Many in the orbit of the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” today seem to be drawn to extremes: either the independent egalitarianism that ends up creating many popes or the older top-down hierarchy of Rome.  In case after case that I’ve witnessed, the moves have been made by leaping over biblical models of church government.   There are of course many in the past and today who have given careful consideration to the case for this covenantal ecclesiology.  Yet the greater tendency, I suspect, is rash (restless) hastiness.  Those looking for a visible pope on earth dismiss it as too democratic, while those who want to build their own fiefdoms dismiss it as too stifling and, ironically, “hierarchical.”

A recent article today in Charisma News by Brooklyn minister, Joseph Mattera, raises some important questions with extraordinary ramifications.

The author is concerned with the proliferation of evangelical and Pentecostal megachurches that reflect a Roman Catholic model of church leadership, especially in Latin America.  Churches become empires with numerous departments and programs staffed by an army of “professional” Christians under the command of the CEO.

The fact that these questions are raised by an overseeing bishop of a church within a coalition that affirms the ongoing office of apostles, and in an article published in a charismatic magazine, is especially significant.  It’s a hopeful sign that leaders like Mattera argue for a more biblical view of the church and ministry, with officers mutually accountable instead of making unilateral decisions.

The Lure of Unaccountable Power

Joseph Mattera puts his finger on a very big problem in the global church today.  It’s not only in countries with a Roman Catholic history where “papal” models proliferate.  They are well known features of U.S. church life.   Perhaps “papal” isn’t the right analogy.  The pope today has little authority over renegade teachers and bishops. The communion that he leads at least in theory is as internally divided by countless factions, schools, and personalities as Protestantism is more visibly.  A better analogy might be the founder and CEO.  After all, popes at least are elected by the college of cardinals.

Even in our circles, there is a tendency to create stars whose models of “doing church” divide the ordered life of local and wider assemblies of mutual accountability.  Few actually set out with that purpose.

It begins as an experiment; then, if it’s successful, it becomes a model.  To preserve its success and the ongoing creativity and innovative potential of the leader/model, the church tends to isolate itself from the wider assemblies of the church (presbytery, general assemblies or synods, etc.).  A network emerges with ties to the leader/model that are stronger than the bonds between ministers and elders who have taken oaths to a common confession and church order.

Before you know it, factions arise in opposition to and in defense of a particular model and spokesmen and the court of public opinion (especially blogs) replaces the courts of the church for fraternal discussion, debate, encouragement, and correction.  Churches that needed the visionary insights are able to reinforce their prejudices unhindered by face-to-face engagement and the more experimental churches that needed wisdom and correction are able to pursue their agenda without interruption.  Instead of listening to the multiplicity of voices (“wisdom in many counselors”), churches actually become more narrow, insular, and independent.  We may belong formally to the same denomination, but our deeper affinity is the tribe—the church-within-a-church to which we belong.  Eventually, the church-within-a-church becomes its own denomination, and so on.

Read More