Much has been made about flat leadership in the missional church. Flat leadership of course refers to non-hierarchical forms of church leadership structure. In my experiences, there are various reactions to it. Some assume flat leadership is a reaction to abusive authoritarian structures of leadership. Still others complain that flat leadership means no leadership. Some like it because, in the midst of conflict or confusion in the local church, flat leadership means we talk more or tolerate each other more. For me, all of this misses the point of flat leadership.
Three Reasons Flat Leadership Works For Missionary Communities
For me three things drive my attachment to flat leadership structures in the church. First, flat leadership pushes the church outward as opposed to a top-down leadership structure, which draws the church inward. As I have said elsewhere, with top down leadership, the activity of the church flows inward towards the leaders who give direction. They are the professionals. When a member of the body has an issue, concern, or a call to pursue in the field of mission, he or she is trained to first look inward to the leader to answer questions like: How does this fit with our goals and visions? How can we secure resources from the church organization? How can we secure its blessing? Each member of body is passivized as he or she looks inward and upward for approval for what they are doing. The church becomes uniform as it becomes organized around a personality that people like, trust or are drawn to. There are usually a set of issues that distinguish this leader and his/her church from other leaders and their churches. People stay or leave as they are aligned with this person and the positions. In essence each church becomes a “brand” centered around its leadership. This is what top down leadership does. Flat leadership does the opposite. It decenters the life of the church from around a central leader. It pushes people outward. Flat leadership enables the church’s identity to take shape around missional activity in the surrounding culture.
Second, flat leadership structures are more dynamic flexible and discerning of new things. Conflict is important in a church. Differences, disputable matters and the discerning of sin in the body are all important “life matters” that shape a community into the mission we are called. With top down leadership, conflict usually gets litigated through the leadership as opposed to discerned by and among the community. There is very little room to move into new territory unless discerned by the said leader. But, unfortunately, the leader is often engulfed in “managing” the church’s growth now. Conflict is discerned based on what harms or does not harm the cohesiveness and growth of the church body. This stagnates a community quickly. Decentralized flat leadership works against that.
Third, flat leadership models the disposition of Christ we need for mission in the world. With top down leadership, there is often a coercive element here. The leader is often acting out of the authority of the office, in which he or she exercises an authority of position. He or she is set above the congregation instead of below it, as the Scripture seems to dictate for all leadership in the church. Mark 10:42-45. Such leadership does not model the submission to Christ that following Christ demands. It does not model the vulnerability and submission to the Father that Christ Himself modeled and the epistles call all leaders into (Phil 2, 1 Pet 5. 1-6).
For these various reasons, top down leadership works against the body of Christ being incarnational, discerning new territories, entering the world humbly and in the disposition of servanthood. It passivizes the body of Christ from being an alive ministering community of the Spirit extending His Lordship into the world.
The Three P.’s of Leading a Missional Community
Having said all of this however, people still can’t see how such a flat leadership works in the church. We are so driven by a modern Christendom form of leadership which is more efficient and based in a set of cognitive skills sufficient in Christendom, but woefully inadequate for the missionary situation we find ourselves in. So, recently, I was asked, about two months ago, while we were in the midst of a conflict in our body, to describe for our shepherd board the principles of how our leadership works. I wrote three things on a napkin that I have since used over and over again. I now call them “the three P.’s.” They are
1.) Posture. All leadership is called to model the POSTURE of submission to Christ as Lord of the church and (in that) the posture of mutual submission to one another in all activities of leadership. This posture, which Yoder called “revolutionary subordination,” is the place out of which God works to reveal the truth. In dialogue with one another, in listening, and in pushing each other, a consensus is birthed. And until that time we wait and listen more.
2.) Process. The process of Matt 18:15-20 is fundamental to how we navigate issues in the church. The issues the church must deal with arise from on the ground relationships going on amidst and around the community. When sin and/or a disputable matter occurs, we begin to discern that issue/disagreement NOT BY GOING TO THE TOP DOG LEADER, and having him/her arbitrate. (Matt 18 is not just about sin, but also issues of differences as described in the words “binding and loosing”). We go to one another and in humility discuss the issue. If we believe someone is in sin we say that and then submit ourselves to that person being careful to listen as to why we might be wrong. If agreement cannot be reached, if insubordination is detected, we then bring in a third person. At the point where an issue simply cannot be agreed upon (and these issues are rare and outside the creedal orthodoxies that guide a given church), then we take it to the elders, then to the community to study and pray over the issue (Acts 15.28). The Holy Spirit at work in the community drives the issues that will determine the direction of the church, not the single chosen leader who shall determine what shall be discerned, what shall be tolerated, and what shall be not allowed.
3.) Pneumatocracy. OK it does not work phonetically, (I also have tried “Politics of the Spirit” if you’re really hung up on phonetics). Here I am trying to say that the body IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. It is a social field of the Holy Spirit where the authority of Christ is exercised in the gifts as recognized by the community. There will need to be apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, and pastors, all recognized and in service to the body. These gifts need to be recognized, trusted and followed if the community is to flourish into God’s life together. Often I hear that no leadership can come from such a flat leadership. I think this misunderstands flat leadership. For flat leadership will not work unless the apostles can lead, the preacher-teachers teach etc. Each one must be given authority for what gifts God has given them. Yet they must exercise that gift in grace and humility (Rom 12: 3-4).
By following the three P.’s I believe a community is formed for mission Cohesively missional communities are shaped. Top down hierarchies provide leadership for Christendom. They most efficiently manage an already existing body of Christians, They facilitate larger churches. They create brands around leaders. It’s fine for that place and time. For we who seek to be missionaries, and to be unencumbered with the attractional models of church planting, I offer the three P.’s.
I already know people think this will not work. I was so formed out of John Yoder’s writings (especially Body Politics) that I was shocked this was just not second nature to any missional types. I have learned that this way of leadership is not only Biblical but revolutionary and will take practice and continual learning. So what objections or problems does this mode of leadership present for you?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
i love these reflections. they resonate with me substantially. but i have a hard time reconciling certain scenarios in the NT (mostly apostolic ones), instructions about obeying (or "hearing") your leaders, and the clearly hierarchical anti-nicene leadership structures (particularly in Ignatius' letters). Even if we don't take these "outliers" as prescriptive, doesn't this at the very least mean that there are multiple ways to organize leadership? or that there should be a degree of flatness to the hierarchy (I'm thinking of an argument like Gerald Schlabach's "Unlearning Protestantism"). So to put it more pointedly, do you find any tension in the NT or anti-nicene practice with your position?
great job dave,
now if you could assume the proper posture before me and humbly bow, then I think our co-pastorate could really start working. (Ha! that's a joke everyone…).
but I'm not sure the idea of "flat" leadership is really what you are getting at. "servant" leadership is more to the point, but has been used poorly already.
What about 'mountainous'? There are peaks and valley. The peaks are the Spirit enabled gifting from which leadership flows (which could continually be shifting), and the valleys are the practices of humility and service.
or, even better, 'wave' leadership, where you have peaks and valleys but also continual movement.
dude, your metaphors are overwhelming me … but I must admit, I have often felt the experience of the waves … in being in leadership with you
Michael – I affirm… totally … the multiple ways the affirmation of the gifts can play out … for there must eventually be a structure that facilitates the regular recognition of the gifts, those gifted for apostleship, teaching, guiding the flock prophetically, evangelcism etc… In fact, as i have posted before, this kind of leadership, quite against the Anabaptist impulses I am following here, is often (maybe always) facilitated best by ordination.
It is just within post Christendom, where the charismatic basis of all these functions turns into a hardened office which is then held over and above the congregation, and functions to some degree separate from the community's recognition, where things go bad. Read the abuses of hierarchy in medieval Rome here, read the poorer examples of mega church CEO leadership as well.
I actually see the Nicene Council as potentially read positively in this light (It was a council that prayed read and listened to each other over a long period of time to come to some key discernments for the church as it pushed further outwartd from its Jerusalem beginnings -( of course I recognize that many will read it in totally opposite terms).
Peace ..
I love these ideas. While I can't say for sure that I fully grasp the idea, I can say it tickles my brain and is beginning to fascinate me. I see two concerns, at least as far as my fledgling understanding goes.
1) From my reading, the Biblical example is nominally hierarchical. Acts and the epistles are full of higher authority giving instructions, as well as people appealing to higher authorities. Now, having said that, our denominational structures have shifted that hierarchy dangerously top heavy, but that's another issue.
2) From a purely pragmatic perspective, I tend to think any flat structure would naturally drift toward hierarchy. The natural human condition is to be part of a hierarchy and we are most comfortable there. That doesn't mean a flat structure could not be maintained, just that it might require an extraordinary amount of effort and focus to do so.
This sounds really attractive to me, but in my old mainline congregation I just don't think we have the theological and spiritual unity to make it happen. We have folks who are well grounded in the bible, walking with Jesus. We have other folks who don't want to be so narrow minded. To make flat leadership work here, I'd have to be strongly hierarchical to impose some things first (which would probably run off a bunch of people). I've decided to work with the people here instead, and try to take them on the journey with me.
I think this is a good corrective to our churches today who have bought into the hierarchy of CEO's, experts and guru's. I wonder if this would take a serious, intentional discipling process that must be taught and modeled over time, beginning with the professional and lay leaders of the church. I know my faith may be weak on this point but, whether intentional or unintentional, pastors who practice this in a community where their elders and congregation are still operating as "business as usual" may get steamrolled.
This is a such a critical topic and I love that you have engaged it here, David. We have clumsily been trying to foster this kind of leadership at Little Flowers Community. An interesting dynamic emerged, particularly among the single 20-somethings- rather than being formed by a single, hierarchical leader, there is often the same pattern playing itself out around a generalized peer group. In other words, this generalized sense of peer-approval, that truly does not have a singular leader, becomes a form of hierarchy of its own. Does that make sense? Any thoughts.
I am especially encouraged by how you articulate pneumatocracy. I have seen some amazing communities that have pursued flat leadership in wonderful ways, but all too often those people functioning so obviously in their charism will try to articulate flat-ness as uniformity, denying their vocation/gifting. While at least they are functioning in their gifting, I have seen them discredit their own authority to those outside the community by doing this. By not affirm this pneumatocracy in our flat-leadership, we risk people seeing our claims of such to be semantic, for they will see the leadership functions express themselves in our midst. To deny them is fruitless, even when out of a well-intentioned humility.
Hi David, I follow @don_r_davis on twitter and he linked to this topic of yours here on your blog. I am interested in leadership so clicked and here I am. I read your post on flat leadership which I had never heard of but I like it. I read the comments above which are pretty cool comments.
The issue of hierarchal leadership has caused me to be disillusioned and suspicious of all leaders. Ironically, I would follow any leader who would subscribe to the outline which you have described above. It may sound strange that I am interested in leadership but only the servant leadership which you describe. There is lots o' talk about servant leadership which is the same old, same old command and control with a dash of humility and sprinkles of spiritual longo. Can you hear my cynicism?
Your post stirs me greatly and spurs me to look more into this subject of flat leadership. Thanks for your post. I am now following you on twitter. All the best. Write on!
We could just call it mututally submitting to and recieving one anothers gifs and graces and thier place in the body. There is leadership for certian aspects of missional and discipleship work that is a leadership (spearheading) type of ministry that only the specific one given it can fulfil. It can be done without a hierarchal spirit. We can still honor the place one is given without making them the focal point or measure of our own personal call.
Different mandates and calls have differing levels of responsibility in the kingdom and we must honor and recognize these. At the end of the day it comes down to love and respect for one another. Being able to hear and recieve from the "least" of the brethren is a prerequisite to leadership.
I used to beleive in no leadership as a reaction to bad leadership, now i have come to see that it is a matter of the heart, and each has a place that they must fullfil thier mandate of kingdom authority to bring completion to the body, respecting and honoring one another in thier places engenders respect and honor to all men. Those that have learned to honor one another in this way do not abuse others.
In Him
Kriston Couchey
Great points, and the one where I struggle is the last one. And Jamie, I appreciate your comments – unfortunately have lived them out. I think the big challenge.. and I mean BIG.. is that we have no models. Or at least, most of us lack the experience of genuinely biblical community. As a result we struggle and fall into cultural patterns which have colonized us. Is it fair to say there is an element of paradox at work in the pneumacratic body? Or at least that we want to systematize it — I'm not sure its possible. In the real world when the Spirit touches down something unique happens that takes into account the context, persons, place and mission… my own version of the "P's" from last year.. http://fresh-refresh.com/leadership-in-new-church…
great food for thought … my mind is going as a result of this post.
i grew up in the anabaptist tradition as well believing the congregation is at the top, with the board next and the pastor at the bottom. the lord's supper has always been a strong image of this for me, with the board serving the congregation and then the pastor serving the board.
then i moved to a different culture where the basic leadership structure centers around a strong leader leading to the point where the people wait for the leader to speak so they know where they should go. when i presented the "anabaptist" idea to them they said it doesn't work here. i'm wondering how much of what we say regarding leadership is culturally-based as opposed be biblically-based? those who haven't experienced another culture don't realise that not everything that we believe to be biblical is in fact biblical
some is really cultural.
i was also inspiried by geoff's comments regarding waves and mountains. could it be possible that as each of the leadership roles (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher) are designed to lead on different mountains or valleys. when certain situations arise, certain styles or roles are needed.
my thoughts thank you for this food today ….
This seems far more like a criticism of what is rather than an articulation of what could be/what should be. I agree with Len. There are no few models of this or the working models there are we don't recognize as leadership/organization.
To all who say this is hard to imagine, I agree it is radical, yet it has been in practice in places wherever the radical reformation has taken hold, i.e. Anabaptists, mennonites, Brethren etc… And yet I don't think it looks always like a church that simply loses the senior pastor … it takes many shapes – returning to my comment above in response to Michael … about the best directive I can offer is to read Yoder's Body Politics …
David Fitch
pneumatocracy – love it!
would you say that in a redeemed-via-Christ-kind-of-way this might be the leadership model installed by God after the Exodus, where God is the center and King, and as leadership works itself out in Joshua and Judges, God raises up Spirit-empowered leadership…?
Michael, I think you are getting at something important. Both Lawrence Miller and Alan Roxburgh talk about a different (ancient) kind of team leadership in the role of the abbot/abbess. The role was to guard the ethos of the community, and to hold together a team of diverse leaders (Eph 4) so that no one strong gift would dominate. if you are familiar with the leadership and organizational life cycle stuff (see the chart in "The Shaping of Thigns to Come" for example) — the idea would be that the guidance of the abbot/abbess allows these gifts to coexist thru the life cycle of the organization. Or in the model of The Order of Mission, both the Bishop and Apostle share the center, so that both the inner life of the community and the outward life in mission are legitimated and guarded.
(len, I had to do a double-take; I thought the chart was titled "The Shaping of Thighs to Come", but I'm with you now)
I like the idea of "flat", non-hierarchical leadership models. One of the problems we run in to is that some folks with a more controlling personality or authoritarian style perceive the "flat" model as a leadership void and try to step in and control everything, which then ties in to guarding the ethos of the community.
Kriston said: "I used to beleive in no leadership as a reaction to bad leadership, now i have come to see that it is a matter of the heart, and each has a place that they must fullfil their mandate of kingdom authority to bring completion to the body, respecting and honoring one another in thier places engenders respect and honor to all men. Those that have learned to honor one another in this way do not abuse others. "
I agree that this really is a matter of the heart. I am wondering whether it would help to clarify by calling it "flatter" rather than flat. Maybe? Maybe not?
Hi David,
I found you through a friend and I have to tell you how glad I did. While there is much to consider about your solution to the problem of flat-leadership, you have sliced and exposed the root problem better than anyone I've read thus far. Thank you for such an enlightening bit of writing, and I look forward to familiarizing myself with more.
Brad
"While there is much to consider about your solution to the problem of flat-leadership…"
Pardon me, meant "..the problem of conventional leadership models."
Brad
The genius of AND. What if hierarchical and non-hierarchical forms of church leadership work together for utilizing and celebrating all manifestations of gifts. There is a need for centralized vision…the DNA of the church. Everything good/healthy in that central DNA needs to be reproduced at every level of leadership. At some point the good DNA is so good that it spins off and branches into missional activity that lends it self to less formal or just different leadership structures. If something in the DNA of a church is Spirit-led and effective then it is worth letting go of control and giving permission to all leaders to take the vision and run with it. If something is not healthy, hopefully it is not reproduced at any level.
I also believe that the various ministries within our churches need to be considered individually. The creative arts ministry have different leadership/training needs than small groups ministries and children's ministries….different DNA…different models of operation.
What works and how can it be reproduced vs. how can it be controlled. How can I say yes to leaders vs. how can they be controlled. The more people we give permission to lead with their gifts and the Holy Spirit, the more possibilities providing love and missional ministry to all the of society including the fringes.
I believe reproducing leadership strategies whether hierarchical or not, push the church outward. It's equipping and permission giving.
[...] something that is not yet formulated. A term “flat leadership” is coined (for instance, used here recently by a missional church leader named David Fitch). But what does it really mean. Does it symbolize some things that it is not? And were we a bit [...]
thanks david. this is very good wook and important. we (my organic church plant) are struggling in this, putting the concept into motion; and presently i think the biggest obstacle is the language, and the word choice "flat leadership" is failing us because with those words people are hearing very much what we are not saying. they often hear "anarchy." similarly we illustrate at times (as did you) with the term "non-hierarchical", which is true in that we are not the hierarchical structure they are used to; but I don't think we're talking about annihalating any sense of hierarchy altogether. besides by contrasting us to them we place people in a defensive posture from the get-go. if one reads through articles such as yours above then it's really hard to object; but it's easy to object to our ambiguous terms that only a small cross-section of people understand. they bring prejudices. we need a term that peeks curiosity and draws them in. i dealt with this at our board meeting tonight and posted here http://adamsavenuecrossing.org/2010/08/02/flatboa…. I am much in need of feedback and advice from anyone with experience or wisdom here.
Another issue relative to the word "leadership." It seems to me we are explicitly recognizing that "all" are given authority, but it looks different for different gifts. So authority is not equally distributed by the Spirit, but leadership, on the other hand, exists independently of authority. In our community leadership often comes from those without position or identified roles, but authority comes from those who we recognize with specific callings..
[...] a broader leadership community. We switched to the equipper model not only because we believe a new model is needed to lead the church to missional engagement with our increasingly post-Christian culture, but also [...]
[...] of church, who seriously wonder if there is any other way to be church, I encourage you to read this link, and then look for a missional community being birthed in a neighborhood near [...]
[...] (i.e., flattened) [...]
[...] the post-Christendom world, authority is flattened in the church and pushed outward (Read this post for more info). Positional authority of anyone over someone else is not the way things work in the [...]
[...] the post-Christendom world, authority is flattened in the church and pushed outward (Read this post for more info). Positional authority of anyone over someone else is not the way things work in the [...]