TEACHING

Daryl Wood

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

DON’T DRINK THE KOOL AID!

(Part 6)

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

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Is. 9: 6, 7)."

God’s government and His kingdom are synonymous. Both refer to the establishment of His rightful rule over His creation, which He accomplishes through those who willingly yield themselves to His authority. Hence, those who humble themselves under His mighty hand become effective tools for His use in the extension of His kingdom. As a result all those under His authority possess authority by virtue of their submission to Him. This authority may, to varying degrees, extend within the church.

The church, as His body, is God’s principle vehicle for the expansion of His kingdom. The headship of Jesus rests upon the shoulder, which figuratively represents those whom He has chosen and graced with the task of leading within the church. The biblical model identifies these leaders as comprising two groups: 1) those whom He has chosen to provide apostolic oversight, and 2) those whom the apostles would appoint to give guidance to the church at the local level. In modern practice this model has rarely been observed. Various forms of church government have emerged, from the papal hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church, to deacon boards that hire and fire preachers, to senior pastors who function as "one-man shows." None of these governmental methods are consistent with the Lord’s intention for His people.

It is important to emphasize that true spiritual leadership never usurps Christ Jesus’ position within His body, but rather supports Him in every way as Head. Godly government always comes from the Head, and all the other body parts are subservient to the Head’s direction. The shoulder, in submission to the Head, can and does serve as a liaison between the Head and the other members in some respects. It does not encroach upon, or undermine the direct relationship between the Head and the other individual members. Rather, effective leadership cooperates with the Head, reinforcing what He is communicating and building in the lives of others.

The shoulder’s role is to provide a resting place for the Head. While this is a critical function, it is nonetheless merely one aspect of healthy body ministry. Human leadership (shoulder) is necessary, but the other ministries in the body are equally so. Even if the Head and shoulder are connected in healthy fashion, if the body lacks feet (evangelists) or hands (those who provide service in areas of practical need), it is a paraplegic. Likewise if it lacks ears /eyes (those with prophetic revelation) or a mouth (those who move in utterance gifts), it is similarly handicapped. The interdependence conveyed through this analogy is clear.

Previous chapters in this series have dealt with the menacing impact of tyranny. Despots, who seek to control through intimidation, manipulation, etc., have been successful in ravaging the church as much, if not to an even greater extent, than other governmental venues. Whether by dictatorship (e.g., a senior pastor who exerts absolute control) or through oligarchy (e.g., a deacon or elder board which operates with the same autocratic rule), the paralyzing effects on body life are essentially the same. I now turn attention to the typical overcorrection for the aforementioned errors in church government—a democracy.

In an effort to ward off the abusive influences that come with a controlling, authoritarian form of government, some churches have resorted to democratic rule. While this may appear to be a far less harmful choice than submitting to domination by one or several, it nevertheless carries with it its own set of pitfalls. "Majority rule" understandably seems the much more palatable alternative for those who have grown up in the Western culture, yet it falls short of God’s biblically developed blueprint for governance within His body. One implicit instance in the Scriptures has been put forth by some as an example where a church decision was made on the basis of a popular vote. The case involved the selection of deacons for the daily administration of some practical needs within the church at Jerusalem (see Acts 6: 1-8). For this matter, the apostles directed the multitude to select seven men who were of good reputation, and full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom for the task at hand. Even in this, it is noteworthy that a consensus was more likely achieved. A consensus differs markedly from democratic function, which gives the nod to the largest ruling faction. There is no indication that the Jerusalem church body was divided in this determination; only preconditioning based on our own familiarity with democracy would lead us to such a conclusion. Therefore, even this single isolated instance comes short of confirming any propensity toward democracy in the early church.

There are some obvious reasons why this is so. The first involves the need within the body to properly relate to and deal with three groups of people who are potentially problematic from the standpoint of their influence. None of these groupings is necessarily precise or static; individuals can, and sometimes do, move fluidly from one camp to another, or even cease to become part of any of the three. I have listed these groups below, starting with the most dangerous and working back to those who represent the lowest risk:

Everyone has been wounded before. Not everyone has moved on, and received healing from the Lord for their wounds. Consequently, a large number of individuals within the body of Christ carry emotional baggage that significantly clouds their viewpoints, and hence their judgments. Some of the opinions which they hold, and about which they are the most ardent, are directly in conflict with the Spirit of Christ. Jesus encountered this with His disciples, and it surfaced when the Samarians did not receive them as they traversed the region on their return to Jerusalem. (See Luke 9: 51-56. Imagine Peter and John recommending to Jesus that they fry those in opposition to them with a lightning bolt!)

Unfortunately, people can be so adamantly entrenched in their own beliefs, being utterly certain that God is aligned with them in their positions, that they become virtually immovable. The energy that fuels these attitudes can, at times, be expressed very persuasively. As a consequence, some of the wounded can be very adept at recruiting for their personal causes. They can sometimes sway a large number of others, dispersing poison in the process.

"Pursue peace with all men, and holiness without which no one will see the Lord, looking diligently lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled (Heb. 12: 14, 15)."

It requires special grace to remove a thorn, quell the spread of infection, and heal a wound. "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted (Gal. 6:1)." Only those who are free from beams in their own eyes qualify to be part of the restorative process. The path forward is further complicated if others within the church have become biased through the words or actions of one who has been wounded. More often than not, a complicated scenario like this requires the involvement of one or more established leaders before resolution can be achieved. A democratic church government is simply never equipped to handle problems of this nature; the assembly as a whole is impotent in such cases.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death (Prov. 14:12)."

The conscious intention to do what is right, and actually following the right path can be two very different things. A popular secular proverb even says, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

What a shock it must have been to Peter to hear the words, "Get behind me, Satan!" when he attempted to reprove Jesus for pointing to the cross as His destiny. (See Matt. 16: 13-26.) Surely the same one who had just been commended for receiving the revelation of Christ from the Father must have smarted at the Master’s rebuke. This example points to how commonplace it is for sincere people to be sincerely wrong. It also serves as a reminder as to how we all need godly correction from those who love and care for us enough to confront us—sometimes even at the risk of greatly hurting our feelings or even alienating us.

Unfortunately, democracy knows no such mechanism. The winds of popularity blow with human sentiments, not against them. In all probability the rest of the disciples were thinking the exact same thing that Peter was at the time that Jesus corrected him. Had it come to a vote, Jesus’ death on the cross never would have happened.

Today, similar instances occur on a regular basis. Without discerning leadership that possesses the decisiveness and strength to confront error, those who are most vocal and articulate in their opinions will often be the ones who set the course for the church. Subsequently, carnality will prevail.

Focused Vision

During the frequent times where disparate visions exist within an assembly of believers, it is mature, God-ordained leadership that provides the resolve and stability to define the course and keep the ship pointed in the right direction. In the absence of such leadership there will be a dissipation of energy, time, and other resources, and all the more so as various strong personalities within the group vie for influence. When this is the case, factions form within the local assembly, resulting in great division. This is a second significant reason why a democracy simply will not work when it comes to church government.

"Without a vision the people are unrestrained . . . . (Prov. 29:18a, NASB)."

"Without a vision the people perish . . . . (Prov. 29:18a, NKV)."

On the surface these may seem like two very different thoughts. However, given the expansive aspect of the Hebrew language, both of these variant translations of this verse capture different aspects of the truth. Where there is no clearly defined vision, there will be no godly restraint. Death is the consequential result.

When everyone "does what seems right in his own eyes," void of a united purpose and strategy, it is impossible to accomplish very much. This is precisely the condition that exists in church groups that attempt to function by democratic rule.

Therefore, just as God’s plan for local governance is not found in an authoritarian regime, neither can it be discovered by a local assembly through elective processes. Both paradigms are flawed, and both will ultimately fail to bring forth the leadership and direction that He desires for His church. The true model will have to be replicated after that which functioned in the early church. Only by apostolic oversight, coupled with a God-ordained plurality of eldership, will a framework of church leadership emerge that reflects His divine pattern for government. The contemporary church will need to return to the spirit and the structure of this prototype before the headship of Christ will be accurately portrayed in His body. When this happens (and eventually it will), the Head will find a resting place upon the shoulder. The result will be the increase of His government and peace, of which there will be no end.