It seems to me that church leaders today, whether consciously or unconsciously, choose to lead on a scale somewhere between the Old Testament model of Patriarch or the New Testament model of Father. I’ve been in so many churches over the past 3+ decades and seen so many variations on a theme, but it does seem to boil down to whether the leader in questions has more of an OT or a NT mentality which determines which leadership style he chooses. (I use the term “he” inclusively of “he or she” for ease of writing style. Clearly, the OT allowed only men to be patriarchs, but women leaders today can sometimes show a similar mentality in their chosen leadership style.)
Patriarch:
The male head of a family or tribe; an older man who is powerful within an organization; the male founder of something. (Oxford Dictionary)
Father:
A man in relation to his child or children; an important male figure in the origin and early history of something; a man who provides care and protection. (Oxford Dictionary)
These definitions are similar, yet in some crucial ways disparate. Both are important figures; each could have been the founder or originator of a community, but the mentality behind the function (reflected in the definition) makes all the difference.
What can we learn from how the Old Testament portrays patriarchs?
A patriarch
1. was the unquestioned leader of the tribe, answerable to nobody but God (and thus to the prophets through whom He spoke)
2. was responsible for designating an heir to rule in his stead (today known as nepotism)
3. was responsible to God for the spiritual state of his tribe
4. in practice, often did not have good relationships with his sons, nor train them well to follow in his footsteps
5. ruled until he died
How does the New Testament portray fathers, physical or spiritual? (The same principles apply to mothers. Patriarchy does not allow for this)
A father
1. loves his children and rejoices in their progress, is not threatened by their success
2. is responsible to God to train them to love Him (primarily by example)
3. releases children as they grow into responsibility, balanced with concomitant authority, into the family business
4. trusts Holy Spirit’s working in them, calls them forth
5. leads by serving
In Austria, where I lived 30 years, there was a common but unhealthy dynamic that had existed for hundreds of years on family farms. The book “Herbstmilch” (Autumn Milk), written by an old woman recalling her youthful years on such a farm, really opened my eyes and I saw this dynamic still in place everywhere I looked. I call it the Altbauer/Neubauer dynamic.
The Altbauer (old farmer) was the patriarch of the family and ran the farm. His sons, when they married, brought their wives to come live and work on the family farm. The eldest son’s wife had to defer to her mother-in-law in all things, did not own anything, and was functionally often little more than a slave. As the Altbauer aged, she and her husband, the Neubauer, (new farmer) ended up running the farm and taking all the responsibility, but were not given the authority to make any actual decisions regarding the farm, as the Altbauer reserved this for himself. Often he retained control by simply not making any decision at all, abdicating the responsibility he refused to delegate by not acting when necessary. Legally, this also meant he kept the farm in his name rather than passing it on to his son, even when he could no longer work it himself.
Responsibility without appropriate, concomitant authority is not only wildly unfair, it is a very bad idea. It leads to frustration, ineffectiveness and eventually to despair. But the Altbauer often would not let go of his last shreds of rulership until shortly before (or even after) his death, by which time the Neubauer and his wife would be well into middle age, embittered and had run out of impetus to actually change anything on the farm. But finally they could rule, and by God now they would! --usurping their own young, strong sons in the process. Thus the cycle would begin all over again with the next generation. Many sons said “I’m not having this” and left the farm entirely.
Ideally, if the father rather than the patriarch model had been followed, the Altbauer would have seen his primary role as training the Neubauer to run a farm, and gradually increased the level of authority given to his son along with the level of responsibility placed upon his shoulders. This would eventually have ensured for himself a bit of rest, an old age with a family that actually still got on together, and a farm more likely to thrive because it was run by somebody young enough to shoulder the hard work and make decisions from first-hand experience rather than from outdated habit.
This dynamic is true for churches as well. Hope deferred makes the heart sick, and heartsick sons and daughters do not thrive. People up through their mid-40s have the necessary drive to lead well; if they are never allowed to, a church stagnates. Yes, they need to benefit from the wisdom of their elders, but they need to be the ones making the decisions, because in most cases they are already “running the farm”, as it were.
I remember a church back in Milwaukee which technically believed in plurality of leadership, but in actuality one “elder” ruled them all with an iron fist. This was a community church and said elder was not answerable to anyone. By the time I encountered this fellowship, he had been the head elder for decades and everyone was simply waiting for him to die. But because he lasted into a ripe old age (probably out of sheer spite), by the time he did die those who had become elders under him had lost their fire for positive change and things went on precisely as before, with the elephant still in the room and all the old dysfunctions carrying on into the next generations. Most of the children who had observed all this had no desire at all to follow the faith of their elders.
This is a chilling scenario. If we choose the patriarch role, we run the very real risk of (as many of them did) losing the very sons and daughters into whom we have invested.
The Apostle Paul considered himself a father to the churches he founded and the “sons” he put in charge of them. He certainly anguished over them and wrote with love and caring to them. But he was never interested in founding a dynasty. Quite in contrast, he seemed almost reckless in the speed with which he recognized and designated leaders of a new community of faith, and then went off to found some more, leaving them to it! Although St Paul communicated by letter and visited when he could, he clearly did not consider himself answerable to God for their walk of faith. His job was to train them as well as he could in the time allotted him, and then trust Holy Spirit in them to lead them into all truth.
We live under the New, not the Old, Covenant/Testament. But even if we wish to reference, say, the priesthood in the OT (which --though also problematic theologically --perhaps corresponds a little more to modern-day church leadership than does patriarchy), priests were relieved of active duty at age 50. Yes, they still served in the temple, but no longer in the roles reserved for younger, stronger men.
Can we not learn from these principles? Certainly at the latest by the time we start having biological grandchildren ourselves, we need to be thinking about what that means. As a grandparent, we are undoubtedly related and have a place of honour in the life of the grandchild. But we certainly do not have the same decision-making role in their lives as do their own parents. If asked, we may give our input, but then we need to shut up and let them do what they decide to do! We need to trust that whatever we were able to teach those parents, by example and by word, in the years we had that role in their lives, was enough; and that whatever we messed up (and we did), God is able to help and heal and teach them something better.
Let’s choose to love and train those we bring up in the Lord, and then release them to be all they can be. Let’s not micro-manage from behind the scenes. Let’s not assign responsibility without authority, leading to discouragement and bitterness. Let’s recognize who is doing the job, affirm them in it, release them to it, and rejoice in their success. Let’s imitate our Father in heaven-- let’s choose to be fathers and mothers, not patriarchs reflecting a covenant no longer in effect.
