Creating a Secure CHURCH
PART 4 : When Things Go Wrong
Chapter 13 : Secure in Correction – Theory
13.2 Varieties of Approach
Perhaps nowhere more than in this area of correction and discipline in church life, do different denominations, different streams and different churches vary in their approaches. For some therefore, the things that I am going to say are likely to be completely alien. For others they will not go far enough; in fact they may feel that what I say might inhibit them. Those are the dangers of writing for what could be a very wide band or spectrum of readers.
1. Extreme No.1: Little Accountability
For some of us in the church at large, authority may only come in the form of a figure high up in the hierarchy a level or two above us. In these situations the bishop is a spiritual managerial figure who, with the help of others, tends to be the trouble shooter, and so frequently at the local level accountability within the congregation is almost unheard of in actual practice. Leaders in these churches have often seen their role as caring (in a very loose way) and performing ‘services’ and proclaiming the Bible.
The sense of security in the congregation in these churches comes from predictability of service, and perhaps a sense of comfort from a traditional, formal spirituality, and not having anyone probing too deeply. It is of course a false sense of security and the failure of this style of approach is that the often zero-accountability can mean a weak or dead form of Christianity where holiness is little understood.
2. Extreme No.2: Very High Accountability
At the opposite end of the spectrum we have those churches where authority has been largely seen to be in the hands of itinerant, second-level authority figures (broader ministries) and in the local leaders. Historically, at the end of the twentieth century, accountability in these churches was a strong feature.
Leaders here saw themselves as having a God-given mandate to proclaim and teach the truths of Scripture, including Scriptural directions for Christian living, and ensuring that it was being applied by the members. Correction under these circumstances almost becomes synonymous with direction. A clearly proclaimed level of expectations on the members, together with a tight mentoring system in the form of elders, house group leaders or cell group leaders, produced a sense of security that came from a rigidity of system and ‘knowing the rules’.
The failure of this system is that it produced an over reliance of members on leaders, whereby the members were often unable to think for themselves outside of the teaching they received. Holiness in this system is understood as practice of stated particular disciplines or activities.
3. The Middle Ground
Somewhere between the above two extremes would, I suggest, be the more likely Biblical model whereby:
- teaching is clear, yet people are taught to think and reason for themselves,
- there is accountability to local leaders whereby obvious sin is challenged, yet people are taught to make themselves accountable to God for lesser matters,
- godly wisdom is made available, through specialist leaders, for those who want to avail themselves of it, to help deal with difficulties of life.
As I will go on to explain, I believe this third model provides a fertile ground in which to create a genuinely secure church. In the remainder of this chapter I will provide some thinking to support this last model, and in the next chapter suggest ways in which I believe it can be put into practice so as to create the loving and caring environment that we have been speaking about throughout the book.
