Sats Solanki

In Pentecostal circles, the concept of spiritual covering is well established. The idea goes like this. God has established authority and it comes with a set chain of command. Submit to the chain of command (the leader God has put above you) and God’s blessing will flow.

Congregations are expected to submit to the pastor on the basis of authority. Wives are expected to submit to husbands on the basis of authority. Mid-level leaders submit to higher level leaders. Senior pastors submit to apostolic leaders. And so on.

The premise is that by submitting to a leader, you are submitting to God-ordained authority and therefore God himself. To be unsubmitted is dangerous and sinful. Questions like, ‘who are they under?’ surface to ascertain the chain of command.

Are we just ignoring chunks of the Bible?

Scriptures on submission are well documented and it is not my goal to avoid these. What I challenge in this article is how we apply said scriptures. We’ll look at some of the blind spots in interpretation as well as common sense application. My problem with spiritual covering as described is that it can create a culture without true accountability or healthy challenge. Sadly, it can also facilitate spiritual abuse. Of course it’s important to say that not all churches that teach on spiritual covering find themselves in the extremes. But that doesn’t make it good theology.

Let’s start by examining an important tool we ought to employ when reading the Bible: tension. Whenever we find one idea, we often find what might be perceived as the very opposite of that idea. It is in holding both ideas in tension that we arrive at the truth. Whenever we hold to one side too strongly (and therefore the other too weakly), we error.

This tension is evident in the teachings of Jesus himself. For example, Jesus instructs his disciples to be peacemakers (Matthew 5). He also promises to leave us with peace (John 16). And yet he also explains that he has come not to bring peace but division (Luke 12). Does this make us question the validity of scripture? Is Jesus confused? No, he simply expects his listeners to be able to intelligently hold two seemingly opposite ideas in tension.

We could go on and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of examples could be shared. The point is this. You cannot just take one scripture in isolation without allowing it to sit in the context of the original culture and language and the rest of scripture. In other words, scripture must interpret scripture.

Context matters when it comes to submission

So let’s turn to submission. Whilst we clearly get instructions for believers to submit to leaders (interestingly enough it’s plural not singular), we also get instructions for believers to submit to one another. Leaders are also challenged not to use their power to dominate but to serve. Similarly with marriage, wives are instructed to submit to their husbands but husbands are also instructed to lay down their lives for their wives, in the same way that Jesus did for us. If you take one in isolation, you end up in error. If you hold both in tension, you end up with the truth.

The idea of being under a leader fits well with one take of scripture. But without the necessary nuance and tension, we arrive at something very different from what the New Testament describes. Submitting to leaders does not mean blind compliance. It also does not mean you are not allowed to challenge or correct your leaders. This isn’t sinful. It’s healthy and the best leaders will welcome such behaviour.

This is exactly why James explains that teachers will be judged with greater strictness (James 3). And why Paul instructs Timothy to listen to witnesses that raise complaints about sinful leaders (1 Timothy 5). None of this can be possible if we believe that the leader God has placed above us cannot be questioned. But that’s exactly what the concept of spiritual covering leads to.

The blessing of Christ is enough

By teaching that blessing is attached to alignment (and therefore submission) of a leader above you, we create a culture that is reluctant to challenge or disagree. Because who wants to challenge the one from whom blessing flows? Paul writes in Ephesians 1 that every spiritual blessing is ours in Christ Jesus. It’s already received and there’s nothing we can do to add to it. The concept of spiritual covering tries to add to the finished work of Christ and instead leads us back to the fear of man.

There are two final points we should mention. Firstly, that despite my rejection of the concept of spiritual covering as it pertains to submitting to a single leader, the concepts of submission and authority itself are still worthy of exploration. I believe a biblical view of submission is not about hierarchy but instead about community. There is a huge benefit in rubbing shoulders with others and laying down our lives for the good of others. This sort of submission (which still retains a sense of self and agency) is hugely productive and creates healthy human beings. The issue is that we have twisted submission to be about hierarchy and therefore exempted certain members of the community from embracing it.

Spiritual covering doesn’t actually work

Secondly, the concept of spiritual covering breaks down in real life. Consider the proposed chain of command. Church member submits to group leader. Group leader submits to assistant pastor (let’s keep it short for the purposes of example). Assistant pastor submits to senior pastor. So who does the senior pastor submit to? There are only two real options. One is that they don’t submit to anyone but directly to God. This seems awfully convenient. Who gets to decide that and why does the importance of submission suddenly disappear here? This creates a separate class of clergy which goes against the biblical description of the saints as a kingdom of priests. Jesus has become our high priest and intermediary, having given his life once and for all as a sacrifice. The New Testament makes clear that each believer can now commune directly with God and is covered directly by the blood of Jesus. Why should the leader of a church have this privilege and an average saint not? This holds no logical consistency as an argument.

The other option is that the person at the top of the organisation is in some way submitting to other church leaders. We might think of this as a council of church leaders who mutually submit to one another. All well and good. But consider how this completely removes the concept of spiritual covering (as it pertains to hierarchy). In other words, if a senior leader is suitably covered spiritually through community, why wouldn’t that be sufficient for any Christian? What if we simply brought this way of thinking down to the ‘lower’ echelons of the church?

A vision for a New Testament church

Imagine a community with members who willingly submit to one another. With gifted members who are called out to lead in various ways but who understand they are still part of the body and equal in hierarchy with all other members. Hilariously, this is actually the model for the New Testament church. This is what we read about in Acts and described throughout the letters of Paul and so on. We have no need for additional teaching on hierarchical spiritual covering because the New Testament itself doesn’t teach this idea. Proponents of spiritual covering undermine the very conviction they claim to profess.

Finally let me share the common sense reality of a chain of command that possesses no corrective qualities of accountability and challenge. It will inevitably corrupt because sin is in the heart of every man (my own included). I believe our church is healthy and becoming more and more like what Jesus described. But my confidence in that reality is not based on my own goodness or ability to lead, but the leadership of Jesus himself at work in us as a team. When one person is in charge, things will always go wrong. Power will corrupt and abuse will ensue.

I realise this statement is shocking and I am not saying that all proponents of hierarchical spiritual covering are sinful. But simply examine history itself. I can promise you that the best leaders (including the ones you know today) that avoid corruption, do so by inviting challenge and correction from those around them. A culture of hierarchy produces exactly the opposite.

We don’t have a pastoral succession crisis. We have a leadership structure problem.

Let me explain.

There are all sorts of stats bounding around about how pastors are getting older. And as they’re coming up to retirement age, there aren’t enough emerging leaders to replace them. This is all true.

The average age of a pastor is 56 in 2020 (44 in 1992) and 2 in 3 pastors can’t find anyone to mentor into ministry. Added to that, 42% of pastors considered quitting in 2022. (US specific stats. Read more here.)

Succession and transition is becoming a hot topic in leadership circles. Podcasts and articles dig deep into how to do a successful leadership transition. All well and valid.

But I wonder if we are missing something way more basic. Firstly, an honest understanding of why younger leaders may not want to take on a senior leadership role of a church. And secondly, how the structure itself sets itself up to fail. The two are linked.

Why don’t the next generation want to lead churches?

Younger leaders look at the older generation and think to themselves, no thanks. And despite the malignment of the next generation, perhaps they’re simply smart enough to realise that it’s not a great deal. Why take a low to medium salary to take on the pressures of running a church and pastoral ministry? Why put your family under so much pressure and public spotlight? Why work so hard to build the church for so little gain? Why spend so much time crafting a message when you know your congregation is receiving 100 different perspectives from YouTube, TikTok and Instagram during the week.

When we’ve seen so many examples of prominent leaders succumb to financial or sexual temptation and their world come crashing around them, is it any wonder that the next generation are reluctant to step up?

The “snowflake” generation

At which point the older generation may be tempted to talk about the cost of the gospel, the importance of sacrificing your life for Jesus and how this is the real mark of a true believer.

I understand the heart behind such an encouragement but I think it wildly misses the mark theologically for various reasons. Firstly, the church is only one aspect of God’s wider plan to fill and renew creation. God’s plan has always been for human beings to fill the earth, not just fill the church. When we limit (or overemphasise) the purpose of believers to be only about the organisation and gathering of the church, we do the gospel a great disservice.

Secondly, whilst there is a real cost in pioneering and starting something, isn’t the point of pioneering it so that the next generation can stand upon your shoulders? That is of course if we have truly pioneered something successfully. I think the reality is that many pioneering ministries have successfully started something but ultimately failed to sustain it. If it dies when the leader moves on, this reveals a great deal of weakness in the structure.

Which leads me to my articulation of a better way. Thankfully you’ll find it in the scripture too. And that is to move away from a single senior leader and instead lead churches in plurality as a team of pastors. So much could be said about the biblical case for plurality (you might like my podcast episode on leading as a team here) but church leaders (pastors/elders/overseers) are always described in plurality throughout Acts. Jesus himself leaves behind 12 apostles (not just one) and Paul instructs Titus to establish elders in each city in Crete. The original Greek makes it clear that this is a team of elders in each city, not one elder per city.

The deficit of younger leaders is a sign not a crisis

The astute reader will see that a team of pastors immediately solves the problem around succession. As the church evolves and grows, the team that leads it will also evolve. When the typical visionary leader ends their season, it has little effect on the church because it is already used to functioning with multiple leaders. Plurality allows for a natural environment for younger leaders to be empowered and share the burden of leadership without overwhelm. It also tackles the overemphasis of a single leader which actually creates less pressure and makes leadership more enjoyable and sustainable all round.

As a typical visionary leader who has moved into leading as a team of 5 over the last 5-6 years, I have seen the benefits of plurality of leadership. Although I’m nowhere near retirement age, I can already see that succession will not be a problem we have to deal with.

The pastoral succession crisis is a sign for us to re-evaluate the way we do leadership. We must hold up our traditions around structure and culture against the Bible. I see a great opportunity for younger leaders to spearhead a different way to lead.

Did you enjoy this? Share this article with a friend.

Over the last decades there has been a drive to raise up new leaders and fuel growth in the church. This of course is a good thing. It’s good to be creating systems, it’s good to be empowering others and it’s good to be expanding our capacity.

As churches grow in leadership, they start to notice that many other metrics start to grow. Finance goes up as people get ownership and start giving. Increased energy and serving makes the church a great place to be.

But what happens when the drive to raise up leaders becomes insatiable? What happens when a church becomes obsessed with leadership and growth. This is what I call the Leadership Factory model.

We move from names to numbers and from loving people to performative ministry.

Now it’s not like anyone goes into ministry with this goal (I hope). But left unchecked, the idea that growth is always good can run into dangerous territory. Ironically cultures that are too focused on activating others in the church end up destroying the very thing they seek to build – people.

Some loose definitions for us to start:

Leadership. A great quality for human beings which looks like serving others, setting a good example, carrying responsibility, casting vision and so on.

The Leadership Factory. A popular model for church planting and church growth often seen in fast-growing or large churches that make their entire personality the building and implementation of pipelines and systems that manufacture leaders.

This topic is close to heart because 5 years ago the church I was a part of (and leading a location of) imploded for a variety of not good reasons. I’d been a part of this church for 13 years and had been fully immersed in a way of thinking about leadership that very much fit this factory model.

It’s important for me to say that this church had actually produced a lot of good, in me and in many others around me. I’d been given opportunities to grow and develop as a leader that I’m very grateful for.

But in my quest to understand what went wrong, I began to see that despite all of the positives that come from an emphasis on leadership, there were also some huge glaring negatives. This was not just in one particular person but in a whole culture and way of doing church.

You see, I was one of the lucky ones. I survived. I made it through. But many didn’t. Some lost their faith entirely. Some kept loving Jesus but suffered such hurt in the church that they’re still not back. Others burnt out, lost marriages and plenty more. It is my conviction that the leadership factory model will inevitably always damage people. And even in churches where there is not yet an obvious scandal or drama, there is often a story behind the scenes that no one is yet brave enough to tell.

Why no one notices what’s happening

Whenever there is a conference or event and there is a speaker (usually from a fast-growing or large church), they are all too often quick to point at the numbers of success. And of course numbers do represent something. As a church leader, naturally I want our church to grow and increase in kingdom impact. I have nothing against large churches in principle.

The problem is that the numbers only tell part of the story. Churches that are fast-growing are of course adding many members. But it’s also possible to grow very fast whilst experiencing high levels of attrition (people leaving the church). This is the reality in many churches but it’s not often talked about. Even when the numbers appear healthy, there may be something wrong in the culture that is being masked.

Looking back at my time at my old church, I can see that we always struggled with attrition. But because we were putting so much energy into growing the church, we didn’t notice what was happening. But one by one, people saw the issues in the culture and gradually faded away or dropped off.

At the time this was explained away by the senior leadership by simply badmouthing the people who left. They weren’t cut out for ministry. They had a critical spirit. They were struggling with sin. They’ve compromised etc.

Now I realise that many of these people just saw something I didn’t see at the time. And when their voice wasn’t heard, they quietly left. Some were less quiet of course and ultimately it was the chorus of wronged voices that could no longer be silenced that brought an end to it all.

I was at a recent event where the speaker was explaining their model for church growth and leadership development. And it was an exact match for this culture I’ve described as the Leadership Factory model. I also knew (because I’m nosy) that this church had suffered a huge drama a number of years ago and half the congregation left. And yet this was not even mentioned as a learning point. It was just back to business as usual. It would be wise for us to pay attention to the signs and correct course.

In my reflections as to what happened in our own context, I began to realise that this same model has been implemented in many many churches and very frequently there are huge problems.

So why am I writing this?

I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with this model and yet it is largely heralded as a success story. Church planters are taught it. Megachurches often embrace it. Smaller churches may also be tempted to lean into it. But I know what’s on the other side because I’ve experienced the fruit of it for myself. And in the last years as we have replanted as Reflect Church, we have been grateful for the opportunity to repent and move into a different direction.

Leadership is good and so are systems

Let me be clear and say that the problem isn’t leadership or leaders. And the problem isn’t having systems that produce leaders (or systems at all). The problem isn’t large churches either. The problem is a tunnel vision around what the church should be doing. If producing leaders becomes too much of a focus, it creates an unhealthy culture that damages people and often provides cover for spiritual abuse.

So what does this look like? Let’s break down some of the characteristics and experiences of churches that embrace the Leadership Factory model.

1. An overemphasis of leaders and leadership

Here’s how the spiel goes.

1. The first person you’re supposed to lead is yourself.
2. You’re supposed to lead others.
3. Leading others looks like taking on responsibility within the church and populating the church discipleship (leadership) pipeline.
4. This is the definition of being a good follower of Jesus.

There’s a huge amount wrong with this as we move past step 2. Not because taking ownership of your life is bad but because of the confusion around where your place of impact should be. Clearly not all of us are called to be leaders in the church. If everyone leads in the church, then who is going to lead out there in the world? We’re called to fill the earth (not just fill the church) and that looks like influence in society.

When all of our energy goes internally into the church, there’s little left for anywhere else.

Interestingly enough, this process may have worked fantastically for people like me who were actually called to lead a church. This gives us a blind spot as to how it doesn’t serve others. The narrow (thus incorrect) definition of discipleship and leadership means that people start to feel undervalued in the rest of their daily lives such as their place of work, family and so on. This is often in contrast with the huge celebration that comes when they are present to lead in the church. This creates a lopsided world that neglects many other things that are clearly important to God.

2. A self-serving culture that protects the system

As a leader, you are taught the culture of the house. You are taught to celebrate and appreciate the house and the leadership itself. This normally comes back to a single visionary leader or a couple who you are supposed to honour and obey. To disagree, question or challenge the leadership is gently (or sometimes strongly) implied to be sinful or critical.

If you’re told by those with spiritual authority that being a good follower of Jesus looks like doing whatever your leaders ask you to do then of course you’re going to want to do that. You follow the systems in place. You encourage others to step into leadership. You give your money, time and energy. You go above and beyond. And so it keeps growing. And this growth is taken as a sign that you’re in the right place and God is blessing it all.

(If you’re interested in finding out more about what the Bible actually says about giving today then you might like this article).

To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t give any of those things to God and to the church. I’m simply saying that when we tell everyone that this is the only way then we are demonstrably pursuing self-interest. Our interest as leaders in the church growing (perhaps driven by our own insecurities) is at the expense of the fullness of Christ being expressed in the lives of our people.

This system of hyper honour ends up protecting itself. If it can never be challenged or questioned then something can be deeply wrong and no one will know until it’s too late. And that’s what exactly happened for us in 2020.

(For more reflections about honour culture, you might like this blog post on the problem with honour culture)

3. A two-tier system for believers

The overemphasis of leadership forces believers in the church to choose which camp they will be in. The people who are all in and leading, or those who are not cut out for leadership. In my 20s I had a lot more mobility and free time which meant I was able to give significant energy to the church. We were often celebrated publicly and used as examples of emerging leaders. But as we had kids and our life season changed, it became increasingly difficult and started to create tension for our family.

Faced with this very real pressure, many believers naturally ease off on their commitments to the church so that they can instead focus on the increase of work responsibility or raise their children. But when your spiritual leaders overemphasise leadership in the church, it’s very hard to not feel like you’re second rate or doing a bad job. Others are being promoted and celebrated, and you’re being ignored or even reprimanded.

Interestingly enough the Leadership Factory model actually celebrates and even names this false duality of Christendom. Concepts like ‘The Premier League’ or ‘The 20%’ are lauded by leaders and used to manipulate people into doing more. Whilst this upper tier of mobile believers are empowered and celebrated, many who don’t feel hurt and ostracised. And for everyone over the years who may have felt like that, I want to say sorry.

The subtle and implied ask of the Leadership Factory is for people to sacrifice their children, their marriage, their work, their hobbies and their joy on the altar of a particular brand of church. We might argue that it’s never explicitly said like this. But it is very often implied in a myriad ways and received as such by those who attend such churches.

4. An unhealthy desire for position

When leadership is celebrated as the gold standard, position becomes paramount. It’s common that those higher up the chain get access to all sorts of perks such as green rooms, opportunities to speak or travel and other luxuries.

This is seen not as a quirk in the system but a feature and reward for a good leader. The greater the burden of leading, the greater the need for celebration. Even within the whole team of leadership, there are often different levels of power and prestige. This is designed to motivate others to keep sacrificing and giving.

This plays on the insecurities of many young leaders with a desire to be noticed, to be special or to simply to belong. And in an environment where many have overcommitted to the church (and are therefore not earning a lot financially), these perks and incentives become even more manipulative.

If you’re thinking this sounds like a pyramid scheme then you’re probably not too far off.

So what’s the alternative for how we approach church? Here are some things to consider.

1. Names not numbers.

It’s good to keep track of basic stats but it’s even better to know names. The reality is that when the church grows too fast, you can’t actually love people well. The church is ultimately not a factory system but a series of relationships. And it takes time to build relationships. Going slower will mean you grow slower but more people will come with you on the journey.

2. Redefining success.

Is the goal to be a big church? Or for everyone to know our name? Or is the goal to love others and teach people to be like Jesus. Growth is a good thing when it comes naturally. But when we manufacture it, we end up striving. This striving is the very thing that puts immense pressure on us as leaders and robs us of rest.

3. Proper use of power.

Leadership is a form of power and we would be wise to pay attention to it. We should use our power not to increase our own platform but to truly serve others. Serving can have mixed motives and just like the person who feeds the homeless for likes on Instagram, we should be wary of our own sinful desire to be seen and honoured.

For more about understanding power dynamics as a leader, you might like to read this article.

4. Celebration of true kingdom diversity.

Everyone is in a different life season. Everyone has different gifts. Everyone has a different experience of life. Pipelines and programmes have their place in the church but we must be careful to build them in ways that don’t become restrictive or exclusive. Let’s celebrate those called to the workplace. And those called to the family. The church is not just the gathering, it’s also in the scattering.

Conclusion

There is a place for strong leadership giftings and systems that help the church grow. But let’s not forget that Jesus has promised that he himself will be the one to build his church. Paul refers to all sorts of mighty strategy (including supernatural power) in 1 Corinthians 13 but then reminds us that without love, it’s all for nothing.

I’ll leave you with the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Like many church leaders in my sort of environment, I kind of fell into it. I never sought to be a pastor. I never had any desire to preach or minister in those ways. Some people have those sort of dreams but not me. I really didn’t care lol. I have no need to be visible and whilst I give off extrovert energy because I have to, most of the time I let my introvert self be happy.

So how did I end up leading a church? I think mostly because I just happened to be in an environment that was slightly too interested in turning everyone into a leader.

Now I do believe that I can see God’s hand on my life, guiding me into the various expressions of leadership that I find myself in. I do feel called and gifted to lead. And in this immersive journey of leadership, I learnt many things and grew in many ways.

But one of the things no one ever told me about was how to handle power.

It took me a long time to even realise that being a leader actually brings with it a level of power. And that power needs to be wielded correctly.

I was just me. And I still am. I just happened to have a leadership role in my early 20s. Whether it was leading a department, a team or assisting in pastoring or eventually leading a church. I just assumed that nothing had changed. But in fact a lot of things had changed. I had authority (real or assumed) and people began to treat me differently as a result.

One of the problems with power is that we don’t really talk about it. Which means we are rarely thinking about whether a culture is set up to create a healthy or unhealthy power dynamic. I want to examine some ways in which our theology around leadership can actually create a bad power dynamic and what we can do to correct course.

Our obsession with honour

I wrote a whole article about the problem with honour culture. The problem is not honour of course – honour is a good thing. It’s good to honour people. The Bible frequently celebrates and encourages honour amongst all people. Whether that is instructions for children to listen to their parents, or for believers to adhere to societal laws or for church members to respect and listen to leaders – honour is good.

But you can have too much of a good thing. Too much honour can actually move into blind subservience and even idolatry. Let’s put it this way. If your parents want you to help them rob a bank, should you do it because you’re supposed to obey them?

Obviously not. So common sense shows us that honour has limits. When honour becomes limitless, we end up with a situation where a leader has too much power and cannot be questioned. In almost all cases of abuse (spiritual, sexual etc) in the church, this is the core issue that enables the abuser to do so as well as the cover up that inevitably follows. Not good stuff and unfortunately I’ve seen this in real life.

So how do we end up with the culture that creates unlimited honour? It’s produced by a theology around the authority of the visionary leader. I want to mention at this point that on every count, I myself embody the stereotypical qualities of a visionary leader. We need leaders and we need vision and everything I’m saying is not about attacking your strength but understanding it.

The simple fact is, when there is ultimately one person in charge with total authority for decision making then we end up giving too much power to that person. Human beings are just not designed to be able to carry that much power. Every time throughout the Bible (and the rest of human history), when we see someone with too much power, it goes horribly wrong.

So what’s the alternative? Here are three things we’ve been working on implementing in our church culture that I think create a healthy power dynamic.

1. Team based leadership.

Acts 2 tells us that they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching. That’s plural friends. It wasn’t a devotion to Peter’s teaching or John’s teaching but to the general teaching of the apostles. Now we do see moments where one person leads but never with total authority on final decision making. For example in Acts 1, as the church is gathered in prayer in waiting for the Holy Spirit, Peter steps up and suggests that they should replace Judas with someone else as a 12th apostle. But then they draw lots to decide who it should be. Peter does not select the person.

We definitely see point leader material in Peter as he steps up in the next chapter to preach full of the Holy Spirit and 3000 people get saved. But does he remain the key decision maker for the rest of Acts? The Catholic church may tell us that he was the first pope but they’re inserting something into the narrative because the scriptures show plenty of others involved in leadership.

One such example is in Acts 15 where there are key decisions being made around how the law should be applied for Gentiles. Here’s the full passage from Acts 15:1-29.

1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

The key takeaways:

• The apostles and elders met together to discuss the decision.
• Peter speaks.
• Barnabas and Paul speak.
• James speaks and makes a judgement.
• The apostles and elders make a joint decision
• They write a letter from them all that refers to their joint authority.

In our context at Reflect Church, I take the lead in regards to vision, preaching etc and fit the classic point leader model. At least that’s what it looks like perhaps from the outside. But internally, we actually work within a team of 5 when it comes to high-level strategic decision making. There are times where I have wanted to make a major decision (like lease a building or start another service) but not everyone agreed so we didn’t do it. I could probably have pushed or overridden the others but every time it turned out to be wise to listen to the group.

Team based leadership strengthens our decision making. It doesn’t remove the unique calling and function of each leader but simply balances out our weaknesses with the strengths of others. It’s something we see in the scripture and in my opinion is the best case scenario for leadership.

Note: Often there is a couple who is in leadership together. This is one type of team based leadership but it has weaknesses as often the wife will be too deferential to the husband’s judgement because of a limited understanding of headship and submission. More on that in a future article.

I think there is also a case for a single point leader where a church is very small or there simply isn’t another person capable. But the best case scenario remains team based. Jesus didn’t raise up Peter as his successor. He raised up 12 leaders.

2. Space for challenge and criticism

Are we allowed to challenge those who are in charge? Are we allowed to criticise or question? If the answer is no, then there is an unhealthy power dynamic at work.

Now of course we can go too far the other way where everyone has an opinion and the church is full of complaining, miserable Christians. I remember once finishing a service after working hard preaching. I turned around to greet someone who I recognised as visiting for the first time and the first words out of their mouth were to tell me the music was too loud. How about hello or something a bit more cheerful lol. Criticism is only appropriate within the context of relationship and the more we know people, the more space they should have to speak their mind.

But sadly many believers have been taught that questioning or challenging in any way is evidence of either unbelief or having a critical spirit. When in fact, just the opposite may be true. We care enough to speak out about something that isn’t quite right. We raise a safeguarding issue because there’s something wrong (although I’m grateful I’ve never had to do this). We challenge a thought because it doesn’t sit right with our understanding of scripture. The goal of our challenge is to come to agreement and understanding. I’ve found these conversations very helpful over the years.

Sadly the response to challenge is often to shut it down or even to discredit the challenger.

Here’s a scriptural example from Galatians 2 where Paul actually challenges Peter on his behaviour. Peter fell to the cultural pressures of other Jews in the church to eat separately from the Gentiles, something he knew himself wasn’t right. Not only does Paul address Peter (notably in front of the others) but he also writes a letter about it to a church, using it as an example. The equivalent today is writing a blog post or dropping an article and including the names of those involved. Paul is a beast lol.

Paul expands further in 1 Timothy 5:19-21 to explain how church leaders can be challenged.

19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. 21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.

He instructs Timothy not to just accept any old accusation that gets thrown around against a leader. But if there are a multitude of witnesses then there is cause for action and that action could even become public.

The summary is that we should honour and respect the position of leaders. But only to a certain extent. Power must be balanced with the possibility to challenge. That’s not to say that church members should be difficult and constantly acting out against leadership. But there should always be space to be heard.

I implement this practically by using team-based decision making. And also in preaching by being clear when something is the word of God and when something is my opinion. This is something we see Paul do frequently when writing in the New Testament. I regularly encourage the congregation to pray over what I’m sharing and discern for themselves whether it is from the word of God.

This takes nothing away from my authority or conviction when preaching but it does encourage people to think for themselves and in particular test any prophetic elements. When they move on to a different church in the future, they will have the capacity to discern truth for themselves and will not be easily deceived. It also makes sure that people don’t just do things because I told them to. This actually protects you in the long run as a leader.

Note: what about not touching the Lord’s anointed?

If you want to take a story about how David chose not to kill King Saul and turn into a theology about how leaders can never be challenged then I’m not sure there’s much hope for you. This false equivalence between killing someone and challenging their thoughts/actions seems a ridiculous leap into truly terrible theology. I’ve been there and I’ve seen the fruit of it.

3. The active dismantling of power

Philippians 2 tells us how Jesus did not use his power to establish his own status but instead to lay it down in service of others. And ironically the end result is that he becomes exalted. I’ve noticed in my own leadership journey that the more I give away my power, the more people actually respect what I have to say.

In other words, honour is something that is actually earned as well as given. By being deliberate about laying down my power and authority, my example produces the fruit in the church that actually enables me to lead strongly.

I reject the idea that pastors should teach their congregations how to honour them because ultimately it is self-serving theology. Instead we should teach them how to honour by modelling what it means by laying down our lives for the sheep. At every opportunity, we should serve not be served. This is hard as a leader because people will naturally honour us so it requires deliberate and conscious action.

I’ll leave with this final scripture in Matthew 23:5-12 in which Jesus refers to the religious establishment of the time. I think the similarities are painfully clear to much of church culture we see today in the west.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

I’m not sure I’ve worked out this balance yet. At the very least, we’re doing it pretty imperfectly. But I say less green rooms, less titles and less favouritism. When leaders start to lay down their power to serve their people, perhaps the church will become holy again. And just maybe that’s what is required to see a move of God.