Recently a comic strip character decided he would adopt as a career the work
of a shepherd. His first step in becoming a shepherd was to write unknown people
to ask them to send him a small flock. His second step was to ask these same
unknown people for instructions on how to be a shepherd. That is at the same
time both hilarious and pathetic.
Can a person choose to become a shepherd when he has never been around sheep? If
so, poor sheep! Can a person choose to become a shepherd when he has no idea
what the needs of the sheep are? If so, poor sheep! Is shepherding about the
desires of the shepherd or the needs of the sheep? If the shepherd says, “My
desires!” poor sheep!
Jesus said that he was the good shepherd who knew his flock, who was known by
voice as well as sight by his flock, and who put his life “on the line” to
protect the sheep from danger (John 10:11-18). The elders at Ephesus (Acts
20:28) were to view the Christians at Ephesus as “the flock” and to “shepherd
the church of God” as bishops or overseers. Peter, as an elder, strongly urged
his fellow elders to shepherd God’s flock with (1 Peter 5:1-5):
Most Christians in most congregations would agree that the biblical model for leadership is the shepherding style. However, the majority of Christians who agree that shepherding is the biblical style (for both those who follow and those who lead):
- Voluntary oversight that did not resort to compulsion.
- Oversight that was motivated by eagerness, not by monetary opportunity.
- Influence by example rather than by control.
- The constant awareness that they worked under the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ.
One of the frustrations of congregational leaders who wish to learn and implement a shepherding style is the followers’ opposition to a shepherding style. Often congregations do not recognize the shepherding style of leadership as a legitimate form of leading.
- Have never known a shepherd,
- Have never been around a flock,
- Do not know the characteristics of a shepherding style, and
- Do not know the distinctions between a modified “board of directors” style and a shepherding style.
The purpose of these challenges is to acknowledge that the issue of leading and following is complex, not simple. It is not as simple as taking a democratic position vote or articulating a stance.
- Are Christians to see themselves as sheep? What does that mean?
- What is the basic FOCUS of congregational leadership?
- Where is authority, who should use authority, and for what purpose (purposes) should authority be used?
- To what degree is spiritual maturity an individual pursuit, and to what degree is spiritual maturity a congregational pursuit? Where is God’s balance located?
- When is diversity a blessing, and when is diversity a curse?
- Does the worship of the individual exist? What makes “group worship” a time of worship?
- Are congregations truly autonomous? Can congregations reach differing conclusions and still be “faithful” congregations?
Void # 1
Recognizing congregational leaders is not as simple as installing men “on a
spirituality production line who are interchangeable parts” that fit in all
models of congregations. All congregations are not basically the same. There is
not a simple need for a “standard leadership” because spiritual needs are not
the same in all spiritual contexts.
In the spiritual formation of the individual, it is extremely important that the
congregational follower feel a positive bond of encouragement from the
congregational leaders. For that bond to exist, it is quite helpful if the
leader identifies with the world of the follower.
Example one: decades ago, as a church, we were primarily a rural, southern
movement. Most of our members were farmers living on family farms doing farm
chores. Today, as a church, we are primarily an urban movement. Most
congregations are located in cities and towns. Many members are involved in jobs
and occupations that did not even exist decades ago.
Urban contexts include a set of stresses that significantly differ from the
stresses that existed in rural contexts. There are significant differences
between worlds of broken checkreins on the harnesses of horses or mules and
crashed computers, between broken butter churn paddles and failed delivery
trucks, between smoked meats and refrigerated plastic shrink-wrapped packages of
meats in a display case.
Effective leaders need to be able to relate to “the real world”
frustrations of the congregation’s members. A person may be a highly effective
leader in an urban context, but an ineffective leader in a rural context, or
vice versa.
Example two: if you wish to lead in a congregation that primarily speaks
Spanish, it would be extremely helpful to be able to communicate in Spanish. If
you wish to lead a congregation principally composed of reformed but struggling
addicts, you need an understanding of the world of addiction. The same can be
said for the worlds of poverty, wealth, education, blue-collar lifestyles,
white-collar lifestyles, etc. The relevancy of leadership will be equated with
knowledge/understanding of the world of the followers.
The effectiveness of leaders in helping followers transform their lives in
Christ commonly correlates to a leader being able to relate to the life of the
follower. The spiritual formation principle used may be true whether the leader
understands the follower’s world or not, but the follower may not consider the
principle relevant. Why? The follower says, “You do not understand—that
principle does not work in my world.” Unless the leader (a) understands the
follower’s world and (b) can explain the relevance of the principle in the
follower’s world, the follower will discard the principle.
Leading involves having a positive bond with followers as well as understanding
the principles of Christ correctly. Leading is not as simple as correctly
announcing what is right, expecting compliance, and exacting consequences.
Void # 2
Judaism was quite institutional. First, the Hebrew people began their existence
as a nation upon delivery from Egyptian slavery. They were a large group of
people (an extended family without a national structure) prior to release. They
became a nation with a theocentric (God-centered) government after release.
Second, they were provided a core law that was to define their behavior and
regulate their relationship with God and each other. Third, they were instructed
to build a tabernacle that became (by David’s request) a temple. Fourth, they
had a high priest to serve as their mediator and a priesthood to perform their
spiritual functions.
Also, in many forms of idolatry, there were regulations, temples, high priests,
and priests. Idolatry, in its many forms, was also highly institutional.
Idolatrous forms were the common, main religious expressions in the
first-century world of the Roman Empire and the areas surrounding that empire.
Christianity at its inception was quite different. While it also had
regulations, its regulations stressed treatment of people as respect for God and
Jesus Christ.
In early Christianity there were no temples. Early Christians did not assemble in buildings dedicated to their God. Christians existed as an extended family. Faith in God expressed by being disciples of Jesus Christ was not separated from everyday life. The resurrected Jesus was the only mediator that existed between people and God, and the resurrected Jesus made it possible for people to have direct access to God (see 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 8:6; and Hebrews 4:14-16). The Christian disciples were Christianity’s priests (1 Peter 2:9, 10). Christian disciples were God’s temple as individuals (1 Corinthians 6:19, 20) and as a group (1 Corinthians 3:16).
- Treat people with respect. Refuse to commit adultery because of the value of the person. Be understandably honest. Be compassionate, not merely just. Love your enemies (Matthew 5:21-48).
- Treat people as you wish to be treated (Matthew 7:12).
- A person verified that God was at work as God promised by the way the person following God treated people (Matthew 11:4-6).
- Jesus’ great invitation was people-centered (Matthew 11:28-30).
- There is a horrible inconsistency when a person claims commitment to God while neglecting parents (Matthew 15:3-9).
- The kingdom of heaven is composed of people like children (Matthew 18:3-6).
- The consequences of causing people to stumble are horrible (Matthew 18:7-14).
- The willingness to forgive people should be unlimited (Matthew 18:21-35).
- Significance in God’s kingdom is determined by servitude to people (Matthew 20:25-28).
- God’s second greatest command was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:34-40).
- Jesus said the great separation in judgment would be based on the way people treated people (Matthew 25:31-46).
- The objective of the Great Commission was to make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20).
- God sent Jesus because of His love for people (John 3:16-21).
- Jesus revealed himself to a Samaritan adulteress who had been married and divorced five times (John 4:1-42).
- Discipleship is expressed in love (John 13:34, 35).
- It is impossible for Christians to honor God and curse people (James 3:8-12).
- They wished to make the character of God their character.
- They understood that people originally were created by God in His image.
- The primary way they expressed commitment to God was seen in their treatment of people.