by Joel Looper
Power is often viewed negatively in our culture. It is associated with oppression, conspiracy, and exploitation, making it suspect in nearly all contexts. Those without power frequently see it as inherently immoral or illegitimate.
There are valid reasons for this skepticism. The U.S. government was founded with checks and balances because Enlightenment thinkers had warned of power’s corrupting potential. The 20th century’s totalitarian regimes seemed to confirm these fears, proving that unrestrained power leads to human rights abuses. “Power corrupts,” we say, and we assume failed political systems collapsed largely because they did not adequately limit it.
Suspicion of power in the church has only grown. The Roman Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal, followed by similar revelations in the Southern Baptist Church, has shaken many believers. Mention megachurch leaders like Mark Driscoll, evangelists like Ravi Zacharias, or Christian academics like Bill Shiell, and many respond with disappointment and the conviction that church leaders must be held accountable.
More personally, many have experienced heartbreak in church communities due to the misuse of power. Perhaps they felt judged, manipulated, or even harmed by those entrusted with spiritual leadership. The wounds inflicted by spiritual authority can cut deeper than those from secular institutions, making skepticism of power in the church seem not just reasonable but necessary.
Holding leaders accountable is essential. Yet in doing so, we may have embraced a harmful myth: that power has no rightful place in the Christian community. This myth has led many to believe that church leadership should mirror democratic governance, with clergy acting as representatives of the congregation rather than as figures of spiritual authority. Some argue that church leaders are no more spiritually mature than anyone else—indeed, they may be more prone to corruption—so why grant them authority? Many see their role as simply facilitating the will of the people rather than making decisions on their behalf.
This perspective has some merit. It aligns with Protestant ideals and fosters active participation in the church. It also protects against the rise of authoritarian figures who might exploit their positions. However, it also raises a critical question: What do we do with passages like 1 Corinthians 4:18-21?
Paul writes:
"Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline, or shall I come in love and with a gentle spirit?"
Was Paul a power-hungry authoritarian? His letters suggest otherwise. Instead, Paul acknowledges that power is an inherent part of God’s kingdom. He claims authority, but not for personal gain—it is for building up the church:
"So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than tearing you down, I will not be ashamed of it" (2 Corinthians 10:8).
Paul makes three key points: (1) power is part of the kingdom, (2) God grants authority to certain people within the church, and (3) this authority exists to strengthen the community in Christ. However, Paul also makes clear that his authority is rooted in the gospel alone: "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11).
Many questions arise. What structure of power should exist in the church? How can we avoid traditionalist abuses? What safeguards should be in place? These are important discussions, but another question is more urgent: What does a deep-seated distrust of power do to a Christian community?
This skepticism has benefits. It helps prevent abuse and encourages lay participation. It fosters a sense of personal responsibility for one’s faith, empowering individuals to share the gospel in unexpected ways. However, it also causes serious harm in ways that may not be immediately obvious.
First, consider what power actually is. Merriam-Webster defines power as "the ability to act or produce an effect" before mentioning "possession of control, authority, or influence over others." Fear of power can lead to decision-making paralysis. When too many people are involved in too many decisions, either nothing gets done, or people become exhausted. At times, entrusting decision-making to a designated leader or group would be more effective.
But inefficiency isn’t the worst consequence of distrusting power. A greater concern is the emotional and spiritual toll it takes on those tasked with leading. Even more significant is how it affects individual spiritual growth.
God often disciples us through others, particularly those to whom we have willingly submitted in a structured relationship. Without submission, growth becomes difficult. The Christian life involves discipline, and that discipline often comes through others who lovingly guide, correct, and challenge us.
Churches operate with different structures, but leadership is always necessary. Elders, pastors, priests, and bishops are entrusted with authority so they can shepherd their communities effectively. In some traditions, submission to the collective discernment of the community is just as crucial as submission to individual leaders. Paul describes this dynamic as living under the “law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2), a framework in which the community, shaped by the gospel, helps believers grow in faith.
This means that at times, the church will exercise power over its members—not for control, but for mutual edification. This power may take many forms: formal leadership roles, spiritual gifts, wisdom, or experience. A person’s knowledge or professional expertise may hold sway in certain discussions, just as a particular spiritual gift might carry weight in another. Discerning the right source of authority in different situations requires wisdom and attentiveness to the biblical story.
Yet, submission to authority remains challenging. It requires trust—trust that the leadership of the church, whether individuals or the community as a whole, is ultimately seeking to follow Christ. This is difficult, particularly in a culture that equates authority with oppression. But it is also necessary. If we cannot follow the lead of those we can see, how will we ever learn to trust the God we cannot see?
Joel is a member of Hope Fellowship and an editor for Community Bible Studies