Try to imagine these three situations: a workers' conference where all the speakers are business leaders, a television debate on racism where everyone—including the moderator—is white, and a video series on women where all the presenters are men. Do they not now seem inappropriate, unreal, archaic, more typical of the middle of the last century than of this one?
But what if I told you that this is something that happens across the board in our churches, all over the world and in the vast majority of denominations, when it comes to the relationship between leaders and the led? Is it not true that the overwhelming majority of people who speak, write, and record audios and videos about the church and other Christian ministries are leaders? The same proportion does not vary when it comes to talking about ordinary church members, the led. These numbers and ratios reveal a lack of representation and, more importantly, this can speak to the health and fruitfulness of the church.
While there are some truly congregation-led churches, even denominations purporting to be congregational can be dominated by a few influential leaders. There are numerous reasons for this imbalance between leaders and the led, some reasonable, some not, but I will highlight some consequences of platforming a predominantly leader-oriented perspective. Consider these issues:
- Priorities—Do the issues dealt with from the pulpit have to do with the daily lives of the members or are they more about the interests and training of the leaders?
- Attention—When some of the many moral scandals of leaders occur, who receives all the attention and even support, and who (or how many) of those affected by these leaders are relegated to anonymity, powerlessness, and disappointment?
- Protection—When an ordinary member has a problem and leaves the church, is he or she likely to experience leaders doing all they can to try to solve the problem and bring him or her back?
- Identity—There is an implied message that the leaders, the ones who appear, the ones who speak, are of greater value than the others. Recall that Paul, in all his letters except the personal ones (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) addressed all members of the churches equally. For example, "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people" (Romans 1:7 NIV), "To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia" (2 Corinthians 1:1 NIV), "To God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 1:1 NIV). Similar greetings can also be found in the letters of James, Peter, John and Jude.
Listening, considering and yielding
In this relationship between leaders and led, three terms can easily be confused:
- Listening—This simply means taking the time to find out what the other person thinks, needs and is concerned about.
- Considering or taking into account—This is an additional step. It involves taking what the person said, accepting it as valid and acting accordingly.
- Yielding—This is where a person's opinion influences the other in a relationship in such a way that they give way, they withhold their strength or power.
I can be in a decision-making position, listen to someone and not take into account what he or she says. At a second level, in addition to listening to them, I can consider what they said as valuable and worth taking into account. The third level is when, after considering what the person has said, I find it compelling and it influences me to yield, to change my mind and/or alter my actions.
If I were an insecure leader, I could fear that it would threaten my authority if I were to listen to someone or take into account what they say.
These are three very different things. If I were an insecure leader, I could fear that it would threaten my authority if I were to listen to someone or take into account what they say. I could not possibly yield to them and lose my authority. If this were the case I would have a serious identity problem that will negatively affect the entire church. For example, in churches that do not accept a leadership role is appropriate for women, many "play it safe" and do not even give space to listen to them, let alone to consider whether or not their concerns are valid. They fear that to do so would mean giving up their principle of not allowing women in leadership and thereby losing their authority.
A novelized experience
Two years ago I rewrote and translated a novel that had emerged ten years earlier from a time of crisis in relation to my experience in different evangelical churches. The book, "Pastor Pastor: Feed My Sheep" is meant to be a compassionate and sympathetic look at the widespread division between leaders and the led aiming to "reduce the number of disenchanted leavers and recover them fully for the Kingdom" (from the back cover). I think one of the uniquenesses of this book is that it counters the archaic experience highlighted above of inappropriate representation. The book is not written by the leaders, it is written “from below,” from someone who never held a leadership position in a church but saw how the unilateral decisions of leaders affected many fellow congregants.
Perhaps an excerpt from one of the chapters that will resonate with ordinary members. This is from chapter 11, "The Non-Church," where a group of ordinary members go through a long list of known individuals and families who have been hurt and left churches because of mistakes and mistreatment by church leaders. At one point, during a brainstorming time, the following dialogue takes place...
Suddenly, the idea came to me as a flash.
“I got it!”
Mariela and Mercedes looked at me.
“I'm sorry I scared you. But I think I know what we must do. And it's something that's never been done before. Something original.”
“What is it?” said Mercedes.
“A members' union,” I said, triumphant.
“What?” exclaimed Mariela.
“The name doesn't matter, I can't think of anything better, but what matters is the concept. Notice that in all these cases we have been seeing, what was missing was someone to defend the rights of the common people who had had some problem with the church, with the leaders, with the pastor. Except for some churches that have this type of mechanism, in the great majority of churches that I know of the common member, the person that attends, works, contributes, gives, as much and often more than the leaders, the pastors, doesn’t have any type of protection, no rights.”
Outlandish? Dangerous? Subversive? Maybe, but a similar dialogue brought started a movement of change when labor unions were born, when women's suffrage movements won the most basic rights for women in society (like the right to vote), and when people discriminated against because of their skin color organized to defend themselves and demand justice in different parts of the world.
A heartfelt plea
I speak on behalf of ordinary members of churches who make up the vast majority of the body of Christ around the world when I make these heartfelt pleas:
- Most of us have no interest in holding positions and offices in the church, but this does not mean that we have any less interest and commitment to work and minister for Jesus than those who do hold them. We do not want leaders to feel threatened by simply listening to us, but we do want to be listened to and our perspectives considered.
- We need to see our interests and concerns reflected in the decisions leaders make, and we would like to see more ordinary members appearing in the church speaking from our perspective.
- We are concerned about the large number of ordinary members who have left our churches disillusioned by bad decisions or conduct from leaders. We grieve that leavers were not given the opportunity to express themselves and contribute to solving problems that affect all of us. We would like to see in every church a group of both leaders and the led specifically dedicated to dealing with interpersonal problems—especially between leaders and the led—a group entrusted to talk with members expressing hurt, who are thinking of leaving, or who have already left, especially if it is due to problems with the church's leaders.
Conclusion
Today it seems a truism to point out that the perspective of any institution, including the church, is different depending on the position a person has within the institution. A pastor may give an inspiring message, be a good administrator, and have the best intentions in dealing with common membership issues, but the pastor is not a common member and may never have been a common member of their church. It takes both views to get the whole picture.
Just as the full participation of workers, women, or discriminated people in free societies is widely accepted and promoted today, in contrast to what seemed normal fifty years ago, I suspect (or hope) that soon it will seem normal for the ordinary members of a church to have full rights to be heard on all issues that concern them. Let us make this possible in 2024. Let us not waste any more time. We need to work together to have a healthier body life in the church so that we can be a more positive influence in society.
Alejandro Field has been an English-Spanish translator/interpreter in the Lausanne Movement since the Cape Town Congress in 2010. He holds an MBA from UADE and postgraduate studies in Sociology and Political Science from FLACSO. He lives in Buenos Aires, Argentina, with his wife Lily, and has three children and four grandchildren.
