TEACHING

Daryl Wood

(Daryl is a fivefold teacher on the Kingdomquest apostolic team.)

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID!

(Part 2)

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID! Teaching Series - Read [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6 ]

November 18, 1978. Most recall the Jonestown cult massacre in Guyana, where religious leader Jim Jones initiated what for many would be more accurately termed a mass suicide. Members of the People’s Temple drank a cyanide and sedative-laced grape drink which was a facsimile of Kool Aid. Like lemmings lining up and hurling themselves over a cliff, adults forced the poison down the throats of their young ones and infants before taking their own lives. It is astounding to think that more than 900 people would follow such a sinister scheme to their own demise. Yet in that fateful hour the power of "group think" prevailed under the charismatic but corrupt leadership of one man. This is but one of many such events that captures the destructive potential that is latent in abusive authoritarian relationships. It bodes as an admonishing example to all who claim Christ, to seek the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment regarding a healthy understanding of authority roles in family, in church, and in all other arenas of life.

The purpose of this article is to explore some of the dynamics that led to this murderous debacle. The flawed thinking that culminated in this tragic event will be examined from two standpoints—those held by the authority figure, and those of the victims. The impact that these mind sets have on church life is particularly pertinent. Before moving into commentary on the above, I will recap and expand upon four of the main points from part one:

The world system primarily recognizes and responds to authority as defined by title or position. In this model, the authority figures are the benefactors.

In the Kingdom of God, authority is primarily defined on a relational plane. This means that those who hold the greatest authority in God’s government are those who serve, which makes the served the benefactors. This model should therefore be paramount in the church and in the family, though in practice the titular model often takes precedence.

Authority which flows primarily out of relationship can be much greater than authority that is limited to title or position.

Authority which is rooted in title or position as opposed to a relational connection is arguably more susceptible to abusive exercise on the part of authority figures. This is far and away where most of the problems have surfaced with respect to abusive church leadership.

One of the most fundamental problems has to do with boundaries. Anytime titular authority is exercised, the boundaries of that authority ought to be clearly defined and maintained.

A state highway patrolman has responsibility for enforcement of traffic laws, and for preserving the safe operation of motor vehicles on the public highways. In this arena, automobile drivers must comply with his directives. If, on the other hand, he was to try to mandate a specific make and model of vehicle for motorists to purchase and drive, he would be far outside the parameters of his authority. What self-respecting person would obey such an order?

A supervisor has the responsibility for directing the work activities that fall to his oversight, and assigning tasks to his employees at the job site. A good employee will submit to his orders in this venue, assuming they are not dishonest, immoral, etc. If the boss was to insist, however, that one of his employees follow his directions in the filing of that employee’s personal income taxes, the employer would have stepped beyond the sphere of his authority. What employee, unless he was an invertebrate, would bow to such a command?

I am sure that these examples are so crude as to appear self-evident to most reasonable people. However, when issues relating to authority roles within the family and within the church are examined lines often end up being blurred to the point that they are not even recognizable. Ambiguity opens the door for corruption and abuse. Again, defining those lines is crucial.

Just how far do the boundaries of authority extend to an elder of an assembly, or, to use the less precise, but more common term, the "senior pastor"? (A similar question could be raised with respect to a parent or a husband, though I will postpone comment on that at this time.) The question itself seems to carry an ominous undertone, and beg for some measure of clarification.

Paul reminded the Corinthians that his apostolic authority was given " . . . for edification, and not for . . . destruction (2 Cor. 10:8)." Clearly, spiritual authority is limited to that which "builds up" a particular church, or particular members of the body of Christ. If that authority is abused or misused for some self-serving end, then it ceases to exist. While God does delegate spiritual authority to men for constructive purposes, it resides with them as they abide in Him. They are not assigned some "church office" that carries an indiscriminate life-time appointment. The authority that elders possess functions by virtue of their union with, and walk with Christ. Hence, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ (1Cor. 11:1)."

"Remember those who rule over you,* who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct (Heb. 13:7)." (*Note: The Greek word hegeomai is better translated lead, or serve as guides.) We follow guides as long as they 1) know where they are going, and 2) are pursuing the correct destination. If either of these ceases to be the case, then we know we are with the wrong guide(s)!

Saints need not fear crossing the will of a "spiritual authority figure" who moves in presumption (See Deut. 18:21,22). They ought never obey such a one out of mere deference to his title, office, or position. This is not to say that they should behave with an attitude that is arrogantly defiant or rebellious, for this would be counter to the character of Christ Jesus. However, since obedience is fundamentally to Him and not to man, there are times when the two will be in conflict. When Peter and John were commanded by the Jewish Sanhedrin to stop speaking at all, or teaching in the name of Jesus, their response was unequivocal.

"But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard (Acts 4:19,20).’"

Returning to Paul’s apostolic authority, doubtless it was built primarily out of his relational connection with the saints. When that authority was challenged in Corinth, he did not flag a title in front of his detractors. Rather he appealed to them as a father, and one who had invested his very life in them. While a positional aspect did exist with respect to his apostleship, this actually was a rather small part of the authority that he exercised.

Jesus cautioned all disciples about the pitfalls linked with a penchant for titles. The scribes and Pharisees loved to be publicly honored with official references like "Rabbi".

"But you, do not be called, ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for one is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant (Matt. 23: 8-11)."

The Pharisees’ preoccupation with labels of reverence, and the power of position stands in stark contrast with real Kingdom authority, which is grounded in servanthood and bonds of love. To their discredit, some of God’s ministers today insist on being addressed as "Reverend . . .", "Apostle . . .", or "Pastor . . .", as though such references are their first names! Paul, while acknowledging his functional gifting as an apostle, never penned his name with a title. It is ironic that so many call him, "The Apostle Paul", in spite of this fact.

Not coincidentally, where titular emphasis prevails as the foundational basis for spiritual authority, the stage is set for abuse.

In such instances, the problem is not one of "too much authority" resting with those who are presumably God’s delegates. More accurately, the issue is one of their authority being altogether artificial, and misplaced. Whether through conscious design or unwittingly, the "delegates" have usurped God’s authority through reliance on what they imagine to be their rank. Jesus did not do this, and neither did Paul, Peter, or John. If they had done so, they would have overridden the directive role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believers.

"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by constraint but willingly, not for dishonest gain, but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away (1 Peter 5:2-4)."

Kings, barons, princes, etc. in the world’s authority system love the titles of respect, and lean almost exclusively on their "positions" for their governance. God intends for His church to be led in a manner that is completely opposite of the methodologies of the world. In fact, the world’s way has developed as a perversion of the original Kingdom principles of government. A part of the restoration that the Lord is now working within His church involves her return to His prototypical pattern.

All true authority ultimately resides with God, and His Word.

"Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18).’"

He has delegated His authority on earth to men. He has done so with a very specific purpose in view.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:19,20)."

The most valuable heritage that I can provide to my three daughters, and the greatest legacy that I can leave any whom I disciple is one and the same—it is to learn of Christ, so they may clearly recognize His voice and be quick to obey Him from the heart. This should be the aim of all spiritual leaders, both in the family and in the church. In doing this, leaders in ministry cooperate with the Master Teacher, the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, where leaders seek to make disciples who follow them, rather than those who follow Christ, a cult exists.

Healthy leadership will cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of individual believers. It will cultivate in them a dependence on Him for guidance and direction, and a confidence that wisdom and truth from the throne of God is readily accessible to them directly.

"However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will tell you things to come (John 16:13)."

"But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you, but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him (1 John 2:27)."

A disciple of Christ who does not regularly and clearly discern God’s voice for himself is still immature. Yet it is sad that some leaders take steps, at times even deliberately, that have the effect of maintaining others in a state of infancy! Whether out of a fear for their job security, the "need to be needed", or perhaps ignorance of an alternative, this practice seems common. Instead of encouraging independent thought, only agreement with the leadership results in affirmation. Instead of welcoming differing perspectives that are respectfully expressed, dissenting voices are quelled.

Such actions may serve to "secure the power of the leader" (a highly questionable need, if God has truly placed him in that position), but at a tremendous cost. People develop into automatons, or clones of the leader, instead of mature sons and daughters of the King.

By contrast, wholesome authority figures within a church (or a household) have an ever-evolving relationship with those who look to them for direction. This often involves a continual, incremental relinquishing of more and more of the "decision making" to those under their charge, as those individuals grow in learning to hear God for themselves.

Again, cult leaders do what they can to extinguish critical thinking in those who submit to them, rather than encouraging it.

This further reinforces mankind’s enormous tendency to blindly follow those who are recognized as being "in charge". Historical events such as the Holocaust and Saddam Hussein’s savage reign bear out this chilling human predisposition. Some seemingly rational people are capable of the unthinkable when confronted with the prospect of disobeying an "authority."

Perhaps no illustration brings this home more poignantly than Stanley Milgrim’s psychological experiment that was conducted in the early 1960’s. Milgrim arranged a scenario where volunteers who supposed themselves to be "assistants" in an experiment on human learning were actually the subjects. The experiment’s director commanded these "assistants" to administer increasing levels of electrical shocks to a "student" following his incorrect responses during an exercise involving word pairs. The thirty different voltage increments progressed through a range from mild shocks to a certain lethal shock of 450 volts, and beyond. Unbeknownst to these "assistants", the entire arrangement--from the formidable "electrical shock" apparatus to the scripted outcome involving the "learner’s" incorrect responses—had been carefully staged. The object of the experiment was actually to see just how far people will go in obeying orders.

Even upon hearing agonizing "screams" from the "learner" on the other side of the glass, and an eventual ghastly silence which followed that, the vast majority of the unpaid volunteers continued to obey orders from the stern program administrator, who "required" them to persist shocking after incorrect responses. In fact, in one particular instance, almost 93% of these volunteers administered 450-volt, "lethal" shocks! This experiment used a subject pool of 40 volunteers, and was repeated 18 times under similar conditions with similar results.

Milgrim’s study reveals a very frightening aspect of human nature, which plays into an innate vulnerability to cultic influence:

Upon reviewing the results of his experiment, Milgrim noted that, even when ordered to " . . carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources to resist authority."

It is essential that ministers be held accountable to exercise leadership in a manner that is consistent with the Kingdom principles by which Jesus and the early apostles walked. Leaders need a vigilant awareness that some are all too ready to virtually hand over full "responsibility" for their life decisions to one whom they deem to be a spiritual authority. Likewise, those who look to spiritual leaders for guidance need to realize that ravenous wolves do exist, who stand all too ready to take control their lives. As with any sick, co-dependent relationship, it takes two parties for this to happen.. . . . to be continued.

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID! Teaching Series - Read [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5] [Part 6 ]