LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Assignment Title: Power in modern church today
Course: CHMN 699 - Internship
Student: Kristine Sage
Date: January 29, 2022
Professor: Dr. Joel Breidenbaugh
Power in modern church today
Problems of power are central to a trail of issues that have been raised in the public domain. This is
not a problem unique to church life as is obvious from stories across many spheres of humanity,[16] but it
is especially noteworthy in a Christian context that holds to and proclaims an ethic steeped in humility
and that seeks to embody the One who came not to be served but to serve;[17] Christ, who emptied
himself of power to redeem and reconcile the whole of creation.[18]
Words from Henri Nouwen, a Catholic priest and theologian, have much to say to us here: ‘One of
the greatest ironies of the history of Christianity is that its leaders constantly gave in to the temptation
of power – political power, military power, economic power, or moral and spiritual power – even though
they continued to speak in the name of Jesus, who didn’t cling to his divine power, but emptied himself
and became as we are. The temptation to consider power a useful instrument in the proclamation of the
Gospel is the greatest of all. We keep hearing from others, as well as saying to ourselves, that having
power, provided it is used in the service of God and your fellow human beings, is a good thing. With this
rationalisation, crusades took place, inquisitions were organised, Indians were enslaved, positions of
great influence were desired, episcopal palaces, splendid cathedrals, and opulent seminaries were built,
and much moral manipulation of conscience was engaged in. Every time we see a major crisis in the
history of the Church… we always see that a major cause of rupture is the power exercised by those who
claim to be followers of the poor and powerless Jesus.’[19]
It is clear in the gospels that the disciples of Jesus did not understand the centrality of humility
within the Kingdom of God, they argued about who would be most powerful,[20] and they seemed to
imagine Jesus taking up an earthly empire. They imagined a powerful, triumphal takeover of the world in
which they existed. They wanted influence. They could not comprehend salvation, reconciliation, and
redemption coming through humility, sacrifice, and service, yet that is what Jesus ultimately embodied
and it is what the church community is called to in whatever context it exists.[21] In that vein the epistles
within the New Testament show us a community grappling with a way of being that did not fit the
hierarchical cultures that existed around them. Instead, the new community that was forming under the
Lordship of Christ was one that radically removed the power ladder, consistently giving honour to those
who were on the bottom, creating an equality of status. This is a subversive challenge for the organising
of any Christian community. Through public allegations it appears that some (not all) leaders of Arise too
often focused honour in the wrong place and used their power in destructive ways. It would be easy to
view any misuse of power as deliberate and premeditated, but such things are always more complex
than this, with most actions feeling justifiable within group settings where various cultures are
reinforced.
1. Centralised Power.
Public stories, and an external observation of Arise structure and culture, demonstrate the
centralisation of authority into the hands of a small group. Public information shows allegations that
those who pushed back on or disagreed with leadership, questioning realities within the organisation,
were soon excluded or side-lined.[22] It appears it was difficult for many to ‘speak up’ in general or speak
‘up the chain-of-command.’ Too often power is self-preserving and will work against that which may
threaten to diminish it.
In regard to authority being centred around individuals, through recent events it is public
knowledge that the Board of Arise has changed the legal power to appoint Board members, shifting it
from one person to appointment by agreement of 75% of the sitting Board. It is my understanding that
the Board are also undertaking further reviews into their governance structure.
It appears that the vision of one person has been central to the life of Arise and that all else has
existed, to a degree, in the service of that vision. Arise is not unique in operating with such an approach
to church leadership. For churches that operate under such a model this leads to significant risks for the
church and for those individuals, as is evident in the problems addressed in this article.
The WWII German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, signalled the risks inherent in this centralisation
of the Christian community in the vision of individuals, whether it be those in explicit positions of
authority or other forceful personalities within the community: ‘Innumerable times a whole Christian
community has broken down because it had sprung from a wish dream. The serious Christian, set down
for the first time in a Christian community, is likely to bring with him a very definite idea of what
Christian life together should be and try to realise it… Every human wish dream that is injected into the
Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community
is to survive. He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes
a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and
sacrificial… The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realised by God, by
others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law,
and judges the brethren and God himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others
in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds
men together. When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is
destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then
an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.’[23]
When Christian community is squeezed into the image and will of any personality who is not Christ,
it runs the risk of suffocating the lived experience and value of the individuals that together form that
community. A difficulty in interpreting when this is happening comes because those with influence,
whether they be in positions of authority or simply hold significant sway within the community, always
perceive what it is that they imagine as the right way for Christian community to be, thus the push
towards the desired vision inevitably feels entirely justifiable.
With authority held by a small group in the organisation of Arise (rightly or wrongly) the result
appears to have been a disempowering of campus pastors with public stories highlighting a desire for a
strengthening of the local voice to respond to local need. Anecdotal evidence through my own
discussions with people show that the crisis for Arise has caused this to begin happening, with less
rigidity around aspects related to events so that campus pastors can better address the context of their
local congregations. In the wider Christian community, some have attempted to justify structures with
such a focus of authority by pointing to the lives of the kings of the Old Testament, but this is not a
Jesus-centric model. Jesus was the inheritor of all that was good in the kingship image but also the one
who lays down his life for the Church.[24] The gospel focused way of conducting the life of the ekklesia is
never power in order to rule over others.
If we conclude that such an authority structure is problematic then we must acknowledge that the
development of this centralised power culture is not a failing of any individual alone, it is also a failing of
those who have enabled it, namely other leaders, including the church governance body, and a wider
church culture. For that culture to survive it must have then been adopted and reinforced by the
congregation.
2. The Problem of Power Imbalances
Public reporting demonstrates, if read in the least cynical way, a concerning lack of awareness of
the power imbalances among some who hold or held positions of power and authority within Arise. As
well, these stories demonstrate a possible concerning lack of awareness in relation to how negative the
effect of disempowerment was on many in the organisation.
A picture has been painted of a culture where some people felt lesser or on the outside if they were
to say no to things asked of them in the service of the institution, its programmes and events, and its
leaders.
There seems to have been a sense of powerlessness among many to express their profound
disapproval of various actions some with power within Arise engaged in towards those with less power.
This was especially poignant regarding alleged actions that were extremely demeaning for those
subjected to them. There are far too many publicly available stories from within Arise of some in
authority acting in entirely inappropriate ways towards others. Ultimately the power imbalance in place
means some of the inappropriate activities that have been reported need to be called out as physical or
sexual abuse.
A more cynical view, as expressed by some in the public realm, would see the alleged power
imbalances inherent to Arise as resulting in those with power revelling in their authority with a disregard
for the impact their actions have on others. In the current circumstances with Arise it is impossible to
substantiate motive and to do so here would be presumptuous (for myself I prefer to steer away from
the cynical view), but it is worth acknowledging that a culture that celebrates power in the hands of a
few, inadvertently runs the risk of encouraging a sense of entitlement in the treatment of others due to
there being little dissent to challenge it. This has no place in the life of a community formed in the way
of the One who gave honour and dignity to the powerless.
3. Overreach of Control
Information in the public domain suggest a culture of control within Arise. The picture painted is
that it extends all the way through the organisation from how events are run (evident in things such as
controlling where people sit, and demeaning treatment of people when things don’t go as planned) to
the say some in authority seem to have believed they have been entitled to in the lives of subordinates
within Arise.
The overreach is alleged in some leaders telling people what they should or should not wear,
inappropriate control of relationships, a strong sense of hierarchy and control of people’s positions that
goes beyond good employment practice, talking about who people should and should not spend their
time with, and it is evident in the information alleged to have been collected and shared via the Flocks
database and ‘care lists’.
It is not unreasonable to have a database with basic information about those within a church
community but Arise seemed to have taken this beyond what could be considered reasonable, and with
a possible lack of care in how that information has been handled. Based on what has been shared, there
appears to have been very few checks or balances regarding who gets access to it. This can result in
some with access feeling entitled to information about others, and an exertion of control over aspects of
people’s lives where permission has not been given to speak into such areas. Publicly people have
spoken of conversations with others about things they considered private that could only have
happened if those people had inappropriate access to information about them via Flocks or internal
conversations. Work is encouraged in the area of privacy, and Arise’s announced review into privacy
issues is a welcome step.
With the allegations of control within Arise, it needs to be acknowledged that a controlled
environment conscious of uniformity and brand protection also carries the danger of pushing
differences underground. When this is linked to the ‘toxic positivity’ I will address later in this article, it
leaves those who might see themselves as ‘different’ for any reason feeling alone and of less worth.
Rather than providing a safe environment where people going through significant issues around identity,
such as questioning their sexuality or gender, can feel safe to be open about that journey, they end up
feeling unsafe and unable to be vulnerable with their community. The same applies for other issues such
as holding different political leanings to that of the leadership, going through mental health issues,
exploring faith doubts and questions that sit outside of what Arise may be expressing, and more. It is
expected that churches will have a core story, shared belief, and procedures that are necessary when
problems surface, but a church environment should also be a place where people feel safe enough to be
vulnerable about whatever issues they face. Not doing so has dire consequences in the lives of those
who feel isolated.
References
[25] Henri J. M. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus (The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989).
[26] Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan¸ The Pastor as Public Theologian: Reclaiming a Lost Vision
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 1.
[27] Luke 24:32
[28] Joseph McAuley, Pentecostalism Re-Imagined: Reconfiguring Pentecostalism in Twenty-First Century
New Zealand (D.Min Final Project, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2018). 66-67.
[29] Here Arise must be commended for choosing to take complaints seriously, and wanting to listen.
[30] Scot McKnight & Laura Barringer, A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture that Resists
Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2020).
[31] Ken Carlson and Mike Lueken, Renovation of the Church; What Happens When a Seeker Church
Discovers Spiritual Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 55-56.
[32] Carlson and Lueken, Renovation of the Church, 33.
[33] It is a technique that has been used in events and conferences that I have been present at. These
have not been Arise events.
[34] Deuteronomy 18:20, Ezekiel 13:9
[35] Taxation in ancient Israel shifted and changed depending on who was ruling. In scripture, when the
people desired to have a King, it was noted that the burden of taxation in money and goods, along with
forced labour (a type of tax), would greatly increase to fulfil the desires of the monarchy (1 Samuel 8:10-
18). According to the biblical account David used forced labour as a way to ‘pay’ for building projects (2
Samuel 20:24). This increased under King Solomon (1 Kings 5:13-18) and those who followed him, where
taxation and forced labour were greatly increased to meet the needs of larger building projects
(Example: 1 Kings 12:1-14), and to meet the needs of the king’s household (1 Kings 4:7-18). It is clear
that such taxes far exceeded those required in scriptural law. Under Rehoboam, the revolt against
increased labour and taxation split the kingdom of Israel into two (1 Kings 12:16-24).
[36] If true, this practice is not limited to Arise. I recognise that favourable treatment of those who give
significant sums of money happens within a number of churches.
[37] James 2:1-11
[38] Luke 14:7-14
[39] Joseph McAuley, Evolutions of Pentecostalism (D.Min paper, Movements of the Spirit in World
Christianity, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2016).
[40] For those who may defend the exhaustion and burnout in these circumstances as a demonstration of
service to God, it is worth pointing out that this has not happened because people have served in war
zones, helped in slums, done missionary work in remote places, spent time with the homeless, served in
foodbanks, or any other such cause of service toward the ‘least of these’. Rather, the burnout has
happened in service of constant high production events and meeting the requirements of those seen as
VIPs.
[41] Titus 1:6-8
[42] Titus 1:9
[43] McAuley, Pentecostalism Re-Imagined, 68.
[44] It is acknowledged that the current crisis has led to some experiencing a more open and honest
environment within Arise.
[45] John 11
[46] Luke 9:23
[47] Matthew 5:41
[48] 1 John 3:16
[49] Matthew 7:13
[50] The calendar begins with Advent and anticipation for the arrival of the Messiah. It then moves
through the life and ministry of Jesus with Christmas, Lent, Easter, Pentecost and Ordinary Time, before
concluding with Christ the King Sunday as a celebration that Christ is, and will be ultimately recognized
as, King of kings and Lord of lords.
[51] McAuley, Pentecostalism Re-Imagined, 79-81.
[52] Joan Chittister, The Liturgical Year: the Spiraling Adventure of the Spiritual Life (Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson Publishing, 2009), 6.
[53] McAuley, Pentecostalism Re-Imagined, 79-81.
[54] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Church Election Sermon, July 23, 1933 at Trinity Church in
Berlin.https://concordiaandkoinonia.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/church-election-sermon-preached-by-
pr-dietrich-bonhoeffer-july-23-1933at-trinity-church-in-berlin/ Also printed in No Rusty Swords:Letters,
Lectures and Notes, 1928-1936, from the Collected Works of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Volume 1
[55] Hebrews 12:2
[56] Vanhoozer and Strachan¸ The Pastor as Public Theologian, 17.
[57] Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olsen, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 14.
[58] McAuley, Pentecostalism Re-Imagined, 66-67.
[59] John 20:24-28
[60] Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 28-29.
