Resisting the Authoritarian Lure

By Marcel Redling

The concept of amipotence could serve as a new paradigm for pastoral leadership.

Much has been written about leadership in recent decades, not least from a Christian perspective. Countless books have been published that attempt to fathom the nature of a good and healthy leadership culture. Nevertheless, scandals of Christian leaders who are using their position of power to manipulate and dominate others abound to such an extent that it is misleading to merely speak of isolated cases. Most recently in the United Kingdom, a highly influential pastor was accused of abusing his spiritual authority to control and coerce his staff and interns over many years. This is but one example of a troubling phenomenon.

This seems to be a problem inherent in the system of certain forms of contemporary Church-culture and practice, a system that elevates (celebrity-) pastors on such a high pedestal that they are unassailable to any criticism and without any accountability. The question is why such excesses continue to occur. With so many resources available, it cannot be a lack of knowledge about what good leadership is and looks like. There is also no shortage of negative examples of poor leadership and its disastrous consequences. Could it be that the cause lies in something completely different?

It has been said that ‘we become what we behold.’ There are certainly many factors that contribute to the failure of Christian leaders, yet the question arises as to whether the underlying image of God that is propagated in some of those contexts does not also play an important role. Our beliefs about God directly influence and shape our behavior, morals, and ethics, as Froese and Bader clearly point out in their study America’s four Gods. Could the idea of an all-powerful God lead to rather narcissistic fantasies of omnipotence that feeds the human desire to dominate others, which many pastors fall victim to? One could argue that authoritarianism in general is on the rise. Politically, this can be observed even on a global level. So it would not be surprising, then, to see this trend reflected even in the church, which often embodies the norms of its surrounding culture, repeatedly failing to resemble the countercultural example of Jesus. Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to examine how disparate concepts of God shape and inform our understanding of leadership.

The psychologist Erich Fromm was the first to distinguish between two distinct forms of religion in his seminal book Psychoanalysis and Religion. These are labeled as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘humanistic.’ Fromm states that in authoritarian expressions of religion, God is perceived as an omniscient and omnipotent supreme being who demands unquestioning submission and obedience. This is believed to be the only way for humans to gain divine favor. This belief system is frequently accompanied by a set of rigorous rules and doctrines that followers are expected to adhere to. The primary virtue associated with this form of belief consequently is obedience and control. In contrast, humanistic forms of religion place an emphasis on the cultivation of love and compassion as a means of developing human potential in order to live in mutual solidarity with all beings. This approach is less about exerting control than it is about establishing an environment that enables individuals to flourish and realize their potential. Since Fromm, there have been several authors who have picked up this trail.

Thomas Jay Oord has recently proposed for a reconsideration of the concept of an omnipotent God, arguing that this notion not only presents a number of problematic aspects but is also lacking sufficient scriptural evidence to be considered a valid theological construct. Rather, in order to adequately discuss the essence and attributes of God, he suggests that love should be given precedence. In order to do so, Oord has coined the concept of amipotence as an alternative to the traditional understanding of an all-powerful God. This understanding posits that God never exercises coercion or control. Rather, in His everlasting love, God seeks the well-being of the entire creation. Since our image of God plays such a significant role in shaping our behavior, it is worth considering whether the concept of amipotence could serve as a corrective paradigm within the context of pastoral leadership, by establishing love as the essential requirement and primary objective in ministry. In a situation of conflict and strife, the Apostle Paul insistently exhorts the believers in Corinth to make love their aim (1Cor. 14:1, RSV). Another translation of this verse reads; ‘Let love be your highest goal’ (NLT). Although this verse is to be understood as an instruction for all believers in general, it applies all the more to people in leadership positions.

According to the Apostle John, the most concise and accurate definition of love can be derived from the crucifixion of Christ. ‘By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren’ (1Jn 3:16, RSV). Therefore, a pastor must never serve his own ambitions and self-serving interests, but rather the people entrusted to his care. Jesus himself draws a clear distinction between worldly power, which he defines as lording over others, and the dedication to selfless service that his disciples are called to demonstrate instead. Both approaches, the authoritarian as well as the nurturing one, can already be identified here. On the way to Jerusalem, in the face of his imminent death, Jesus is approached by two of his disciples, James and John, with the request that they be given the right of sitting in the places of honor to his left and right when He has finally established his kingdom in glory (cf. Mk 10:35-45).

Although Jesus rejects their request, he nevertheless seizes the opportunity to provide instruction to all of his disciples. Emphasizing that the exercise of power is often accompanied by exploitation, violence and force, his disciples ought to exemplify a life of mutual submission and service. Ironically, when Jesus finally is executed, two criminals are crucified with him at either side (Mk 15:27f.). As if Mark is trying to say that the seat of honor, that his disciples were striving after, is to be found right there at the cross, exemplified by self-sacrificial service and love, void of glory and fame. Since Jesus appears utterly powerless on the cross this ultimately raises the question of what such love is even capable of. From antiquity to the present day, the notion of a crucified Messiah remains a source of contention for many (1 Cor 1:23). Even so, love can accomplish what force never will.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” In this regard, it is worth revisiting the Gospel of Mark, which references the Roman officer who oversaw the crucifixion. After witnessing the way Jesus had died, he immediately exclaimed that ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’ (Mk 15:39, NIV). Given the fact that the term ‘Son of God’ designates an imperial title, according to Walter Faerber, this centurion effectively changes his allegiance, breaking with Roman tyranny. It seems that even in his death, Jesus was able to convince others to reorientate their life without using force. There are several indications that there were disciples even in the emperor’s house only a few years after the crucifixion (cf. Phil 4:22). This shows that love is even capable of undermining imperial power structures.

The role of a pastor is a position of weakness. To further explain this idea, it is useful to draw upon the concept of lateral leadership, as discussed in the context of leadership theory, which is employed to describe leadership roles that do not possess directive authority. Similarly, a pastor has no means that guarantee to bring about change in the behavior of the people that are entrusted to him. Thus, the pastor’s authority is contingent upon the voluntary consent of those whom they serve; it cannot be imposed. Unlike other professional contexts, which can be based on clear hierarchies and chains of command, the role of the pastor is inherently relational and hinges upon trust. Research indicates that disciplinary actions, such as punishment and coercion, prove to be ineffective in modifying human behaviors. Forcing people into a certain framework can never bring about lasting change.

In terms of organizational development, Joseph Kessels, a consultant and entrepreneur, states in an interview that although rigid structures enable quick and efficient results in the short term, they hinder the growth and innovation of the organization in the long term, since employees quickly discover that the system has no interest in their own initiative. Unfortunately many management methods are uncritically applied to pastoral ministry. Not least because many pastors are under pressure to perform and grow their church. Yet, the goal as pastor should always be to lead people into greater maturity. This would mean giving people the freedom to make their own decisions and take responsibility for them before God, rather than making them dependent on external authorities. In this respect, the pastor has more of a role model function, by setting an example and inviting others to join him. Like Paul bids the Corinthians to: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1Cor 11:1, NIV).

The most prominent leadership metaphor in the Bible is that of a shepherd. In Psalm 23 God himself is described as shepherd of his people and praised for his loving protection and nurturing care. In stark contrast is the criticism of the prophet Ezekiel, who accuses the leaders of Israel of abusing their power and indulging in luxury at the expense of the people (cf. Ez. 34). Verse 4 is particularly striking, serving as a negative example of pastoral ministry and the misuse of power. “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered…” (Ez. 34:4f, NIV). Instead of serving the needs of the people, those in charge merely satisfied their own needs. Every leadership position is at risk of being abused. Pastors are not exempt from this, since there is always the danger to mix or confuse genuine concerns with one’s selfish ambitions and desires.

It is therefore imperative to reiterate that pastoral ministry is not an end in itself; rather, it is a means of serving and supporting others. Jesus himself walked this path, as he freely laid down his life (cf. Jn 10,11-18). This essay has attempted to answer the question of whether the concept of amipotence could be applied to pastoral ministry. Given the many scandals in Christian ministry, love may be the necessary corrective needed to mitigate some of these sad cases of pastoral abuse. Clearly implementing this principle does not exclude the pastor from potential failures along the way. Trying to put this into practice will certainly go hand in hand with experiences of personal failure.

Before Jesus calls Peter back into the circle of disciples after his failure and betrayal, Jesus asks him just one question: “Do you love me? “(cf. Jn 21,15-17). After Peter has responded to the question for the third time, Jesus reinstates him to his previous role and gives him the assignment to feed the sheep and care for the flock. Thus, pastoral work is not about building impressive ministries or building a brand. First and foremost, pastoral work is all about love. About loving God and loving people. How could we ever have missed this?

Bio: Marcel Redling, M.A. used to be a pastor for more than 18 years. He currently works as a social worker in prison and usually buys more books than he is able to read.

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Marcel Redling shows how amipotence can meaningfully transform pastoral leadership. Too often, pastors mimic a controlling, omnipotent God by leading in authoritarian ways. Marcel instead points to Jesus as the model of leadership grounded not in power over others but in persuasive, nonviolent love. Jesus deliberately rejected coercive leadership, a choice that likely contributed to his crucifixion. Following the path of amipotent love isn’t without cost. But it offers a powerful alternative: leadership shaped by humility, compassion, and freedom. As Marcel suggests, embracing Jesus’ cruciform example moves pastors from control-driven guidance to leading through the transformative power of uncontrolling love.

For more on Oord’s view on the worship of authoritarianism, see this article.

* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.