Some Pauline Thoughts on Leadership

Since Brandon recently posted about some of Jesus' thoughts on leadership I thought I would offer up some of Paul's thoughts on leadership.

This is from the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters from the "Church Order and Government" article:

Differences between Modern and Ancient Mentalities. For modern people questions of order and government are often of primary interest. Organization and leadership are central concerns in any democratic and bureaucratic-rational society. This is also the case in church life, which is more democratized and bureaucratic than in previous times. In our social and religious arrangements we prize order: it is not only a preoccupation but a virtue, not only a means but an end. We are also fascinated by the issue of leadership, with chains of command, lines of authority and so forth. As a result we are in constant danger of reading the priority we accord these matters in to Paul's ideas about the church. He was certainly concerned that the church conduct itself in an orderly manner and that members were properly cared for and guided. But except where these were inadequate or threatened in some way, he says very little about them. For him they appear to be secondary rather than primary issues. Where more fundamental aspects of church life are given priority, church order and government should largely look after themselves.

Order as a Secondary Concern. If we begin by looking simply at the basic words Paul uses in speaking about these issues, what first strikes us is the infrequency of terms related to organization and to authority. The word order (taxis), appears infrequently in Paul (1 Cor 14:40; Col 2:5), and only once is it clearly associated with the church, coming at the close of his instructions to the Corinthians about what should happen in their meetings (1 Cor 14:13-40). This usage of order sums up a series of appeals relating to different aspects of the Corinthians' gatherings; appeals designed to prevent confusion from reigning (1 Cor 14:13-19, 22-23, 27-30, 34-35). Interestingly Paul does not use the word in connection with abuses surrounding the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34). The opposite of order is "unruliness" (akatastasia), which is associated with disharmony (1 Cor 14:33; cf. 2 Cor 12:20). Paul never suggests that it is the role of certain people in the assembly to regulate its gatherings. Unlike the Greeks, he does not use the word taxis of an office that is responsible for ensuring that order is maintained (Epictetus 1.29, 39; Jesephus Ant. 7.15 §36). This is everyone's responsibility as they share what the Spirit grants them (1 Cor 12:7-11) and discern what the Spirit is contributing through others (1 Cor 14:28, 30, 32). The church's "liturgy" is a communal construction. Order stems from a highly participatory and charismatic process that is not determined in advance by a few. Through neither purely spontaneous nor fully egalitarian, it is dynamic and mutually created. It is not constitutive of the church but functional and instrumental.

Authority as a Background Issue. The idea of authority is a key sociological category in any discussion of government. It has to do with the way power is interpreted and communicated. The word authority (exousia) appears several times in Paul's writings in a specific sense of a reward for service performed (1 Cor 9:4-6, 12, 18; 2 Thess 3:9), a right he does not take up (2 Cor 11:7-10). Only in two places does Paul use the word more broadly of his own position - never of those in leadership in local churches - and only then when his apostolic link with a church is under challenge (2 Cor 10:8; 13:10). In view of the widespread use of this term in Greek for those in positions of influence over others, Paul's reticence in using the term can only be intentional. At Corinth he certainly wishes to reestablish his unique relationship with the church as its founder (2 Cor 10-13), but he wants to disassociate himself from the authoritarian way the "false apostles" conduct themselves. He does not seek to influence the members by improper means (2 Cor 10:3), boast to them of his preeminence (2 Cor 10:12-15), dazzle the church with rhetoric (2 Cor 11:5-6), or manipulate and control his converts (2 Cor 11:16-19; cf. 2 Cor 1:24). The "authority" God has given him is for "building up" not "tearing down," and he does not wish to use it in a harsh way when he arrives. Indeed he gives the church an opportunity to correct their attitude beforehand so that there will be no conflict when he arrives. This type of authority is basically charismatic, and therefore different from that found in traditional societies or in modern organizations: it is the authority of an unusual founder figure, though one who does not normally assert his position.

Immediately following this section the author beings a new section in his article under the subheading "Metaphors and Models." He states that the main Pauline metaphor for the church is a family. Secondary metaphors that Paul uses for himself in relation to the church include a builder and farmer. Lastly (and very briefly), the author mentions the "body" metaphor.

In regards to models, Christ is the focus. Sometimes Paul refers to himself as a model but only insofar as he is himself an imitator of Christ. The author continues:

Believers are also encouraged to imitate those among their number who, like Epaphroditus, "almost died for the work of Christ" (Phil 2:28; see Imitation). Even other churches as a whole should be imitated (2 Cor 8:1-7; 1 Thess 1:7-10). Others, like Stephanas and his household who "devote themselves to the service of the saints" (1 Cor 16:15), are not so much held up to be imitated as to be recognized, or to be regarded as the one under whom the people are to "order" their own corporate life. Since the world household generally refers to slaves, this group in the church at Corinth crosses status lines (see Social Setting). Indeed Paul goes on to say that "everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it" should be so regarded (1 Cor 16:16).

So then, the list of examplars is open ended. The criteria for who can become a role model are functional, not formal. It does not depend on a person's being appointed to a position in the church. Paul's emphasis upon models rather than positions itself indicates that it is the person, not the office, that is central for him and that government of the church has more to do with a way of life that a designated post.

Paul does not treat authority, then, as something official or sacral. He views it primarily in relational and functional terms. It does not result in the formulation of a leadership elite, formally marked off from others in the church. Only Christ has this distinction and he is the ultimate criterion of who should be regarded as a fundamental role model for others. Aspiring to this is apparently open to a wide range of people, including those with lower social status, and can be embodied in a group as well as individuals.

There is a lot to analyze here. Do you agree or disagree with the author's assertions? Why?

Let the discussion begin!