A Personal Note
Before I begin the main work of this article, a personal note. Arise Church is often identified as a Pentecostal/Charismatic church. Some may criticise it simply for that reason. I see Pentecostalism as a rich part of the diversity of the Church. Its many gifts have played a considerable part in the life of the global community of believers, including my own life.
My life has been heavily influenced by both the best and worst of Pentecostalism since I was a child. Outside of the contemplative tradition I now most readily identify with, Pentecostalism has been the biggest part of my faith journey. For me there have been both deep struggles and gifts along the way. In amongst the melting pot of experiences, ideas, and traditions that have informed my faith, I cannot deny the significant place of Pentecostalism. These days I regularly and unashamedly define myself as a ‘quiet Pentecostal.’ Aspects of it dovetail well with other gifts of Christian thinking that shape my contemplative approach to following Jesus. The heart of Pentecostalism means a lot to me. It’s why I included the Holy Spirit descending as a flame and dove in a tattoo on my forearm. I see that image many times a day.
At its most simple I would define Pentecostalism as a belief in the tangible work and presence of the Holy Spirit in the world, and the ability for individuals to experience that presence and activity. It places an emphasis on the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’, which is understood and defined in varying ways. It is deeply connected to the roots of the Wesleyan/Methodist stream of the Christian faith that I am a part of, with its history tracing back to some key experiences and teachings in the life of John Wesley. It highlights scripture that demonstrates this focus, with the story of the day of Pentecost being central. There is a dynamism to it that has been significantly influential across many denominations and traditions.
At its core, Pentecostalism is not about church structures, ideas about leadership, rules of community life, understandings around money, or anything else that determines how a community organises. Pentecostalism is not a codified organisation. Rather, it is about how God is present and active, and how we experience that. As a way of being and a way of understanding faith, it is found within many streams of Christian faith. Necessarily, many other things have become attached to that basic understanding of Pentecostalism as churches that primarily identify as Pentecostal have emerged and organised. Whilst, as with any belief across all flavours and traditions of Christendom, ideas about the presence of the Spirit can be misused, my article deliberately steers clear of addressing any hallmarks of the core of Pentecostalism in the life of Arise Church as these are not consistently presented as an issue in the public information at hand.
I must add that I am not anybody of significance. I am not a big church leader, I am not endowed with large doses of charisma, and nor do I scale the lofty heights of Christian academia. I am a small voice in the big sea of history, and a tiny dot in the expanse of the Church. I take my place in the unfolding story of life, giving what little I have to offer. That’s all I am doing here. My motivation to write this article comes from a great love for the wider Church. Much of my life has been committed to serving it. I am cognisant of its many failings through history and in our own time. In the face of our shortcomings the Church is constantly reforming as we seek to faithfully embody Christ. It happens at all levels where faith is experienced and expressed, from our individual journeys right through to the global community of faith. I believe in the wider Church and I wish to see it thrive right across its many variations and flavours. The Church is a beautiful tapestry of varying traditions, beliefs, and practices. In writing this article I wish to serve three groups – those who raised their voices in a way that led to the sharing of stories publicly, Arise Church itself, and the wider Church of Aotearoa New Zealand. My hope is for the betterment of all three groups.
Introduction
Numerous allegations of lives negatively impacted by aspects of the culture and practices of Arise Church have been made public by a range of media in this country, beginning with the reporting of David Farrier. It is my opinion that within the context of Christian community these public allegations raise issues that need to be addressed from a biblical perspective that considers the theological nature of the Church. The allegations raise issues that are not simply related to systems and procedures. Whilst addressing systems and procedures is extremely important, solving the purported issues and moving towards healing will not happen by only addressing institutional systems. Where the name of Jesus is preached, how we understand the nature and purpose of the Church informs all that we do; both that which contributes to human flourishing, and that which degrades it. It is about the DNA of our faith communities.
In this article I will seek to address a number of the alleged theological and cultural issues that appear to exist within Arise and that relate to problems that have been consistently raised in public comment.
These reflections recognise that there are varying thoughts, beliefs, structures, and practices within the wider Body of Christ. It is not my intention to address all variances, or to create a uniformity of church form or theological approach. Rather, I aim to address a foundational view of the Church that is relevant for faith communities of all sizes and flavours, and to highlight theological issues in relation to this that have contributed to the anguish expressed in the stories from those who have shared of their experiences within Arise.
In offering these reflections I must note that I do so independently of any organisation I am connected with. I speak as an individual. Here I act solely as someone with a concern for the health of the body of Christ; a pilgrim who is following Jesus. I offer no mention or reference to any allegations or information that is not already in the public domain. In commenting on these allegations or information I am in no way saying that these matters are true or applying responsibility to specific individuals. Instead, I aim to speak to what seems to me to be the underlying theological and cultural issues present in what consistently appears in the information that is currently public. It would be easy to scapegoat individuals, but to do so here would miss the opportunity to go deeper. I commend Arise Church for having publicly engaged in a process of listening where many might have chosen to ignore, shut down, or attack those who wished to share their stories. It seems that the process has not been without significant challenges, and no doubt more challenges will come, but that willingness to engage is positive.
I acknowledge that there are many in Arise for whom their experience of the organisation has been wholly positive and for whom my analysis may feel irrelevant or even completely wrong, yet there is value in giving much room to hear and address the concerns that have been raised. It is difficult for all to move on until this has happened. I also acknowledge that since the current crisis emerged, I have heard from others that changes have been occurring within Arise, prompted by the situation. Crisis will make or break communities.
This article offers a cautionary tale for churches of all sizes and flavours. Where some people of faith may feel as if their community is immune from such problems, it needs to be recognised that wherever power is exercised between people, there is the risk that there will be significant issues. All churches, as history teaches us, face the possible danger of damaging people. People allow churches and those with authority within them to have influence in their lives, including many who are vulnerable, so vigilance in the care of congregations, in one’s vocation as a pastor, in the use of power, and in how pastors and others in governance understand the nature of the Church is required. The current public spotlight on practices at Arise is an opportunity for all in church ministry to examine our understandings of what it means to be the Church and the ways in which the local church lives its shared life together. This juncture and moment of critical reflection in the journey of Arise serves as an invitation to self-examination for all churches, no matter how much we may wish to only see the problem in other communities or other individuals.
What is the Church?
It is easy to overcomplicate this question, but there is a simple answer with big implications.
The word that is translated in our English Bibles as Church is the Greek word transliterated as ekklesia.[1] Ekklesia is a compound word that brings together kaleo,[2] which can mean ‘to call’ and ek, which can mean ‘out of.’[3] It always refers to a body of people. Most of the time it refers to a group of people called out of their homes to an assembly. Other words that express it well in English are ‘community’ and ‘congregation.’ In the Christian sense it refers to those who have been ‘called out’ by their baptism into the life of Christ.
Thus, we can begin by saying that the Church is those who have been gathered together by virtue of their commitment to Christ, bound together by the Spirit. There is both a global and local outworking of this.
Two charges given to Peter and the disciples point us to an understanding of the nature of that gathering of people.
Firstly, the commission given to Jesus’ first small group of followers was to make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything Jesus had commanded them. They were to remember that Christ would always be with them.[4]
Here we see that not only is a commitment to Christ characteristic of the gathered people, but formation in the way and teaching of Jesus is too. It is imperative therefore, that any group calling itself a church is steeped in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for it is within these accounts of the life of Christ that we are most directly immersed in what Jesus commanded and modelled as the Christian way of life. The epistles of the New Testament are then the earliest written examples of Christ-followers figuring out how to live the way of Jesus in varying contexts, particularly the gospel implications for a non-Jewish world since Jesus and his first disciples were Jewish.
Ultimately Jesus gave a specific indicator by which one would recognise his disciples. It should be evident in all communities that call themselves a church: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another.[5] Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”[6]
The second charge of note given to Peter is during one of the times that the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples. Three times Jesus asked Peter if he loved him. Peter responded each time, affirming his love of Jesus. Each time Jesus responded by challenging him – Peter, feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep.[7] Peter was being given a pastoral and shepherding role, a role of service and care for those who would end up in the ‘flock,’ the church of Jesus.[8]
The challenge to Peter mirrors the humility of Christ washing the feet of his disciples and his challenge for them to do likewise.[9] It also calls Peter to directly embody the words of Christ, ‘‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all.”[10] These scriptures highlight the consistent message of Jesus that following him is about embodying his example of humility and service. It directly subverts any church culture that elevates leaders above others.
Following these touchpoints in the gospels, we turn to the Apostle Paul and his understanding of the church. Paul was consistent in using the metaphor of a body to describe the gathering of those committed to the way of Christ. It is an analogy that communicates two ideas.
Firstly, that this gathering is, in some way, intended to be a physical embodiment of Christ on earth, thus it is imperative that the community, as charged in the Great Commission, is formed in the way of Jesus.
Secondly, as a body, its parts – the people – are interconnected. ‘For in the one Spirit, we were all baptised into one body.’[11] These words of Paul, offer insight pertinent to issues around the idea of a ‘honour culture’ that this paper will address shortly: ‘On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honourable we clothe with greater honour, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together with it.’[12]
There are other metaphors used to describe what the Church is (family, bride, temple etc.) but they all ultimately come back to a description of the collective disciples of Christ.
In sum, I am mindful of the need to understand the Church as those who are gathered together by virtue of their commitment to Christ and are bound together by the Spirit. In their gathering together they are being formed through discipleship in the way of Christ and are an embodiment of Christ in the world. This is evidenced by their love for one another. The Church is people, a relational community of love that reflects the triune nature of God.
What the Church is Not
Over time a mixing of terms has led to a systemic confusion regarding the nature of the church. The English word church is an evolution of an old English word that relates to the German word kirche, and the Dutch word kerk. It stems from the Greek word that is transliterated as kuriakos.[13] Kuriakos can be said to mean ‘of the lord.’ It is referencing something that belongs to a lord. It is used twice in the New Testament. In the first instance to refer to the ‘Lord’s Supper’ (Holy Communion),[14] and secondly to refer to the Lord’s Day (Sunday).[15] Neither of these is a reference to the community of disciples.
Early translations of the Bible did not use any term relating to the word kuriakos to translate ekklesia. Words denoting things like community and a congregation of people were used. Historically, words related to kuriakos were used to reference the place where congregations would meet i.e., ‘the house of the Lord’, but over time church came to be used interchangeably to refer to several things that connected to the community of believers that could be said to be dedicated ‘to the Lord.’
The gradual shift to referring to the community using the English equivalent of kuriakos rather than something more reflective of ekklesia may not seem overly problematic at first, but it shifts what we popularly understand the church to be and makes it something distinct from the people referenced by ekklesia.
If we were to ask many who identify as Christian what the church is, we could expect a number to refer to the community of those who follow Jesus, but we can assume that many would describe something that is distinct from the people. The church would be seen as something separate to the person answering – it would be something they engage with, experience, and commit to; something that is dedicated to the Lord. It would be the entity that organises, that puts on services and runs programmes, a thing distinct from them that is seen by the external world. It would be that which they give time, effort, and money to. It would have leaders that direct it, thus those in leadership would be central to everything. Succinctly put, many would see the church as an institution and its functions, organised by those who are committed to Christ as an expression of their belief in Christ.
In this understanding, serving the church would mean serving the institution and those charged with leading it. Giving to the church would mean giving to the institution, its leaders, and its functions or programmes. Growing the church would mean increasing its footprint and the numbers of those committed to or attending the institution and its functions or programmes. In this framework everything becomes about the wellbeing of the institution and its functions or programmes, with the community existing to serve and enhance the institution. If a programme or function was failing, time, energy, and money would be given to fix it.
This may not seem so bad, but if the paragraph above is edited with a more biblical definition of what the church is – an ekklesia being formed in the way of Jesus and living in and as an embodiment of Christ in the world – everything shifts.
In this understanding, serving the church is mutually serving those in the faith community with us. Giving to the church means giving to meet the needs of others when they are struggling. Growing the church means connecting with others and deepening our bonds with each other as we walk in the way of Jesus. In this framework everything becomes about the life of the people, a community that exists to serve and uplift one another in our shared commitment to Christ. Christ is present among us.
It must be acknowledged, of course, that communities organise and agree to do things together. Doing so often comes with the need to give time, energy, and financial resources, but what the community organises together is not the church. The people are the church. If people are being hurt and damaged by anything that is organised, then the church is being hurt. The damage being done to people should never be explained away, rather the programme or function that is causing damage should be questioned, reformed, or discontinued.
Again, the church is those who gather by virtue of their commitment to Christ. In their gathering they are being formed and discipled in the way of Christ, an embodiment of Christ evidenced by their love for one another. The church is people. All that is organised exists to bless, encourage, shape, care for and disciple people. Anything that damages people is not the church.
Problems
The public allegations of damage within Arise cumulatively illuminate areas where this biblical understanding of the church as people seems to have given way to a DNA that puts the institution front and centre, though those with positive experiences will understandably not view it like this. Regardless of the truth of the allegations, or the precise cause, individuals have clearly been left experiencing damage and harm. In our churches, how people have experienced things should always be a concern for us.
Arise is perceived by many primarily as an organisation, institution, and calendar of events; all existing to foster continuous numerical growth in every facet of the organisation. It appears that an overwhelming desire to grow and enhance the institution may have led to the damage of some Christ-followers – people within Arise who were committed to Christ and willing to serve. This point cannot be emphasised enough, in this context and the context of any church with such experiences, those who have shared stories of their own brokenness and damage are people who love(d) Jesus and wanted to serve him and the church they were or are part of. This problem is not exclusive to Arise. Stories shared publicly demonstrate that this has happened in a number of churches of varying sizes. Nor is it a new phenomenon. My own life experience involves countless conversations with many people from different churches with similar experiences over a number of years, often to the detriment of their faith. There is no worthwhile excuse for it. It is heartbreaking. Each of these people was and is a gift, not a resource. If we understand the church to be those gathered by virtue of their commitment to Christ, then the defence of those who have followed Christ and have been damaged by a relentless desire to grow our institutions, is a defence of the church, not an attack. It should be noted that Christ identifies with the lowly, Christ challenged religious culture that pushed people down. Christ himself became a victim.
In paying attention to the stories of those who talk of being damaged as a result of certain cultures and practices within the organisation, in being willing to listen to their pain and hurt as Arise has publicly sought to do, even though it may be distressing to do so, there is the potential for change and reconciliation. By engaging in a public process of listening Arise opened the door for this to happen. There is a chance to more faithfully embody Christ in the world as the church of Jesus – a relational community of love. This cannot happen as long as people work to defend themselves from the voices of the hurt, something we often instinctually do within our organisations as an act of self-defence. I commend Arise Church for what it set out to do in response to hurt that had been publicly expressed.
In analysing the stories shared in the public domain it is my opinion that certain key ideologies, practices, cultures and behaviours may largely be the problem, all of which have complex and nuanced origins and formation that are never simply about individuals, though the problems often play out through the actions of individuals. In exploring these, it should be noted that they serve as a warning for other churches where these issues are evident. It is probable that they have been adopted from churches and church cultures that are viewed as successful and have been incubated in a shared culture of mutual affirmation across a variety of similar churches. This mutual affirmation creates and entrenches an echo-chamber that fosters ongoing problems. All too often there is also a tendency for them to be adopted by leaders who aspire to ‘grow their church’ in a similar vein. They are then reinforced and deepened within groups and across generations.
Remembering that the church is people, it should be noted in no uncertain terms, that any institution proclaiming Christ, big or small, that is littered with stories of damaged people, must question its success no matter how big its congregation or its budget. It may have money, fame, popularity, and glory, but these things do not define success in the economy of Christ. It must also be said that this is not an issue of size. Toxicity can exist in any group of any size.
Success in the economy of Christ looks like people made whole. It looks like restoration and reconciliation. It looks like the lowly being lifted up and knitted into the community. It looks like the proud being brought low. It looks like weeping with those who weep and laughing with those who laugh. It looks like the strong humbling themselves in service to the weak. It looks like all gathering as equals at the Table of the Lord, where Christ is lifted up as the centre of all. It looks messy, and in that mess it looks beautiful. Given too, that it is played out in daily existence, it often looks mundane in the eyes of a culture addicted to drama. It looks like Jesus.
Success is the ongoing hard work of embodying the Kingdom-of-God type characteristics just outlined. Not as platitudes for cameras, branding exercises to enhance the image of the institution, or as strategies for growth; but as the very heart of the body of people being formed in the way of Christ together.
In the face of negative stories, the understandable and instinctual defensive response, would be to look for places within the church that point to success in line with the economy of Christ (I acknowledge that there is much good in Arise that many within it understandably wish to celebrate), but any entity calling itself a church should be able to point to elements of Christ’s economy in action within their midst. This is to be expected. The best response here is not defensiveness or to highlight the admirable, it is an honest owning of the problems and a movement towards reformation. Death and resurrection are at the core of the Christian faith and there is an opportunity here for Arise to take responsibility and be accountable for where it has fallen short in a way that has allegedly damaged others. There is an opportunity to put to death practices unaligned to the Kingdom of God and experience new life with an appreciation that the ends never justify the means.
Because churches are people and those people are on a journey together through the ups and downs of life, all faith communities have levels of fruitfulness and dysfunction, love and friction. Many, if not most churches will have stories of relational breakdown between people. Where people are gathered, interpersonal hurts often occur. In this instance though, it must be acknowledged that for Arise the number of stories alleging experiences of abuse, hurt, and brokenness point to problems that must be addressed.
The following issues are worthy of attention.
Power
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Honour Culture
A common mistake is made in how we view Christian leaders. They are often perceived as the people up the front who have it all together, with everyone else aspiring to be like them but always falling short. This can be both explicit and implicit. An extension of this is seeing such people as being the ones who mediate God’s vision and aspirations for the community, thus the vision and the aspirations of the people at the top become the thing that all others serve. In a number of churches of all sizes and across traditions this attention is often focused towards one person for varying reasons. Therefore, a danger exists that the vocation of the average congregational individual undertaken outside of the institution is given less value through the messaging of the inner culture of that institution. In such a model the visionary leader’s wellbeing becomes paramount to the success of the institution. An alternative vision for the Christian minister is to understand that they have found their way to the foot of the cross and are to embrace the role of showing others the way. This involves vulnerability rather than perfection.
Since the inception of Arise, a large degree of authority seems to have resided in the hands of one person. Again, this is not unique to Arise and nor is it a feature of only large churches. For Arise it was written into the original trust deed in a manner that resulted in what many believe had been a board without the governance ability that would usually be expected. Because of this, questions could rightly be asked about whether accountability and healthy friction were able to flourish as they need to for the good of a community and for the good of those who guide the congregation.
It is a cultural feature of many such churches that the senior pastor is the seat of God’s vision for the local church and thus most worthy of honour in the eyes of others. Many who see this as problematic might seek to lay sole blame for this at the feet of senior leaders, but it is a complex system that leads to and enables the issue. This approach is reinforced through theological understandings, constant messaging, and in conjunction within a wider community of similar church cultures.
The public picture shows that the result of this in the case of Arise has probably been a culture of entitlement where some of those with power felt able to use others for their own gain whether or not they understood that was what they were doing. No doubt this has felt justified in many ways.
One possible cause of this is a problem that appears in wider church culture where, too often, charisma is valued over character with charisma being that which draws crowds. When the numbers of people present and increasing budgets are the chief targets, charisma is prized. The risks inherent in this can be seen in the litany of global stories of church leaders with high levels of charisma who have succumbed to abuses of their power and been found wanting when it comes to their depth of spiritual formation and character. In every instance of such occurrences, the fallout is significant.
Feeding into and flowing from this, is a culture of celebrity where being known and cultivating the perfect image is highly valued. It shapes a context where people fawn over those in the church environment who are viewed as celebrities. Those on the lower rungs of the power ladder aspire to be known by those at the top and aim to be like them. Those on the bottom will often go out of their way to impress those at the top; to be known by them and seen with them. It creates an exclusive club where access is coveted. In some Christian circles that exclusive club is full of musicians, pastors, book writers, and others who occupy roles that get a lot of attention. This adulation often leads to some with significant status in the community believing the hype and feeling entitled to their perceived pedestal and the benefits that come with it. It is likely they won’t perceive it like this. It feeds personal egos and those egos then engage in ongoing mutual affirmation. It justifies the forcible removal of disagreeable voices and the mistreatment of subordinates. It results in those with ‘celebrity’ often not seeing the hurt they cause in the lives of others. It can be a jarring experience when the hurt is revealed, leading to varying responses from those with status, some of which magnifies the fallout.
In his book In the Name of Jesus, Nouwen lists the three big temptations of Christian leadership as wanting to be relevant, spectacular, and powerful. We create reasons as to why all three are not only fine, but necessary in service to the Gospel. We create environments that affirm the pursuit of these things. He lists the antidotes to these as contemplative prayer, confession and forgiveness, and theological reflection.[25] In what some leaders have allegedly pursued and modelled to others, it seems that parts of Arise may have fallen to all three temptations. Where being relevant, spectacular and powerful are pursued in church settings there always exists a large number of broken people in the wake of them. This is not reflective of the way of Jesus.
Church as Business
If we misunderstand what the church is, it is easy to then misalign priorities and adopt ways of being that do not reflect a biblical understanding of the community of the faithful. Arise, like many others seeking techniques for growth, may have often prioritised a way of being that is more reflective of a business than a community – pursuing numerical growth, ongoing expansion, money, prestige, and influence.
Where a business model is prioritised in the local church context, Church has been corporatised. In this model, seen in a number of churches, the leader has more in common with a CEO than a pastor nurturing people towards Christlikeness, which in turn justifies a large salary and various monetary rewards. Learning leadership principles and practices then often becomes more critical to those in authority than prayer, reading scripture, and providing spiritual guidance. The pressure to drive growth as a primary outcome can be immense. It is their job to formulate and push vision, mission, and strategy – to ensure the measurable success of the organisation. As Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan put it in their book, The Pastor as Public Theologian, pastors are all too often “exchanging their vocational birthright for a bowl of lentil stew: management skills, strategic plans, leadership courses, therapeutic techniques, and so forth.”[26] As part of his research on relevant issues, New Zealand minister, Joseph McAuley reflects on Vanhoozer and Strachan’s work, stating that pastors should embrace their call (or ‘vocational birth right’) as public theologians – those who open up the Scriptures to help people understand God, the world and the human condition in a manner that causes the hearts of congregants to “burn within.”[27] [28]
In a business the vision, mission, strategy, and brand are paramount, as are those who drive it forward. Where personal drive is prized, the damage of people is often excused as being inevitable in the movement towards success; broken people are seen as acceptable collateral damage within the bigger picture.[29] In a business model, success is determined by measurables – number of ‘converts’, level and frequency of attendance at events, money given, properties purchased, social media engagement and the like. Vision, mission, and strategy are not inherently bad as they can provide direction for a community, but when they take primacy of focus in the church setting and their success is determined by easy measurables like attendance numbers and dollars, they can be detrimental to the life and rhythms of the church as a community of people. Sadly, in a business focused model, one of the jewels of the Christian faith, the Bible, is robbed of its nuance and colour as it is often scoured primarily for leadership principles and other ways to gain ‘success’ in life.
The Church has a different way of operating. In the words of Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer: ‘The Gospel invades our achievement-oriented, meritocratic world – where success is measured by accomplishments and numbers – and it says no, no, no. It says success is not measured by numbers. It says pastors and churches have an entirely different agenda – namely, helping others grow in Christlikeness. This is a lifelong process and pursuit, and we are all at different points along the way. It is a process based on love, not on business management or leadership principles… The pastor’s calling and the church’s calling are to nurture people into Christoformity – to nurture people into tov [a deep and rich goodness that speaks of life]… Growing in Christlikeness stands in stark contrast to an achievement culture measured by numbers, power, prestige, and money. It is a constant temptation for churches and pastors to be drawn away from a Christlike culture and sucked into the culture of the world.’[30]
In contrast to a business model, to further quote McKnight and Barringer, ‘…the entire mission of the church and its pastors [is] to become like Christ and nurture others to become like Christ.’ How might the culture of Arise change if the whole focus, and everything it does, becomes directed towards Christlikeness; towards discipleship and spiritual formation? Many churches have a focus on proclaiming Christ, but becoming like Christ is a different, more challenging but richer journey. In Renovation of the Church, pastors Kent Carlson and Mike Lueken bravely admit to building an enthusiastic, energetic and growing church that was failing to see people’s lives transformed into the image of Christ. They argue that making disciples is excruciatingly more difficult than growing a church, with discipleship being a “wonderfully inefficient process that does not often lend itself to mass production.”[31] Nevertheless it is a worthwhile journey and one that Arise could pursue, with Carlson and Lueken noting that “the contrast between the transformative power of the kingdom of God and the high-pressure, frenetic, crazy-paced life of the entrepreneurial, attractional model of church can hardly be overstated.”[32] Sadly, whilst Arise, as with many churches, seems to have strongly adopted a business framework in a number of areas, experiences shared in the public domain show it may have failed to measure up to some basic HR principles in the care of its people. The adoption of a business mindset and culture for how church life is viewed seems to have detrimentally flowed into other aspects of Arise’s culture, including the gain and use of money, excellence and performance culture, and what is now often referred to as ‘toxic positivity’.
Finance and Giving
“I feel the Lord is leading 10 people here to give $10,000.” This particular line has been referenced in public reporting. This assertion has been heard a number of times at different conferences and events and from different personalities, including at Arise, with the dollar value decreasing in steps – it is a recognisable technique that many feel creates pressure to give large sums of money.[33] Sadly then, a question must be considered, if the Lord is leading in this moment, why is the same technique and assertion made in the same way at many conferences and events, and why are the figures often the same? It is indicative of what many feel is a manipulative way of raising money. It is all the more problematic when used in settings with young people who do not have large amounts of financial security.
This is one example of financial requests where those holding the microphone need to exercise a lot more caution and honesty. It is my opinion that extreme care must be taken whenever we assert anything akin to ‘God says’ – scripture does not treat this lightly.[34]
Public stories, and voices have expressed a concern around an excessive focus on money and the accompanying pressure to give within Arise. If allegations are proven correct when tested by further reviews into finance initiated by Arise, then sometimes the money has not been used in ways that reflect Christ. This pressure around money has evidently been felt even by those with little means to give, with some responding to this pressure and getting into financial difficulty because of what they have given. As reflected in public responses it is especially difficult for them to then hear allegations about how money may have been used lavishly for some in leadership. Generosity should be a hallmark of all aspects of the Christian life, but that value should not be used to prop up excessive institutional expenses, or to create lavish lifestyles for a few.
Tithing is often spoken of in church settings. Whilst the financial structure of ancient Israel was complex and varied across time, we can simplify things by asserting that at its most basic, the tithe (the first 10% of one’s annual crops etc.) within the ancient nation of Israel, was akin to a tax since the religious system also served to fund many national needs. As with all things, this giving was seen as acknowledging that all that we have is a gift from God. The nation’s tithe was used for several purposes; to service the religious system, to undertake national celebrations/feasts, and to feed people in times of need. There were also other forms of taxation, with much tax added under various kings to develop military might, undertake building projects, and establish an empire.[35]
Some churches today look more akin to Old Testament kings with leaders placing burdens on people to give in order to grow their kingdoms. The example of the New Testament image of a generous community committed to mutual support and helping those in need seems to be given little attention.
Speaking of tithing as if it directly correlates to the modern church is problematic as the church does not fulfil the same national functions as the religious system of ancient Israel, nor should it. It creates confusion as the term tithe is directly connected to a law for ancient Israel. Giving took on a different approach within the early church as it extended beyond Israel and into ‘Gentile’ communities where the tithe was not nationally applicable in the same way.
The taxes we pay to the modern state, in part, fulfil some of the functions that the tithe did in ancient Israel, thus it is misleading to speak of tithing in churches using Old Testament proof texts to somehow convey that it is the same thing.
Following the principles that underpin giving and generosity in both the Old and New Testaments, it is reasonable to ask people, where they are able, to help meet the financial obligations of the community they are a part of, and where those obligations stem from wise stewardship. It is also reasonable to encourage generosity in mutual support – helping those who need help. Generosity, especially where it benefits those who are struggling, should be entirely encouraged as a significant part of what it means to follow Jesus. Where the community has agreed to undertake functions that align with formation in the way of Jesus, it is also reasonable to ask for generosity towards those ministries. However, anything that could be construed as manipulation or coercion should be carefully scrutinised. With this in mind, it would be prudent for churches to shift towards talking of generosity in church environments not as tithing, but as free-will giving or something akin to this. I recognise that in making this case, I am personally challenging a normalised use of the term ‘tithing’ across many church traditions, including those I exist within.
Another concern publicly raised is the favourable or preferential treatment of people who contribute significant amounts of money to the work of Arise.[36] While curating special events for ‘high value’ donors may make sense within institutions that make up the wider charitable sector, such events taking place at an entity that calls itself a church, must be questioned. A church necessarily operates via a different set of values and principles than a charitable institution precisely because it is a community of people being formed in the way of Jesus. Jesus challenged practices that showed favouritism towards the wealthy, and in following Jesus, such practices were strongly challenged in the early Church. In his short epistle, James boldly makes it clear that favouritism towards the wealthy falls short of the way of Jesus.[37]
Being wealthy is not wrong, but anything that shows favour to those who can and do make big donations creates a class system within the church that is not reflective of Christ. It causes those who are unable to participate as top tier givers to feel of lesser value. It also feeds the celebrity culture previously mentioned in this paper. We all come to the table of Christ as equals. We play different parts in the body, but we are equal before Christ and one another. Our practices should reflect that. Any donor giving large sums of money should feel very cautious about any church that treats them favourably, for in doing so they are in effect, giving the wealthy a place of honour over and above those with lesser financial means.[38] As we have seen, Paul, in his metaphor of the church as a body, encouraged the exact opposite in order to equalise status and power dynamics.
Performance Culture
Analysing information in the public domain it seems that, like many churches, Arise may have succumbed to contemporary pragmatism in establishing a worship culture that is a professional corporatised event that is carefully curated by particular people who fit a certain image. Because of this, worship runs the danger of being a manufactured experience reliant on professionals with the ability to create the right environment for the ‘experience’ of worship. This is not to say that all that is called worship in such environments is wrong, but this is an inherent risk that is worth being aware of.
People have talked of the constant presence of cameras during events, thus leading to an image conscious engagement in ‘worship’ and a desire to appear fully engaged in a manner that reflects the feel and energy that Arise aims for in worship. Worshippers are aware that images will be used to promote church events. Photos to demonstrate the nature of a community aren’t wrong in this day and age where visual mediums play a big role in helping people to understand what our communities value, but the experiences shared show that within Arise there may be an inappropriate excess in the pursuit of performance and brand management unfolding.
A big organisation that has regular events with high production as a core function is naturally resource heavy – particularly human resources. This feeds a culture where people are often valued for their ability to fill the volunteer roles required to enable these events to run professionally and culturally ‘on point.’ Rather than the part people can play in their wider communities being uplifted and celebrated, the focus is on how people can serve the events. This is a challenge for all churches where there is quick thinking about the roles people can fill as soon as their skills and experiences become known.
Volunteerism is essentially good. Many of our nation’s charities, including churches, operate on the goodwill of people who believe in what they are choosing to freely contribute their time to. Much good is achieved in Aotearoa New Zealand because of the generous efforts of volunteers. The freewill and generous nature of that should never be taken for granted, and those who volunteer should always feel empowered to contribute whatever time they choose, and they should know that it is valued. Those in power need to remain conscious of any possible abuse of that generosity. Where such abuse occurs, it must be rectified.
In a highly performative culture that centralises what happens on the stage, there is a danger that instead of celebrating the empowerment of all in the community, such an environment creates minor Christian celebrities. This culture makes the stage the red carpet that is married to the green-room, which is reserved for ‘VIPs’ who are served by those lower down the status ladder who aspire to be them.[39]
This works against the church as a community of Christ followers being formed in the way of Jesus because it discourages participation in what is seen to be a central element in the life of the congregation. Except for a select few, everyone else gets to watch while every moment is curated for them. If someone does not fit the image of ‘excellence’ and the nature of the brand being projected, then they either won’t be invited to participate, at least not on the stage, or they will be expected to change to conform to the desired image and perhaps gain a position that is camera friendly.
In seeking conformity to the brand and performance, some in Arise leadership have allegedly engaged in shaming those who don’t measure up. Through public allegations it seems that too often people have needed to dress a particular way or be of a particular body-type in order to be ‘stage worthy.’ The use of ‘mood boards’ for those on stage is indicative of this. There have been reports of people developing eating disorders, and others have expressed that they felt inferior because they have not managed to fit the required image or been able to perform at the level required. There are those who have spoken about entering counselling because of the detrimental impact this and other aspects of their time at Arise have had on their lives. Too often people have felt isolated in their brokenness. The public record shows people who have felt that they as individuals are the problem rather than the issue being the cultures and systems they have existed within. A performance culture is ultimately dehumanising.
It is often mentioned in such environments that the aim is to give God one’s best and to cultivate a spirit of excellence for God, but ‘best’ and ‘excellence’ are too often defined by superficial and shallow external standards. These external standards are shaped more by society’s ever shifting definition of ‘cool’ rather than by Scripture and a Jesus shaped attentiveness to authenticity and heart disposition.
As part of maintaining this performance culture within Arise, public stories point to people feeling expected to labour beyond what could be considered a reasonable degree of work or volunteerism. People have talked of the tiredness, exhaustion, and even burnout that has been the result of putting on events, particularly the Sunday services. The conferences need to be highlighted here as well. It is highly probable that the culture around annual conferences is a significant burden with people feeling pressure around the cost and workload, and they are an area where the celebrity culture is said to be on full display.[40]
For churches that invest untold resources, including significant amounts of voluntary time into events and the ongoing life of the organisation there is a danger that this focus takes away from the ability of people to connect with God’s story and express God’s goodness in their families, neighbourhoods, schools, universities, workplaces, and friendship circles. It focuses life towards the upholding of the organisation, turning the energy, relationships, and creativity of people towards the church as an institution in an exclusive manner. Rather than the daily lives and interactions of many of the faithful within the church being the focal point for where the love and service of their neighbour happens, the organisation is seen to be the focal point for that through its programmes, events, and other branded exercises. A notable problem with this is that external relationships often become bent towards how they can serve the betterment of the institution – friendships come and go based on whether someone accepts an invitation to an event or not. Largely, involvement with such churches means that some feel that they do not have the space and energy to form and maintain relationships in other spheres of life. In the life of Arise it also means that others who have been approached and invited to events, have publicly expressed that they felt like the relationships only existed in service to Arise Church and were therefore, shallow and temporary. With some churches focusing the lives of their people on the programmes and events of the organisation, a danger exists that there is little room left for the healthy cultivation of relationships outside of it.
There is a fundamental shift that can take place here from understanding the branded work of the organisation as the focus for God’s work in the world, to seeing the everyday lives (the vocations) of community members (the church) as the primary place for this. With such a shift, the emphasis moves from members existing to serve the goals of the organisation, to anything organised by the community existing to serve the vocational lives of its members. A deepened understanding of a good theology of vocation would serve this well.
Another factor that often feeds a performance culture is the expectation of church leaders that volunteers will invest the same level of intense engagement that they are. For many full-time leaders the entirety of their lives is wrapped up in the service of the local church – it is where they sink their best energy. That intense focus can easily be transferred to congregations, with the expectation being that congregants will offer the same level of energy and prioritisation. The lived experiences of congregation members however, are far broader with focuses extending beyond the church. That volunteers are also navigating the responsibilities they have to their own jobs, families, and incomes, can too easily be forgotten. When an appreciation of the multidimensional lives congregants are living is lost, unrealistic expectations can form around how much time, energy, and money they should invest in the institution and its programmes. In this environment expectations upon volunteers can become unreasonable and leaders can feel entitled to their sense of frustration when their expectations are not met because, in their mind, it is about the success of their vision for the church. There is a danger that resentment in leaders towards their congregations can grow, rather than a sense of gratitude for every person within the church community. The results of this can sometimes be disastrous, with people being severely mistreated. Too often the destructive ways that frustration outworks itself then gets justified by others in various ways. ‘Righteous anger’ is a phrase that sometimes appears. It can also be justified by speaking of those in leadership as ‘driven’, and therefore such treatment of people is seen as not good, but inevitable.
Theological Rigour/Spiritual Depth
Since the church is those who are gathered by virtue of their shared commitment to Christ – a community being formed by the way of Jesus into Christlikeness and thus embodying him – depth of theological understanding and a strong commitment to spiritual formation should be essential characteristics of those tasked with guiding the community. When problems become evident in any Christian community it is probable, depending on the nature of the problems, that this area of the church’s life is worthy of examination, undertaking shifts in theological understanding, and possibly theological depth where necessary. Given the nature of the issues raised, it would be a worthwhile examination for Arise.
Guidance of a Christian community from its pastors/leaders is primarily theological, not organisational. Any organisation of the community is ultimately to be in the service of discipleship and the safety of people.
All pastors are theologians. Those involved in guiding the community should, first and foremost, be people of prayer and biblical study, immersed in understanding and experiencing Christ, and they should be equipped to help in the spiritual formation of others. It is a role that requires professional training, professional development, and professional supervision. It would be reasonable to assume pastors have attained qualifications suitable to their roles such as degrees (or higher qualifications) in theology and Christian ministry from reputable training institutes. In the Apostle Paul’s letter to Titus numerous qualifications are given in relation to pastoral ministry. These include faithfulness, humility, a gentle even temper, integrity, self-control and a holy life devoted to Christ.[41] These are all character-based traits. The one ability-based trait is in regard to the teaching of sound doctrine – theological acumen.[42] This is a challenge all pastors must take seriously. If not, “the danger is a type of folk religion or pseudo-religion focused on self-help, pop-psychology and promises of prosperity, rather than being centred on the historical Christian faith and the costly discipleship that comes with taking up one’s cross and following Jesus.”[43]
In 21st century New Zealand, the health of our communities requires governance structures and governance policies and procedures that ensure safety in all aspects of community life. Those in church governance roles do not have to be the pastor(s) as the role involves a different skill set, nevertheless they should be godly women and men capable of fulfilling the duties of the role. Unfortunately, though, there is a trend to appoint people to positions of Christian authority based on their credentials in the formation and execution of vision, mission, strategy, and organisational or business growth, with theological acumen being secondary. Ultimately, given that the church is a theological community, a focus on business leadership, rather than theological discipleship, can result in problems.
Modern church life is full of stories of those who could pull a crowd being placed in positions of authority and ending up burning out, or caught in various moral scandals, their organisational prowess prized above their theological and spiritual depth. Charisma trumping character.
Pastors in the ekklesia of Jesus must have a greater focus on spending time in the rich, deep, and historical wells of spiritual formation, theological reflection, and discipleship processes of the Church at large over and above the consumption leadership material, reflecting on business practices, and pursuing organisational growth.
To reflect what a church is meant to be, continually developing theological depth and having a focus on spiritual formation in the way of Jesus should be central at every level of the local church.
Toxic Positivity
Adopting a business model that pursues relentless and constant growth and expansion requires a culture that does not allow or accept backward steps. Plateauing or decreasing in size and budget is seen and felt as problematic. This filters into the wider culture and speaks to how the human journey should be experienced, ongoing progress and expansion in every area of life. This is then reinforced in events and experiences curated by the church. Arise’s big events, like events in many such churches, seem to pursue emotional highs and are often spoken of as not-to-be-missed experiences. Events are painted as exciting, high impact and life changing. This kind of culture, reinforced by messaging that expresses a relentless pursuit of positivity, requires participants to constantly put on a front that is insistently optimistic – it can result in a toxic positivity that creates immense pressure. When people are struggling, navigating the inevitable heartaches, challenges and lows of life, this pressure erodes their ability to be vulnerable and authentic to others. The resulting isolation prohibits people from getting the support needed when in the more valley-like seasons of life.
Aligned with this, there have been concerns publicly expressed that some in authority within Arise require more training relevant to what the Christian tradition describes as ‘the dark night of the soul’, and in regard to mental health issues. The danger in highly and constantly positive church environments is a failure to recognise that abuses can and do occur in such cultures and that significant mental health problems are a real experience for a wide number of people. When this is not properly recognised the results can be disastrous in two different ways across many churches. At times mental health issues, as well as the normal trials and tribulations of life, are seemingly dismissed with those seeking help sometimes saying that they have been told to have more faith. On other occasions, where leaders do seek to help vulnerable people, they are too often poorly equipped to do so and the help can sometimes fall disastrously short of what is needed. Too often in churches there is an overreach regarding the issues untrained leaders have thought they could solve in the lives of congregants. In some instances this has led to serious matters being handled entirely inappropriately, causing significant damage. The public record demonstrates instances where Arise has had this issue.
Those of us in authority in church circles need to be taught to recognise when we are out of our depth, to be honest about it, and then know how to guide others towards the professional help that is required. It is not an inadequacy to recognise this. Many personal and interpersonal disasters would be averted if pastors and those in positions of authority in church were more self-aware in regard to our limitations.
A culture of toxic positivity requires silence around serious issues that either individuals or the organisation are facing. It requires the quieting of people’s misgivings in order that a winning culture is not disrupted. A culture of silence is a feature of what has been shared publicly about Arise. It should act as an encouragement to all churches to pursue avenues for people to safely share their experiences and for those experiences to be properly heard and acknowledged. Away from the stage the crisis for Arise seems to have necessarily led to an intense engagement in pastoral care as the crisis has understandably shaken many congregants.
The constant need for life to be seen as good and getting better – living one’s best life – leaves those who are truly struggling feeling alone or as if they are doing something wrong. The need for one’s personal life to be seen to match the corporate hype of the shared atmosphere of exciting events can lead to doubts about one’s own level of faith. It leaves people feeling like the ordinariness of everyday life is not the domain of Jesus. The danger for any church caught in this culture is that the outwardly visible excellence of the brand is promoted, but the hurts of the people of God are suppressed. The ups and downs of life are cast aside.[44]
The church is a community of people, not an institution and brand. Communities have good days and bad days. There are times when some within a community are struggling and others are doing well. The church should allow for vulnerability, but not in a manner that is another manipulation of emotion in service to an event. Constant hype, excitement, and relentless positivity are not conducive to the seasons of humanity. Again, I wish to acknowledge that this will not be everyone’s experience of Arise, with some expressing that they have received good care in their low times, but there are enough stories for this to be a cultural area worthy of examination.
Jesus met people right where they were at. As he arrived in Bethany, knowing he would raise Lazarus from the dead, he still met Lazarus’ sisters within their experience and grief, to the point where seeing Mary’s grief he was moved in a way that made him feel her pain, and we are told that he wept.[45] Jesus constantly made room for others who lacked power. He gave room for their questions, their tears, their hopes, and their isolation – he himself experiencing tears, hopelessness, and isolation. The ministry and the life of Jesus are a model to all who would follow him as Lord and Saviour.
Given the negative consequences inherent to a reliance on pragmatic methodologies and toxic positivity, an alternative organising framework could be sought that would serve Arise and other churches dealing with such issues to function in a humanising manner that has room for all of life’s experiences; one that recognises that following the way of Jesus is not ultimately a path of efficiency, calculability, predictability or control. After all, the call to take up one’s cross and follow Jesus,[46] to walk the extra mile,[47] to lay down one’s life,[48] and to walk a narrow path[49] is anything but pragmatic or an ongoing emotional experience of positivity and victory.
A positive and faith-filled perspective on life need not be cast aside altogether, but it will be tempered by an organising principle that is less utilitarian and more of an invitation to walk in step with Jesus – wherever that journey might lead. In this regard, a re-engagement with the Church’s ancient liturgical calendar (used by the majority of churches worldwide, it is an ordered 3-year calendar cycle based around the life and ministry of Jesus in the gospels) may offer fresh possibilities. As McAuley notes, while positivity and the pursuit of growth “may tempt a contemporary church to arrange its own calendar of events with a careful eye towards creating organisational momentum and an excited sense of buy-in from the congregation, the liturgical calendar (based, as it is, on an entirely different set of priorities) tempers this methodology. Before consideration is given to guest speakers, church camps or conferences, the major feasts, fasts and seasons of the liturgical year are given primacy. Each period of the calendar tells the story of Jesus and serves as an invitation to first and foremost walk through the year in step with the life of Christ,[50] providing opportunities to consider the theology, gospel narrative, work of the Spirit and appropriate responses of Christ followers to each season of Christ’s life.”[51] In immersing the community into the life of Christ, it allows the full expression of the human journey. It contains the confession and lament of Lent, the grief and brokenness of the cross, the relief of the Resurrection, and the exuberance of Pentecost. The liturgical calendar gives room for all facets of the human experience. “[The liturgical calendar] proposes, year after year, to immerse us over and over again into the sense and substance of the Christian life until, eventually, we become what we say we are – followers of Jesus all the way to the heart of God.”[52] It invites participants into the full experience of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ – irrespective of convenience or consumer appeal.[53]
The Opportunity: An Invitation
‘It may be that the times which by human standards are times of collapse are for him [Christ] the great times of construction. It may be that from a human point of view great times for the church are actually times of demolition.’[54]
Through the stories of brokenness shared by those courageous enough to open up about their experiences at Arise through various means, a light has been publicly shed on a heartbreaking side of the church’s story. I have unpacked some of that here. Whilst it will not be reflective of the whole life of the church and everyone’s experiences of it, it is enough to warrant change. I believe it should be clear that a return to what was, is not advisable. Simply filling the vacant positions caused by resignations without further deep examination will not address the systemic and cultural change needed. Any attempt to sweep the issues highlighted in the public record under the carpet may result in more damage, so the Arise Church Board are to be encouraged in their endeavours to listen, review current practices, structures, and culture, and to implement change where necessary. They have undertaken a difficult path with many challenges. Other leaders would do well to support this process and not inhibit it. Lacking thoroughness in these pursuits may lead to the disillusionment of many others within the Arise community and beyond, as well as to the further angering of those who have experienced injustice. Reconciliation, redemption, and reformation are the ways forward irrespective of the challenges such a journey may present.
I believe the journey of life with Jesus is instructive here, not just for individuals, but for communities. Life with Jesus begins with the recognition of our need for a saviour – we acknowledge that something isn’t right and we turn to Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith.[55] That turning involves confession, repentance, and a heart that longs for forgiveness.
Confession is a deeply honest accounting of what has gone wrong. It is a daily occurrence for those who follow liturgical traditions of morning and evening prayer cycles, and it is a weekly communal Sunday occurrence for those churches who follow such tradition. Confession necessarily involves owning the harm done and recognising its impact. It involves a full acknowledgement of what has happened and does not seek to counter it by pointing to positive experiences. It also does not centre the institution or its leaders as the victims or the heroes. There are very clear victims, and they need to be properly acknowledged and honoured.
In my opinion this seems to be the best way forward for Arise and those who guide it. If this is undertaken, it would be wise to do so publicly so that all involved may receive it. Such acknowledgement will not minimise this by segmenting it to one part of Arise but will own that the expressed problems need cultural responses rather than simply addressing systems and procedures. But simply and fully acknowledging what has gone wrong will not be enough. The Arise leadership would be wise to seek the forgiveness of those who have been broken within it, whether those hurt choose to give that forgiveness or not. An attempt to move on without proper confession and seeking of forgiveness will be the temptation, but it will not result in the healing that is needed. Reconciliation and a process of restorative justice where appropriate can be a part of this. It is obvious that this comes with legal challenges, so courage is required.
To embrace a process of confession and the seeking of forgiveness, Arise may need to turn to those outside of its tradition as those within it, including like-minded churches, have been well steeped in the language of victory and positivity when It comes to faith but may lack the tools for lament and confession.
Repentance is wilfully turning in a different direction, aligning with Christ, and in this instance, Christ’s call and vision for his Church. Repentance means doing things differently. Here is where the challenge, opportunity, and invitation of this article could be embraced.
Arise is not the first church to face the deep challenge that comes with hearing and acknowledging stories of brokenness within it, and it will not be the last. Living up to a biblical vision for Christian community is a constant examination for all churches. Nor is Arise the first church that may have put growth and expansion ahead of formation in the way of Jesus. Again, this is a temptation for all churches, and there are other large churches who have recognised this in themselves. Therefore, other churches have been there and have undertaken an exciting journey to fully embody what it means to be an ekklesia of Christ.
There is a challenging question Arise must now face. Is Arise a church (or more accurately, is it a collection of local churches), or is it an enterprise of a few personalities. These are two fundamentally different things. Given the current circumstances only one of these has a long life ahead that could span generations. If Arise is a church it will pursue the long, slow, messy road of the formation of people in the way of Jesus as its core mission, freeing people who count it as their community to live the way of Jesus in their daily lives.
Arise can be a community where all are honoured and their gifts contribute to helping one another grow in Christlikeness as a deep internal journey of formation in Christ through all the ups and downs of life – in the ordinary, everyday journey of living in 21st century Aotearoa New Zealand.
To get there Arise will need to put discipleship and formation in the way of Jesus at the heart of the community. It needs to take precedence over increasing budgets, buildings, attendance or ever more spectacular events. We are called to make disciples and Arise could prove to be incredibly fruitful in this mission if it was to align all its structures and resources behind the journey of discipleship. Such formation cannot simply be a programme added to what is already happening – to be successful it would need to be the core premise that shapes everything. In this pursuit Arise could increase its depth theologically and spiritually across the organisation. It would need to re-examine the role of the pastor(s) biblically as a servant(s) guiding the community in the way of Jesus. It is essential that pastors not view theology as a side-line aspect of pastoral ministry. As Vanhoozer and Strachan point out in The Pastor as Public Theologian, theology is, at its simplest, “to speak about Jesus Christ.”[56] Alternatively, as Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson state in Who Needs Theology?, theology is any kind of thinking, reflecting or contemplating in relation to God.[57] In both cases, these definitions align with the assertion that theological reflection sits at the heart of pastoral ministry. As those who speak of God, pastors must embrace the fact that, like it or not, they are theologians – full time theologians in many instances. Given the preaching, teaching, leading, pastoral care and leadership of church communities that pastors undertake in the light of the biblical witness, theology is the primary activity in which they engage and they should equip themselves for that enterprise. Acknowledged or not, at every turn, pastors are the architects of an ongoing conversation about God. Ultimately, the question is not whether pastors are theologians, but rather whether or not they are competent in that role.[58]
It seems to me that Arise has had a large focus on high energy and perfect looking events. It has a chance here to embrace the vision of Jesus for his community; one of humble service that values people not because of what they can do for the organisation or the brand, but because they are the beloved of God. It has the chance to be a church where people are empowered to live the way of Jesus and embody his presence in all the spheres of life in which they engage. It has the opportunity to develop, here in its own low point, into being a community that values the highs and lows people experience in life – one that makes room for people whether they are feeling great or not. Going forward, Arise could be a church that wholly reflects and embraces the risen Christ whose scars were such that Thomas, with all of his doubts and suspicions, could touch those scars and believe.[59]
The challenge is great. Bonhoeffer speaks to the depth, but also the opportunity and the hope of the challenge: ‘He [God] does not abandon us to those rapturous experiences and lofty moods that come over us like a dream… Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God’s sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it. The sooner this shock of disillusionment comes to an individual and to a community the better for both. A community which cannot bear and cannot survive such a crisis, which insists upon keeping its illusion when it should be shattered, permanently loses in that moment the promise of Christian community. Sooner or later it will collapse… When the morning mists of dreams vanish, then dawns the bright day of Christian fellowship.’[60]
In the current crisis, Arise has the chance to put aside the dream and to embrace the actual Christian community; both those present now, and those who have been hurt in its midst. It is in the reality of the present that Christ dwells.
Arise has a chance here to move away from primarily being an institution built on one person’s vision to being an ekklesia that truly embodies the presence of Christ in the world.
Church Examples of Change
- Word of Life Church, St Joseph, Missouri (Brian Zahnd)
- New Life Fellowship Church, New York City (Peter Scazzero)
- Redeemer Church, New York (Timothy Keller)
- Oak Hills Church, Folsom, California (Mike Lueken)
Material to Inform a Journey into Formation
- A Church Called Tov (Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer)
- In the Name of Jesus (Henri Nouwen)
- Emotionally Healthy Discipleship/Spirituality/Leader (Peter Scazzero)
- Life Together (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
- Practicing the Way (John Mark Comer- website and material)
- The Spirit of the Disciplines (Dallas Willard)
- The Pastor (Eugene Peterson)
- The Contemplative Pastor (Eugene Peterson)
- Pentecostalism Re-Imagined (Joseph McAuley – PhD work)
- Water to Wine (Brian Zahnd)
- Renovation of the Church (Mike Lueken and Kent Carlson)
- The Pastor as Public Theologian (Kevin Vanhoozer and Owen Strachan)
- Brave Church (Elizabeth Hagan)
- The Drama of Scripture (C.G. Bartholomew and M.W. Gohen)
- The Essence of the Church (Craig van Gelder)
- Deep Church (Jim Belcher)
- The Liturgical Year (Joan Chisitter)
- Jesus and Money (Ben Witherington)
- Who Needs Theology? (Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson)
- The Critical Journey (Hagberg and Guelich)
- Slow Church (C. Christopher Smith and John Pattison)
- You Are What You Love (James K.A. Smith)
- The Day the Revolution Began (N.T. Wright)
- Sacred Pathways (Gary Thomas)
- Liturgy of the Ordinary (Trish Harrison Warren)
- The Sermon on the Mount and Human Flourishing (Jonathan T. Pennington)
- A Community of Character (Stanley Hauerwas)
- The Power of Vulnerability (Brene Brown)
[1] Strong’s Number: 1577
[2] Strong’s Number: 2564
[3] Strong’s Number: 1537
[4] Matthew 28:19-20
[5] The Greek word translated as ‘love’ here is often transliterated as agape. It is said that the use of the word in wider society at the time was quite general, but the biblical expression of It comes with a strong moral underpinning. It is seen as a love that flows from God – God is agapos. Its focus is towards the good of the other and therefore it carries a sense of self-sacrifice in that pursuit, as embodied in Jesus. It involves commitment, faithfulness, and carries no expectation of getting anything in return as the good of the other is pursued. This is the love to be embodied in the Christian community. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 gives a definition of agape, as does 1 John 3:16.
[6] John 13:34-35
[7] John 21:15-17
[8] I recognise that, in the modern context, any reference to people as ‘sheep’ has negative connotations, but this was not so in the biblical context.
[9] John 13:3-15
[10] Mark 10:42b-44
[11] 1 Corinthians 12:13a
[12] 1 Corinthians 12:22-26
[13] Strongs Number: 2960
[14] 1 Corinthians 11:20
[15] Revelation 1:10
[16] News headlines often alert us to a wider problematic bullying culture in Aotearoa New Zealand and a consistent lack of care for victims due to institutional self-protection.
[17] Matthew 20:28
[18] Philippians 2:5-8
[19] Henri J.M. Nouwen, With Outstretched Hands (Lecture given at Centre for Human Development, Washington D.C., September 21, 1987).
[20] Luke 22:24
[21] As a caution, these ideas should not be co-opted to entice the unreasonable service and hard work of the congregation though, while leaders reap the benefit of that effort.
[22] This is often justified in some churches via a particular modern understanding of ‘Apostolic leadership.’ An apostle in the Bible is one who is sent, a messenger, ambassador etc. They are people who carry a message, thus the early disciples became ‘apostles’ when they were sent by Christ. The appropriateness of the title being used beyond the initial 12 and Paul is debated (the use of the term in the Nicene Creed denotes the Church having the initial Apostles as its foundation), but we can safely say that there is no biblical foundation for defining an apostle as one with absolute power (with little accountability) over churches. Rather, scripture talks of the appointment of episkope/episkopos (hence the term ‘episcopal’ to talk of a particular governance structure in traditional churches) – overseer/elder/bishop (where their character was central). The exact structure this leads to is not clear in terms of a plurality of people or individuals (hence there is room for varying church structures), but these people were also not given absolute power. Their task was to spiritually guide, tend, care for, and protect the community. The imagery used for episkopos/episkope is in line with the charge Jesus gave to Peter that I have mentioned.
[23] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), 27-28.
[24] There is often talk of ‘anointed’ leadership that sets up particular personalities as being special in a way that grants them unaccountable power over the congregation. References related to such anointing in the Old Testament are sometimes used to confirm this. In the New Testament Jesus is the ‘anointed’ one (Luke 4:18-19) – the head of the congregation of all disciples. He is prophet (Luke 4:18), priest (Hebrews 7:11-28), and king (Hebrews 1:8) – the culmination of all these roles in the Old Testament. Whenever there is talk of anointing in the New Testament following this, it is universalised and recognised as something conferred on all those who follow Christ because of their unity with Christ (2 Corinthians 1:21-22, 1 John 2:20). A wider anointing is the emphasis of Pentecost. A New Testament vision of the Church does not make it the sole domain of those at the ‘top.’
[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.