01/04/2026
Flattening the hierarchy
The final statement in the Diocese of Adelaide’s Vision document reads: ‘We will review governance structures, hierarchy models, legislation, administration and compliance so it is lighter and simpler enabling more enthusiasm and flexibility.’
The inclusion of ‘hierarchy models’ has intrigued and stayed with me. What might this look like? How might theological reflection inform this? This piece below is offered as a contribution to what might facilitate such a reshaping.
One of the most distinctive and genuinely stunning terms found in the New Testament is ‘one another’. Other than a few narrative uses, the term is associated with exhortations to recognise, respect and defer to the bestowal of ‘charisms’ (gifts bestowed in the grace of God) throughout the body of Christ.
Every gift is to be valued, and some of the most striking gifts are found is those considered in worldly terms to be ‘weak’. Following Pentecost, the enabling of the Spirit was ‘democratised’ (a memorable term coined by one of my lecturers over forty years ago!) As prophesied by the prophet Joel, the Spirit is now poured out on sons and daughters, young men and old men, upon slaves, both men and women (Joel 2:18-27; Acts 2:14-36).
The exercise of such giftings gave rise to freedoms and exuberance within the early church gatherings, and counsel was needed to ensure such ministries were directed to the edification of the church and her associated ministries.
But herein lies the challenge and the ever-present danger of quenching the Spirit through over-regulation.
A church such as my own (the Anglican Church of Australia) is a socially-framed and regulated organisation. It is not a ‘church’ as the New Testament knows it. The ‘Church’ in Article 20 (of the 39 Articles of Religion) refers to an institution – in this case, the established Church of England. The processes of authorisation are legally determined to regulate expressions of faith, worship and ministry within its institutional reach and jurisdiction – and not beyond.
At its best (and we have been far from this standard), this provides guardrails from individualism, theological novelty and spiritual abuse. It provides for consistency of standards, expectations and ‘common worship’ – expressions of praise, prayer and attentiveness to hearing God’s word that is bigger than any one individual or congregation.
The flipside of this is that we operate within a very hierarchical culture. This is true in many sectors of society and business, and the institutional church faces the same challenge to ensure that appropriate checks and balances come into play. To remain healthy, higher levels of hierarchical organisations need to be reminded that organisational management is best understood as service and ministry on behalf of others.
This brings into focus a tension that requires conscious and intentional mitigation. While there is inevitable overlap, management and leadership are not one and the same thing. Over-zealous management can stifle more democratic capacity for leadership.
Translated into the biblical dynamics of church as the body of Christ, the language of ‘deference’ is more appropriate than ‘submission’. While an institution may authorise various ministries, ultimately—and profoundly—it is God (Father, Son and Spirit) who alone provides spiritual authority and legitimacy.
Those with seniority in an hierarchical institution are not gifted or enabled with the full range of spiritual charisms. It is certainly the case that holding a ministry office or title does not guarantee comprehensive gifting! Others lower in the hierarchical and institutional order will be more gifted and able to provide leadership and ‘charismatically endowed’ ministries. God delights in working in and through the most surprising people in profound and powerful ways.
This is not to say we should do away with institutional hierarchy, whether in management or leadership. It does mean, however, that we need to recognise a very different dynamic of recognition in the giftings and ministrations of God throughout the body of Christ.
So how might this look?
For a start, we need to recognise and re-calibrate our language of power, authority and delegation. In critical times, we default to concern for control and levers of management in decision-making and permissions.
My main contention is that we (interpret ‘we’ as you like) have slipped into an increasingly vertical dynamic of control, and this is especially evident in our exercise of delegation. ‘Delegation’ seems to unconsciously assume that the main task is ‘mine’ to allow others assist with. True, that might be the case in certain areas of responsibility, but not nearly as much as we often assume. Dynamics of institutional power are often just below the surface, and relational power disparity needs to be handled with extraordinary care.
Consider the following dynamics of delegation and authorisation:
1. You may undertake this task or role, but only as instructed.
2. You may undertake this task or role, but report back directly to me. Research and recommend, but I'll decide.
3. You may undertake this task or role, but you must seek formal approval before decisions or strategies are undertaken.
4. You may undertake this task or role. You may make decisions but check with me first.
5. You may undertake this task or role, and report back to a broader body for consideration and accountability. You have operational authority.
6. You may undertake this task or role, and you are now in a position to make decisions or adopt approaches as you judge best within these boundaries. You have strategic authority. You will report against results, outcomes and learnings.
7. I am looking forward to your undertaking this task or role – you have gifts and insights I don’t have and I am open to our exploring this together. Let me know how I might support you.
Of course, organisational matrixes along these lines are quite common, and yet working relationships are always easier when there is clarity of the nature of such dynamics.
However, communities, volunteer roles, personalities and social dynamics are not nearly as neat as this! One of the primary responsibilities of senior leaders and office-holders is to balance good and healthy management practices (and culture) with a keen awareness of the cultures of social environment.
Leadership is about cultivating an environment where the Spirit-endowed giftings, service and ministrations can take root, grow and flourish. Churches are spiritual eco-systems before they are organisations and institutions, and the latter must serve the former.
As churches increasingly experience organisational and institutional stress, key responses are required from senior leaders and managers. Will the priority be to growing centralism and executive processes of determining priorities and decisions or will space and support be allowed (or even encouraged) for more organisationally messy forms of church? Are alternative ‘light touch’ forms of oversight and accountability possible?
It is one thing to have a missional commitment of strategic intent (and I am all for this); however, it is quite another thing to navigate one step at a time and seek to discern where God is at work, providing avenues for others to get involved which may be in unexpected ways. Then we may see the beauty of God’s giftings in and through one another as the body of Christ truly bearing fruit!
Bishop Tim
[A fuller theological treatment of this topic will be forthcoming as a St Barnabas Research Centre Catalyst Paper in the near future]
