ordained.” Moreover, they too must carry out their duties “as they that must give account.” How important is it, then, that we offer such brethren our full cooperation that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for us.

Hebrews 13:17 reminds elders of the gravity of their role as overseers. They must give an account of the Shepherd’s sheep. To the full ecclesia, it instructs us about cooperation and submission. As Paul wrote, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Philippians 2:3). This is a critical touchstone for all members of Christ’s body.

What We Came Out Of

Robert Roberts was keenly aware of how different the Christadelphian world was from the churches we came from. Only a few dominated those churches. Their leaders were held in esteem and often compensated by the parishioners. There was an acknowledgment of the power and control of the church leaders, often with disastrous consequences. 

Someone once pointed out that no one ever washes their rental car. I have rented hundreds of times but never cleaned the car or checked the oil. Why? Because I don’t own it. If the vehicle is dirty, the rental car company will wash it for the next person. People may feel this in other churches, where a few elders dominate. There is no ownership. There is little accountability. The church is “theirs,” and we just attend it. If the church needs repair (like the rental car), we will let the real owners take care of it.

The remarkable beauty of the truth is that as a single, interdependent body, we are all necessary. We are all “owners.” The body of Christ in Corinth was filled with a diversity of spirits. Some were more notable, others less so. However, in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul continues to argue that all these diverse gifts in the body were temporary. The three behaviors that would endure were faith, hope, and love. We need to focus on these, not power and control. The greatest of these is love. That is Christ’s mind, which we all must aspire to.

Our Lord “took upon him the form of a servant.” (Philippians 2:7). He “humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (v. 8). Today, he has all power and authority in heaven and earth, God has highly exalted him. By God’s grace, our time for authority and power is yet to come when our Lord makes us “unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:10).

Until the Chief Shepherd appears, we must all serve each other humbly, taking on the form of a servant. It is then that he will exalt us, by his grace, to “receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Peter 5:4).

Dave Jennings