Stephen Hill: Would the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?

Stephen W. Hill, “Would the Real Apostles Please Stand Up?: The truth about apostles, authority and the kingdom of God” Ministry Today (Jan 2009), p. 68-72.

This rather brief article is an attempt by Stephen Hill to question the pre-eminence given to apostles in churches today. Hill begins this task by recalling for the reader a story of, what he views as dishonorable, introductory comments of a leading apostle standing as the main speaker at a recent apostolic conference. He uses this as a platform to question the contemporary understanding not only of the role of the ‘Apostle’ but also the role of all church leaders. What proceeds is a passionate argument whereby Hill insists that the abuse of apostolic authority is an issue that is at the center of a widespread misunderstanding of true leadership in God’s kingdom. The argument concludes with a proposal of a solution to this problem to be found by adopting a church structure of ‘functional ministry’ whereby there is no hierarchical leadership in place but instead each believer takes on the mutual responsibility of serving ‘one another’. This review will present the strengths and weaknesses of the key elements of Hill’s reasoning and briefly suggest how such elements could open further areas for discussion regarding church leadership.

An obvious strength of Hill’s argument is his willingness to address problematic areas of ethical leadership—an issue that seems to be of growing concern in the church today. Arguing for a re-ordering of the understanding of true leadership within God’s kingdom, Hill asserts that leadership authority should be given by invitation. Likewise, leadership should always be exercised by example in order to ensure that leaders sustain a heart of servanthood. Hill states his reason for this model is that God always desires obedience through “free conviction rather than any form of coercion” (p.69).

However, instead of developing his ideas regarding ethical leadership within the church, Hill quickly divides his focus between discussing how leaders are meant to lead and what a leader should be in the first place. Evidence for this distraction can be seen from the outset in the tone of his writing. Also, while Hill’s criticisms of an unnamed apostle and an unnamed apostolic body seem to implicate ‘apostles’ in general, we would do well to remind ourselves that this correlation is not necessarily the case.

In equating the concepts of apostleship and kingship, Hill makes the mistake of using one aspect of inappropriate leadership as justification for questioning the position of apostles, and all leaders in general, and their overall place in God’s kingdom. The resulting anachronistic ‘mixing’ of the terms and definitions for kingship and apostleship (it is not immediately obvious how these terms relate to each other to form a leadership model) leaves the reader searching for their relevance to the practicality of church leadership. Hill argues that apostleship should not be based on an Old Testament model of kingship because true theocracy is based on the authority of the priest and prophet. In other words, kingly authority is essentially a “benevolent dictatorship” that controls by coercion and oppression whereas the authority of the prophetic and priestly office is supposedly inspired by the Spirit of God. But this does not entirely agree with biblical evidence. In the Old Testament, priests had the responsibility of teaching God’s law (Lev 10:11, Mal 2:6-7), yet in the book of Hosea we find a situation where the more the priests increased, the more sin increased among the community. As a result, God blamed the priests for the people’s lack of faithfulness (Hosea 4:7). Likewise, even though kingship is an example of an ungodly use of leadership authority (as argued by Hill) we find that David’s main purpose as Israel’s king was to shepherd God’s people (Psalms 78:70-72). If the importance of this notion of kingship in the establishment of God’s Kingdom was ever in doubt, one may find that the Davidic covenant (established in 2 Samuel 7) is of utmost importance in the prophetic foretelling of the coming of the Messiah as the ultimate fulfillment of a King who will be the ultimate Shepherd over His people. Furthermore, while Hill seems to disproportionately favor a New Testament perspective over an Old Testament one in determining the proper characteristics of godly leadership (p.71-72), he would do well to note that a number of dishonorable characteristics can be found among the leadership of the early church, which proves His argument to be inconsistent (Acts 15:36-41; Galatians 2:11-14; 2 Timothy 4:10, 16; Philemon 1:14, 17-21). Hill’s logic, therefore, is scripturally imbalanced.

A vital conclusion that one has to draw from this is that there is no such thing as a perfect leader, regardless of their title. Yet while this highlights the need for each believer to be responsible for their own issues of personal discipline and holiness (p.70-71), it does not automatically follow that the role of leadership within the church is unnecessary, as is the strong implication of Hill’s argument.

Despite the fragility of Hill’s logic, any worthwhile interaction with the content of his article should acknowledge his main concerns about the ethical use of authority in leadership and encourage the need to understand the theological, social and practical roots of problems within this area. Hill calls for a re-evaluation of the Christian ideals that govern how a leadership position is supposed to benefit the wider community. His proposed solution is for the hierarchical order within churches to be replaced with a more congregational style of functional ministry, whereby everyone has the same level of authority with the same level of responsibility toward one another (p.70-71). This, supposedly, would guard against any temptation to misuse one’s position by asserting it over another.

Yet it is possible that the heart of this problem is not found within the mechanics of a ‘leadership position’ but rather concerns the concept of ‘power’ and how it is used.¹ Hill’s proposition for purging the church of leadership structures that are predisposed, or at least vulnerable, to the misuse of authority is self-deceiving because it assumes that abusive power structures will cease to exist in a leadership vacuum. However, problems involving a misuse of power are just as prominent within churches that operate with a model of ‘functional ministry’. They may not result from an authoritarian leadership structure, but would nonetheless exhibit other factors distinct to their specific context. Therefore, it is not viable to claim that the problem of a manipulation of power within churches would be solved if leadership structures were disposed of altogether. Rather, what is needed is an open and explicit recognition among church leaders of the dangers regarding the use of power, irrespective of the authority structure in place within the local church, be it congregational or hierarchical.

Having said that, the motivation behind Hill’s article is to create awareness for the reader that there must be an emphasis placed upon ethical responsibility within church leadership. To what extent does the role of a leader need to be redefined? How can the church come to appreciate the essence of leadership as service? How can the church guard against abusive authority? These questions should be on the minds of all church leaders who take seriously the privilege and responsibility of shepherding God’s people. These questions would be a worthwhile starting point for further discussion on this topic as it generates many implications for leadership practice—implications that Hill introduces but does not address in any detail. These might include, for example, the position and honor given to apostles in terms of the purpose and use of tithing for the financial support of apostolic leaders in contrast to other needs within every church congregation (Acts 4:32-37; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4).

Hill’s article represents an effort to address an increasingly prominent and controversial issue for churches in the 21^st century. While one may question the methodology chosen for this task, it has to be said that Hill is correct when he urgently calls for church authority to become more ethical and for leadership to become more like servanthood.

Reviewed by Trevor W. Martindale

At the time of writing, Hill’s full article is available to be viewed online at: http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/features/18191-would-the-real-apostles-please-stand-up

For further reading, more of Stephen Hill’s writings appear online at: www.harvest-now.org

Notes
¹ Stephen Sykes argues that it is not credible to attempt to dissociate the Christian faith from the phenomena of power. This is because history has always been impacted by a world of overlapping and intersecting influences of power. Hence, the church itself is not immune to the dangers of adopting abusive practices of power that damage its proclamation of the good news equally as much as it cannot be reticent of proclaiming a God of power and might, whose authority is exercised over all of creation. See Stephen Sykes, Power and Christian Theology, London/New York: Continuum, 2006.