Spiritual versus Secular

On the lack of fit between wordly hierarchies and discipleship, by Captain Rick Zelinsky

I

n the not so distant past I made a comment that caused a person to question my spirituality, and desire to be filled with the Spirit. I didn’t “desire” to have “all that the Holy Spirit had for me” because I didn’t desire or seek after the gift of tongues. I did offer, “I’m with Paul on this one, and prefer to go after wisdom and discernment.” While desire for tongues was the bottom line, the criticism focused on the fact that I’d rather have people talk to each other in the church than have them speak in tongues.

In a town where trust in the church is at a premium, and criticism of Christians runs rampant I see the latter as having greater impact on those who look at us with scepticism and criticism. I’m amazed that the same issue which caused division in the church in Corinth still does today. At the root of the conflict is not the gift of tongues, but rather an air of spirituality which separates the sacred from the secular.

Society, and church by extension, takes its cues from the Graeco-Roman world, a world built on Rank and Status. Christian leadership buys into that same context - a challenge for leadership and the church. Using “dying and rising” as the metaphor for his ideal of leadership, the apostle Paul subverts the mores of leadership in the context of his and our day. A fresh reading of Paul’s letters in this context of subversion and counter-culture provides pictures for biblical leadership based on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. It is the centrality of Christ and the table he prepares where the unworthy and undesirable are invited to celebrate His death and resurrection.

A fresh reading of Paul’s letters in this context of subversion and counter-culture provides pictures for biblical leadership based on the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. It is the centrality of Christ and the table he prepares where the unworthy and undesirable are invited to celebrate His death and resurrection.

In the Graeco-Roman world Rank was position in life that one is born into, not necessarily denoting dignity or character. Mark Strom, in Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community explains how rank is simply an extension of Plato’s philosophy, and the influence it had on the first century thought and culture, and subsequently on society and the church in our era. “Something within, without, above, below, beyond. This reduced the stuff of everyday to a place of less importance and substance in society, and it translated well into the notion of rank representing that rung on the social ladder high above the common person. The tragedy is that rank is still a prominent precursor to leadership.

Evangelicalism is its own worst enemy in propagating the myth of leadership as stoic perfection. Chris Hedges, in Harper’s Magazine, writes about the incredible influence of the Christian right in the American political agenda. Hedges writes that many Christian leaders “share an obsession with political power.” Intentional or not, Hedges article highlights a vision of leadership which operates from a position of power, strength and rank not weakness.

In another Harper’s article, Jeff Sharlet delves into the power politics of the National Association of Evanglicals, and its leader Ted Haggard, also the pastor and founder of New Life church in Colorado Springs, and the Association of Life-Giving Churches. The hallmarks of Ted Haggard’s success was the creation of the New Life Church, a Christian community in Colorado Springs to escape the secular influences of society,. Influences of Plato and Graeco-Roman thought pervade in this culture of separation of Christians from the evil influences of secular society.

Haggard says, “I want stability and, at the same time, steady, forward movement. I want the church to help me live life well, not exhaust me with endless worthwhile projects”[1] , projects such as soup kitchens according to the interviewer. Haggard describes pastors as capitalists marketing a new brand of Christianity. “He believes it is time to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry. Once a pastor does that, his flock can start organizing itself according to each member’s abilities and tastes.”[2] Church leadership, in the eyes of “leaders” such as Ted Haggard, is separated from the stuff of everyday. Their megachurches project a persona of success, as the world defines it. Leadership is seen as a level that one rises to, and leaders promote upward mobility based on power and influence. These are sacred pursuits versus less honourable pursuits of feeding the hungry.

Their megachurches project a persona of success, as the world defines it. Leadership is seen as a level that one rises to, and leaders promote upward mobility based on power and influence. These are sacred pursuits versus less honourable pursuits of feeding the hungry.

In this thinking, getting together on a Sunday for a barbeque instead of a ‘church service’ is not seen as spiritual. It flows from this type of thinking that worship is that sacred thing we do in the pews of a church at 11:00am on a Sunday morning. It includes music, singing, preaching and maybe some sharing. It doesn’t include kicking a soccer ball around with a group of kids or biking down a mountain, or just hanging out for a coffee at Tim’s. Max De Pree, former chairman of Herman Miller Inc. and leadership author, paints a radically different picture of leadership for us. He characterizes the measurement of organizations, communities, and families as “good ground” for relationships. [3] In contrast to the capitalist model of Haggard-like leaders, who pervade the evangelical landscape, De Pree pictures leadership as placing value, measuring inputs and outputs of relational significance, measurements which foster relationship and potential in people versus the bottom line. It is this model for leadership that we will see in the counter-cultural call of the apostle Paul to the church.

I remember training college and the jockeying that occurs among cadets when there was a visitor of importance. Everyone would preen feathers like a peacock to be noticed. I also remember talking with a friend and mentor telling him, “My money is on the long stretch. When you become General don’t forget me.” He laughed, but the truth seemed to be if you played your cards just right and carried yourself appropriately, you could go places. This was perfectly in line with the Graeco – Roman thinking of rank and leadership. “Know your place, nothing to excess, pick your time, and cost to commitment.”[4]

“We should cultivate an environment in which people are not afraid to tell the truth.”[5] Tom Morris draws a similar picture as his model of leadership provides a posture of humility and honesty vs. appearances and a façade of perfection. Morris offers subversion through relationship, “a relationship of respect in which the other individual is viewed as having intrinsic value, value in and of himself or herself, regardless of whether that individual can produce any further value for you.”[6] This leadership honours others above self in the same way Christ called us to serve others, with the best intentions for others at the forefront of our thought. Jesus in a very sacramental sense gave life to this idea in His death, and Paul writes of this as being the very thing that exalted Him to the place of highest honour.

This leadership honours others above self in the same way Christ called us to serve others, with the best intentions for others at the forefront of our thought. Jesus in a very sacramental sense gave life to this idea in His death, and Paul writes of this as being the very thing that exalted Him to the place of highest honour.

We are called into the dying and rising of Christ, something only He could do, but set against our lives gives meaning to our situation. Contrary to contemporary popular models of leadership, De Pree moves power from the top to the lower ranks of an organization. This can be risky for the leader who prefers managing situations and people. Similarly, in the church, taking this position and keeping Christ central allows for others to rise. A great leader is not threatened by this possibility either, but rather, delights in others reaching their potential. Giving ground for this culture to grow and keeping it alive can provide the right environment needed to accomplish great feats.
My life must be Christ’s broken bread,
My love his outpoured wine,
A cup o’erfilled, a table spread
Beneath his name and sign.
That other souls, refreshed and fed,
May share his life through mine.

My all is in the Master’s hands
For him to bless and break;
Beyond the brook his winepress stands
And thence my way I take,
Resolved the whole of love’s demands
To give, for his dear sake.

Lord, let me share that grace of thine
Wherewith thou didst sustain
The burden of the fruitful vine,
The gift of buried grain.
Who dies with thee, O Word divine,
Shall rise and live again. Albert Orsborn (1886-1967)

Interesting words coming from a Salvation Army General, but I believe the new frame for leadership comes from Paul’s understanding of dying and rising and Christ’s table, a much larger table than we traditionally offer. It acts as the central point for leading, the focus of the meal and the celebration being “one another”. “Paul locates all of the benefits of the new order with Christ, holding them secure on Paul’s behalf until they meet face to face. Being “in Christ” and centralizing all of the new order in Him is counter to our culture because it is a position of complete reliance yet absolute freedom to be the person I was created to be.

Being “in Christ” and centralizing all of the new order in Him is counter to our culture because it is a position of complete reliance yet absolute freedom to be the person I was created to be.

Imagine my family travelling on vacation. I have booked all of the hotels, arranged for outings, packed the vehicle and arranged all of the finances. My family would completely rely on me to have taken care of all the arrangements, but their faith would be based in my trustworthiness. They are free to enjoy the vacation, and will probably have a more enjoyable time because of the freedom not to worry about the details. This is a picture of how Christ holds all things on our behalf, and our ability to rely and experience complete freedom is founded in Jesus Himself.

“In Christ” is a very different position from the self-righteousness and self-focuses of pop evangelicalism. In today’s mainstream the focus of attention is on ‘what I get from this church’. The New Life church of Colorado Springs is representative of this approach. Pastor Ted noted that the people in his church don’t know or like their neighbours (according to responses from his leadership team), so “why would you want to be in a small group with them? His point was that arbitrary small groups would make less sense than self-selected groups organized around common interests.”[7] Sounds easy, but in life we don’t get to pick the people who come to our church. God, however, uses all of them to bring gifts to the body for the body. Today, churchgoers are consumers and leaders become big box retailers marketing the most attractive products to draw the most people through their doors.

Robert Banks attributes this move to the “growth of individualism and the weakening of absolutes.”[8] So often we have people asking, ‘what’s my gift’, then waiting to be asked by the pastor to use it, rather than asking ‘what is a gift that I can bring to serve the body?’ In a self-serving approach there is a temptation to become prideful because we think it’s all about us, however, the leveller is Christ, and being in Christ. Having His mind of humility is not about debasing self, but rather seeing ourselves and others through the lens of God’s image. “We must recognize and affirm the divine image in every person, whether we are leading or following.”[9] Just imagine the Sikh gentleman who serves meals to the poor in our church every Thursday, or the atheist who sends 10 kids to our Christian summer camp, and the homeless people who serve coffee to others every morning in our drop-in centre. All of these people bearing God’s divine image? It’s a new frame and a subversion of our traditional tendency to separate unbelievers from believers, the sheep from the goats. (It’s interesting to note that when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, He’s directing His remarks to the disciples.)

Having His mind of humility is not about debasing self, but rather seeing ourselves and others through the lens of God’s image.

Being “in Christ” is the gospel context for leadership and movement within the church, and sharing at His table is the place where we serve one another, and the incarnation becomes the model for service. As a child in a Hungarian household I vividly remember the huge pots and pans of food which my grandma prepared for our family of five every night. A spectator might attribute this to my family possessing a voracious appetite, but they would be mistaken because in the culture of Eastern Europe family is defined as anyone who finds themselves at our table. We cook and set the table with the expectation that others will join us for the meal. In this same sense, the meal is central to the Christian celebration.

The early church is similar. It was born in an Eastern context where hospitality is primary and definitions of family do not fit within a ‘focus on the family’ mould. The presence of Christ and His Holy Spirit bring meaning to something as simple as a meal, and inviting guests into the fellowship of Christ’s death and resurrection. Commissioner Phil Needham writes of the sacramental life of Salvationists: “The institutional churches’ table was not big enough. There had to be a bigger table. [William] Booth found it outside the sacramental liturgy of existing churches; he found it in the everyday life of the common man.”[10] For Needham, every meal becomes a place to remember and celebrate the dying and rising of Christ. He describes the centrality of meals as “sacramental in the truest sense because, in their observance, the everyday became a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice as well as a celebration of unity and mutual concern in Christ.”[11]

If the context is the meal then the model is the Incarnation, not as a formulaic panacea, but as the picture of position and functioning in the body. The Incarnation is summed up in the gospel of John, “The Word became flesh and blood and moved into the neighbourhood” (John 1:12 The Message), or if you prefer, “God put on eyebrows, kneecaps and a spleen” (John 1:12a Mark Strom). I believe the reason there is so much debate as to the deity and humanity of Jesus and His own understanding of this; when, where, and how it happened, is because that is God’s intention, the nature of the Incarnation. God put on flesh, the common stuff of everyday, and theology can’t figure out where one begins or the other ends. I believe God never intended it to be seen as distinct. Needham writes,

“Those who ‘walk by the Spirit’ look for the sacredness of every moment, the presence of God in every encounter, the divine possibility in every human soul, the sacrament in every experience…They may not see Him everywhere, but they know He is there, and they pray for better eyesight.”[12]

So it is in our experiences, and the stuff of everyday does not become divorced from the spiritual, but rather, meaning is found in the fact that God is present in every aspect of our lives, and as leaders we’re called to function in the same way. “Leadership is not about rank. It is not about position. This is how Paul functioned as a leader. “The impressive power of Christ and the Spirit would be manifested in the weak words and wonders of the unimpressive apostle.”[13]

On July 1, 1982 my sister died in a car accident, and were it not for the grace of God I believe I would have taken my own life in the despair and hurt I experienced. God was present. Two years ago I was sharing with the congregation, and felt I should share that experience, the pastor contemplating suicide. That afternoon a person who was in the congregation that morning pulled up to our house as I was mowing the lawn and he began to share how my story was meant for him because that is how he was feeling that morning. “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s weakness.”(1 Cor.1:25, NIV).

We speak a lot about the priesthood of all believers,[14] but when it comes to leadership we always go back to the model of High Priest, the conduit for the voice of God and entering into His presence. The pastor is the leader, the sermon giver, the performer, and everyone else, the laity, are the audience. In Christ the role of leadership is levelled by humility and servanthood. De Pree talks of poise in leadership. “One element of poise is surely the ability to take everyone seriously. For everyone is equally authentic and surrounded by the mystery of potential.”[15] This cultivates soil for good growth in groups and organizations, and most authorities on leadership lean towards this posture of decentralized power, which is in line with the example Christ gives the church. Paul’s leadership, likewise functions from being in Christ.

We speak a lot about the priesthood of all believers,[14] but when it comes to leadership we always go back to the model of High Priest, the conduit for the voice of God and entering into His presence. The pastor is the leader, the sermon giver, the performer, and everyone else, the laity, are the audience.

A question of leadership is of relinquished power. How do I as a leader in Christ maintain some sense of control? The follow up question is probably more applicable. What does control have to do with anything? Janet Hagberg tells the story of how she led a national organization in the USA to speak out against domestic violence. Her story portrays the frustrations and jubilation of leading and discovering what it takes to lead such an endeavour. She applies a philosophy versus formula, which tends to work best in the environments they were forged, for leadership. It was through sharing power with similar organizations across the USA that Hagberg gained the power needed to accomplish the task, but warns that discernment is needed to determine the “difference between sharing power and being threatened into relinquishing power.” She continues, “this means knowing when sharing power really means caving in to pressure and not taking risks –in other words, being co-dependent and unable to speak for oneself.”

Paul’s subversion of rank and subsequent reframing of the context for leadership provides a way into conversation set against the dying and rising of Jesus Christ. Jesus too, invites us to the table of grace, which He set in the midst of a group of unworthy disciples made worthy through His invitation to eat and drink. While popular evangelicalism touts rank as a noble pursuit Paul calls us to abandon it, and follow the way of Christ finding strength in weakness and power by giving it away.

I used to think and work from the position of an honourable man. If I just kept my nose clean, didn’t embarrass anyone above me in position and flew below the radar I would be rewarded with a prestigious appointment. Then I would see the people who came through our doors to find grace and belonging, a ragtag group at best. I might have to speak against the hand that feeds me to call attention to racism. I was sure that someone would be ticked off if I became vocal about the needs of the poor and marginalized. Then I’m drawn to the image of the dying and rising of Christ, and ask myself a simple question, “What if on the off chance this Jesus thing is true?” It is then that I proudly bear Paul’s name for disciples… “Fool, scum, and the lesser of the least of these”.

Recently posted to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Captain Rick Zelinsky wrote this article during his term in Williams Lake, BC.

NOTES

1. Ibid, p.47.
2. Ibid, p.47.
3. Max Depree, Leading Without Power – Finding Hope in Serving Community, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997), p.64.
4. Mark Strom – from class notes at Regent College Summer 2005, “Leadership-Naming and Influencing as the image of God”. Strom highlights these sayings, which were the values of the Graeco-Roman world in the first century, the virtues of an honourable man. By carrying oneself properly and picking their time they could move up the ranks. This came at a cost to the one wishing to move upwards, usually financial. It is like a demented mentoring arrangement.
5. Tom Morris, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997), p.27.
6. Ibid, p.28.
7. Sharlet, Inside America’s most Powerful Megachurch, p.51.
8. Robert Banks, “Moving from Faith to Faithfulness”, in Faith in Leadership, Robert Banks and Kimberly Powell eds., (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), p.6.
9. Benjamin D. Williams, “Humility and vision in the Life of the Effective Leader”, in Faith in Leadership, Robert Banks and Kimberly Powell eds., (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), p.75.
10. Phil Needham, Community in Mission – A Salvationist Ecclesiology, (St. Albans: The Campfield Press, 1987), p.25.
11. Ibid, p.27.
12. Ibid, p.19.
13. Strom, Reframing Paul, p. 110.
14. see 1 Peter 2:5
15. Max De Pree, Leadership Jazz, (New York: Dell Publishing, 1992), p.39.

1 Comment to Spiritual versus Secular

1. An article to the temptations of a leader’s major temptation. I recall even Jesus was tempted with power rather than to serve from love. This piece was an encouragement.
Jonathan on February 21st, 2007

Leave a comment