Articles 03/03  

Spiritual Abuse : Hierarchical & Positional Leadership Models vs. Apostolic example (Part 1)

adapted from �Who is your Covering� by Frank Viola

by Steve Cadman MSW

  = .com US$

.co.uk GBP Who is Your Covering?: Leadership, Authority, & Accountability

Explanation of Amazon links & Shipping rates is near bottom of this page

    In order to get healing from some aspects of spiritual abuse it is necessary to take a long look at how certain teachings fail to line up with biblical truth. Looking at the teaching that undergirds �church authority� should lead us to finally blurt out �But the emperor has no clothes on�. We suspect all is not well but we are slow to question the status quo. 

    Self-styled, self-appointed �apostles� run to & fro in the church today, issuing authoritarian decrees, claiming followers & building empires. Real apostles however, are not interested in building empires, starting movements or in reaching celebrity status (1 Cor.1:13, 3:7,21). Biblical apostles did not assume formal possession of churches or turn them into franchises of their own ministry. They served the churches, rather than using the churches to build their ministries. It was service rather than dominance. The apostles did not speak as one above or over others. It was instead a cooperative & relational mindset (Gal. 4:12).

    In contrast to this, the discipleship / shepherding movement of the 1970�s degraded into control & manipulation. It had a false assumption that submission was the equivalent of unconditional obedience, & that God vests certain people with unquestioned authority over others. Shepherds were transformed into God-surrogates who ran roughshod over what submission meant to the original biblical hearers.

    This resulted in a trail of broken, disillusioned Christians who continue to distrust leadership & words like authority, because they were leadership-whipped. They still struggle to discard distorted images of God.

    A great deal of confusion or fog is connected with & surrounding the �protective covering� teaching, which holds that we are protected from doctrinal error & moral failure when we submit to the authority of another believer or organization. It is a prescription for misunderstanding & false accusation. The bible never consigns accountability to human beings, it consigns it exclusively to God (Matt.12:36, 18:23, Luke 16:12, Rom. 3:19, 14:12, 1 Cor. 4:5, Heb. 4:13, 13:17, 1 Peter 4:5).

    �Covering� is rooted in a one up / one down, chain of command. Everyone must answer to someone in a higher ecclesiastical position with more authority or higher rank. It is explained that God covers these �higher� authorities, but it is not explained why God cannot be the covering for �laymen�. Behind the pious rhetoric looms a system that is bereft of biblical support & driven by a spirit of control.

    Denominational & clerical covering blurs the distinction between official & organic authority, & creates a false sense of security among believers. It inoculates believers from carrying out their spiritual functions, & strikes fear into them that if they take responsibility without the approval of leadership then they will be raw meat for the enemy. There is an implicit threat that the uncovered are to blame for all that will happen to them. This paralyzes ministry. They experience the smothering that follows covering. Covering teaching�s tones, textures & resonances have little to do with Jesus.

    It is a top heavy understanding of authority borrowed from the world system. It is a positional authority mindset of slots to fill, job descriptions, titles & ranks. It resonates with concern over explicit leadership structures & offices.

    Jesus contrasted the hierarchical leadership pattern of the Gentile world, with leadership in the kingdom of God. After James & John requested power seats, Jesus said the Gentiles lord it over, exercise authority over, & are called �Benefactors�. It is not to be so among you. The greatest & first shall be your servant & slave, & become as the younger, just as Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve & give His life a ransom for many. Jesus did not mince words in declaring His implicit disdain for the Gentile notion of leadership.

    This idea that power & authority flow from the top down is built on a chain of command social structure. It is based on a worldly concept of power that is used in all traditional bureaucracies. It is undesirable for God�s people, as it reduces human relationships into command styled relationships which are foreign to New Testament thinking, but are everywhere in pagan / occult sub-cultures.

    In Matt. 23:8-12 Jesus also contrasted kingdom leadership with that of the religious world. �Do not be called rabbi or father or leaders for One is your Teacher, Father & Leader. The greatest shall be your servant, whoever exalts himself shall be humbled, & whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.� Leadership is to be rooted in inward life & character. In the kingdom there is to be no distinction of protocol. The New Testament  teaching is that all are ministers & priests. 

    Both Gentile hierarchical & Jewish positional leadership models are incompatible with the primitive simplicity of the upside down kingdom of God.

    There were numerous Greek words Paul & the apostles could have used in their letters to convey position / hierarchy but they did not. These words are conspicuously absent. Like Christ, their favorite word to convey leaders was �diakonos� (servant or waiter).

    Peter�s writings gave minimal air time to elders & when he did address them it was warning them against adopting the spirit of the Gentiles. He makes a specific point that elders are among the flock, not lords over it (1 Peter 5:1-2, Acts 20:28). Peter uses the same word (katakurieuo) that Jesus did in Matt. 20:25.

    Paul�s understanding of leadership is corporate & it condemns overlordship. The ministry of the whole body is to overshadow the oversight role of elders. Otherwise spiritual maturity will atrophy & believers will grow passive. The bulk of responsibility for pastoral care, teaching & ministry rests squarely upon the shoulders of all. Responsibility does not fall on the back of one person or a select group. It is never to be closeted among a few.

    God has established official authority in the natural order but not in the church. Ecclesiastical authorities are glaringly absent from Paul�s discussion of spheres of authority in Eph. 5-6 & Col. 3. The bible never gives believers authority over other believers. Jesus condemned �exousia� type authority among His followers (Matt.20:25-26, Luke 22:25-26). The authority that works in �ekklesia� is strikingly different. Church leaders become usurpers when they practice "exousia" type authority. Old Testament authorities were shadows of Jesus, not examples of how New Testament elders were to be authority figures.

    When Paul was sharp with others, he charged them to obedience to Christ, not to himself. His words were authoritative but he was never authoritarian. He did not regard his apostolic calling as a license to dominate. Paul also did not have any regard for apostolic status (Gal.2:6-9) including the original 12. Paul rebuked Peter in public when truth was at stake (Gal.2:11-21).

Church Planters or Church Supplanters

    Apostles were not usurpers, nor did they conduct themselves as resident chairmen or distant bosses. They were not self advancing spiritual elitists, power grabbers, or those who exerted themselves over others. They did not claim impressive credentials, superior heritage, or extraordinary spiritual experiences.

    They were assistants, not spiritual aristocrats; servants, not ecclesiastical despots; not celebrity figures. They persuaded, never controlled. They were fools & last, not seeking to impress people or seeking financial gain. They shoveled dung, spilled their blood & were always quietly serving all who had need.

    Instead of imperial metaphors, Paul used family metaphors. He was not a lord, master or king. Persuasive tones permeate, as a father with his adult children. He gave his judgment on church affairs but he did not issue decrees. He called on the whole assembly to discipline. Churches grew away from dependence on Paul, towards dependence upon Christ, & Paul urged them on this path.

Paul�s confidence in the Churches

    Paul had great confidence in the churches he planted. He worked toward equipping believers to obey God & function properly in his absence & he was assured that they would. He never took a choke-hold even in the chaotic meetings in Corinth. Paul did not see himself as having the right to prohibit or �allow�.

Paul�s Method of Planting & Nurturing Churches

    Paul�s authority was functional & relational, based on the Lord�s approval, not official. He sought to persuade concerning God�s mind, not imperial commands. His two favorite words were �parakalein� (appeal) & � erotao� (request). He refrained from using �epitage� (commandment). Instead he was urging, beseeching, pleading, appealing & asking, in a cooperative tone. Voluntary consent & internalization were important to him.

    Paul differed immeasurably from his opponents.

The Source of Paul�s Authority

    Paul�s authority was tied to his ability to speak God�s Word, to build up rather than to tear down.  He never misused it to gain prominence, earthly power or material advantage. His sole purpose was to edify. Paul appealed to his faithful service as a basis for trust. He was interested in others imitating his walk, not his words. He presented himself as a model mirroring Christ. He consistently invited believers to judge what he said, & to reject his message if it was not consistent with the gospel. Obey the truth of the gospel, not the words of mere men at face value. The exercise of authority is brokenness & servanthood & the goal is edification. Authority & the Spirit of the cross, go hand in hand.

    Paul found it difficult to reprove the churches. He was reticent to rebuke & did so with much anguish. �Rod� in 1 Cor.4:21 is a metaphor for rebuke, not forced subordination or unilateral authority. He expressed fatherly compassion after he feared his words were too strong.

Paul�s Relationship with His Co-Workers

    Paul never demanded his co-workers but sought voluntary cooperative consent to his requests. Paul subjected himself to their wishes & allowed room for them to disagree with him, & have a participatory relationship. Paul led, not because he had a higher position, but because he was more spiritually advanced. Subjection was voluntary & personal.

The Nonauthoritarianism of Other Apostles

    Paul encouraged Timothy to exhort the saints in meekness & to cultivate a family-like relationship. Timothy worked with, not over people. John did not meddle in church affairs, nor did he claim a right to rule. He did not seek to force Diotrephes out. He said he had no commandment to give, instead pointing to Christ�s new commandment. It was service rather than dominance.

Summary & Conclusion

    False prophets & false apostles abound. It is the responsibility of local believers to examine them. God has not deputized His authority to any individual or segment. Office separates brethren, but Spirit-bestowed function builds them together.

    The church is not a human organization but a spiritual organism. It has organic authority, not official authority. Those who put undo emphasis on authority & submission, are interested in making themselves an authority figure. Using unbiblical language like �covering� only obscures & makes it cluttered & murky. We need to stay with the New Testament vocabulary, in order to cut through the matted layers of human tradition that clouds things.

    In Part II in the next article, we will look at a number of original Greek words which have been mistranslated, & thereby led to the unfortunate twists in �covering� & �authority� teachings.

    Books & 80 pages of seminar notes on "Spiritual Abuse" can be found in the "Resources / Books / Spiritual Abuse" section of this web site.

Other articles by Steve & Heidi Cadman-Neu