Recently, a preacher posed a question for discussion concerning church leadership abuse. The assumption (not without precedent) was that many mainline churches along with independent churches (those that are more given to the “fivefold” expression of leadership) both walk in a great deal of abuse. In these immigrations, the church member is exchanging one form abusive leadership for another, though both use different titles.
What do you think accounts for the shift from mainline churches to fivefold churches when the abuse is virtually identical?
Below is my response:
“The titles have switched, but the dynamics have remained the same.
“This may be a massive swallowing of non-reality.
“I would suggest we look at what the concepts of pastor and apostle look like from the whole of the Canon.
“And given the Greek word for pastor is only translated as “pastor” once, in Ephesians 4:11-12, I think we ought to include all reference to the character of a shepherd, such as from Psalm 23 and John 10, a d we should table some of the fivefold office terms until we really get a handle on what they mean.
“I observe we are far too casual and lackadaisical with throwing around those terms.
“Give you a good example, I know my best friend walks in the apostolic office. I do as well, My wife is a Teacher. And my best friend’s wife is a legit prophet.
“However, I just, without fear or offense or exploitation, refer to him as David and her as Wendy.
“We are just friends, and we are so far past being enamored with those things that we just walk and flow in those things as the situation arises.
“Part of what we are dealing with in the church may be one of three dynamics. In no particular order:
“1) Woundedness-we got hurt so we leave one hurtful situation for another.
“2) We have become groupies, to make ourselves and our covering feel legitimate.
3) That doctrine of covering-from a study of the Scriptures, “cover”, “covering”, and their synonyms have to do with on thing, atonement for sin with blood.
“Love covers a multitude of sins.
“The mercy seat covered, and was sprinkled with blood to provide atonement for Israel’s sins.
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sins.
“Etc.
“Head in the Greek does not mean ‘covering’, but rather ‘source’ like ‘headwaters’.
“Oftentimes, for the sake of legitimacy, we may place our leaders into a position they were never meant to occupy. And we in the Charismatic movements can become just as guilty of the Roman Catholics, in our desire for a spiritual father and mother, of seeking to treat our leaders as intermediaries.
“But there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
“We want a ‘covering’ in the (from my experience) unbiblical senses because we may be relying on a legitimacy crutch.
“This is part of the turn-off for me in many evangelical Charismatic churches.
“Some of those in the midst of this imbalance appear to like to incessantly ask, ‘are you submitted to your covering?’. Then, if you negate the question, they retort with, ‘without your covering you are unprotected!’
“Um, excuse me, sir/ma’am, but Jesus is my love and he covered everything that needs to be covered.
“Covering in context is used with respect to blood and atonement, not leadership.”
From the above, I would be curious to know what your thoughts on the subject are, even if we disagree.
Blessings.
