On charges of being anti-leader

When Christians question the traditional hierarchical, top-down "respect my authority" model of church "leadership", the charge that is often thrown out is that they are rebellious, "anti-authority", against all leadership and in favor of some sort of anarchy in the church. This is a silly charge but it is often effective because of the religious culture we live in and it serves as a way to suppress debate by putting one party on the defensive. That is why I appreciated Alan's post today Yes, we’re all equal in Christ, but whose name is on the sign? where he takes on this question. I really liked his closing statement:

If by “leader” you’re talking about a hierarchy of control, power, responsibility, vocation, and service that is reserved for a few among the church who function on behalf of the church, then, yes, I’m in favor of removing that kind of leadership. I think the church would be healthier without those kinds of “leaders.”

If by “leader” you’re talking about mature followers of Jesus Christ who lives and words are a demonstration and example of what every believer should be like and who are among the church and function along with the church, then, no, I’m not in favor of removing that kind of leadership. In fact, I think the church would be far healthier with more and more of these kinds of leaders.

I love that, especially the part about needing more leaders not less. Far from being anti-leader, people like Alan (and myself) are pro-Biblical leadership, a leadership of servanthood and example rather than authority and privilege. I have no interest in propping up a system that muzzles most of the brothers in the church in favor of a authoritarian system of subcontracted professionals. I am in favor of seeing elders in the church who equip all of the brethren for the work of the ministry so that every Christian is on a path that leads to maturity.

Alan's post should generate some good conversation, go check it out!

The rights of parents versus the authority of the state

A simply outstanding Albert Mohler show last Friday, on parental rights in light of the Texas FLDS compound issue. The show’s title captures the question: Balancing Parental Authority and Government Oversight. It is a frightening propisition to any parent, the idea of some official coming into your home, declaring you an unfit parent and seizing your children.

What should be the default position when it comes to parents? The default position is either that parents have ultimate rights to raise their children unless and until they are shown uncategorically to have abdicated that right by actions or neglect. Unfortunately we see more and more that the state’s reaction is just the opposite, take the kids on the flimsiest of evidence and then we will figure out what happened once the kids are “safe” in our custody. That is the world turned upside down, but it plays into the midset that I continually point out of the self-proclaimed elites in education and government assuming that they know what is best for children, over and above the parents.

Dr. Mohler gave a very sobering warning. There are those who would use the same argument against evangelical Christians that were used on the FLDS parents. Because of how we raise our kids, educational choices, religious upbringing, discipline, all manner of issues that some would find objectionable. If you think that couldn’t happen, that this is overreacting to the situation, then let me assure you of one thing: If they can take their kids, they can take ours.

Are there situations where children should be removed from the home? Of course. I have been closely involved in such a circumstance where the parents had clearly neglected a child before she was even born through substance abuse. Is this situation in Texas with the FLDS one of them? Quite possibly, although the state hasn’t proven that to be the case. But that should always been the last option, after every other avenue has been exhausted and the burden of proof falls entirely on the state.