“Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by this name this man stands here before you in good health.” – Acts 4 : 8 – 10

My current duties involve supervising a small team of individuals that serve on a 24/7 watch. We monitor the strategic situation across the globe to provide indications and warnings of strategic attacks by nation states against the homeland, as well as terrorist plans to attack. The nature of our work requires us to communicate with both Department of Defense and various civilian organization watches to share information. A few days ago one of my team discovered a civilian organization had implemented new security procedures. He determined if we knew the security procedures, we would know how a terrorist might attempt to circumvent them. Therefore, my team member requested the details of the new security procedures from his fellow watch-stander at the civilian organization. The civilian organization’s watch-stander said he could not provide the information without a formal request, so my team member submitted the request.

The request went unanswered for a couple of weeks. Then, a few days ago, my team member was verbally counseled by a senior person working in the intel directorate of our organization. It seems my team member had not gone through the proper channels to request the information. Unbeknownst to my team member, the civilian organization had a representative in our organization who found out about the request. The request was then elevated to the highest levels within the civilian organization. In the process the civilian organization blew the request way out of proportion to the point it stopped being a request and became what was perceived as a requirement. We have no authority to require the civilian organization to provide us any information since they do not work for us.

Anyone that has ever worked with bureaucrats knows how important it is for them to defend their ‘turf’. That is to say they are determined to force others to follow procedures and protocol, no matter how small the subject matter. By doing so the bureaucrats feel they are protecting their jobs, their organization, and their power derived from possessing information others want. The information becomes leverage and that leverage translates to power. Additionally, bureaucracies become slaves to process and “form over function”.  Subordinates pass decisions up the chain until someone of sufficient ‘authority’ can make a decision. This is exactly what happened to the request sent by my teammate.

After a few weeks the request (or in this case perceived requirement) was passed up through levels of bureaucracy and passed over to the civilian organization’s liaison with our organization. The liaison engaged a senior member of our organization and expressed their displeasure at how procedures had not been followed. The senior member then let my supervisors and my teammate know how displeased they were with the procedure we used to attempt gaining the required information. Apparently, the request should have gone from my teammate to someone in another part of our organization who would determine if our request was valid before sending it on to the liaison. Then the liaison would forward the request to the appropriate authority in his organization for approval.  So, something that started off as a simple exchange between two watch-standers performing shift work turned into a two week saga involving more senior individuals than the request warranted. We have yet to receive the requested information. To top it off, the senior member in our organization tasked my teammate to write a procedure on how to obtain the information through ‘proper’ channels.

Processes are great for routine activities, but when they are applied to every circumstance they stifle individual initiative and creativity. A simple act of initiative becomes a challenge to a bureaucrat’s very existence (at least in their eyes).  Subordinates are reprimanded and told to get back ‘in their lane’.  Subordinates are not empowered to think, to make decisions, and to act.  My teammate became the victim of the old saying “no good deed goes unpunished”.

The disciples were also punished for their good deeds by the bureaucrats of their day. One incident illustrating this point comes from Acts 3 and 4. At the beginning of Acts 3 you will recall Peter and John were going to the temple in Jerusalem. They encountered a man who was born lame. Friends or family brought the man to the temple gate daily so he could beg for alms. When Peter and John were about to enter the temple the beggar began asking for alms. Instead of giving the beggar silver or gold, Peter miraculously heals him and the beggar accompanies Peter and John into the temple “walking and leaping and praising God” (vs. 8). Peter and John then go on to speak and teach Jesus Christ’s resurrection.

Enter the ‘bureaucrats’ (a term that fails to come close to describing the religious and moral depravity of the first century religious leaders). In Acts 4 the priests, temple guard captain, and the Sadducees arrested Peter and John in an effort to stop their spreading the gospel to the people. Apparently Peter and John were not ‘staying in their lane’. They had the audacity to heal a lame man, and then further their bureaucracy-defying infractions by teaching the resurrection, presumably without asking permission from the High Priest or his cronies. Clearly in these religious leader’s bureaucracy they were not about to let any good deed go unpunished, no matter who benefited from it. It didn’t matter that a lame man could now walk and was praising God in the process. It didn’t matter that the good news message was reaching those in need of it. The power of the bureaucracy was at stake, and as far as the religious rulers were concerned this would not stand. The religious leaders felt their authority was challenged, to the point they even asked Peter and John “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” (4:8).

It is no surprise Peter knew what the religious leaders were up to. He even calls them on it in verses 9-10 “…if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well… by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead–by this name this man stands here before you in good health.”.  Peter knew the religious leaders were opposed to anything good that could be attributed to the same Jesus Christ they had conspired to murder.  The religious leaders knew they would lose power over the people if this message continued to spread, and as we already noted information is power and a bureaucracy maintains its power by controlling information. The Sanhedrin was no different.  However, unlike my teammate, Peter had the Holy Spirit working on his behalf and the proof of the now-healed beggar in their midst. The Sanhedrin could not deny a miracle, so they turned to threats in order to control information, to punish those responsible for ‘good deeds’.

Of course where the Holy Spirit is involved, man’s attempts to control situations in ways not according to God’s will are in vain.  So what is important about today’s lesson for Godly leaders, specifically missional leaders? First, we should ask ourselves if we are acting the same way as the Sanhedrin.  Are we excited when someone demonstrates the initiative to do a good deed in the name of God (Mark 9:38 – 40 comes to mind), or are we disturbed because they didn’t go through proper channels or an established program? Are we happy to share information and responsibility, or are we trying to control information to retain our position in the sight of our fellow Christians? Are we a facilitator of God’s plan, or an obstacle? Are we a community of God’s people where every member is an active participant in God’s redemptive plan (i.e. missionally focused), or are we a bureaucracy?

Second, we must realize that if we are acting like the Sanhedrin we are in effect ‘arresting’ the imagination of our congregation. In my studies and my experience imagination and initiative are like muscles – if they are not exercised they will atrophy. How can leaders cultivate a missional culture in our congregation where members can imagine themselves at the center of God’s activities if we saddle them with programs and projects of our choosing? Put simply, we can’t.

Third, what are we doing when our members demonstrate some initiative? This question is important because as a congregation transitions to a missional culture they go through a phase of experimentation. During this phase members exercise their initiative by experimenting with ways they can be active participants in God’s activities in the local community. If members feel forced to focus on conforming their ideas to fit into an existing program they may miss an opportunity to participate. Additionally, leaders have to realize some experiments will fail (thus the term ‘experiment’ instead of ‘solution’). Members need to know it is okay for an experiment to fail because their leaders will encourage them to try something else instead of giving up. Leaders recognize and distinguish between failed experiments and labeling individuals as failures. Leaders see failed experiments as learning experiences rather than dead ends and leaders reward initiative, they don’t punish it.

Finally, missional leaders want to encourage and empower others to participate in God’s activities. Peter and John were empowered, and the results were amazing. Peter and John saw the threat of punishment for what it was – a challenge to God and his purpose (4:27-30). By using threats all the Sanhedrin did was further embolden Peter and John to spread the ‘information’ instead of controlling it. May we endeavor to see when our processes and procedures (i.e. ‘doing things right’) are getting in the way of God’s activities (i.e. ‘doing the right thing’). 

It is my prayer that this lesson is as helpful to you reading it as it has been to me writing it. It is also my prayer we will apply this lesson to our lives as we strive to serve God.  After all, we haven’t really learned a lesson unless we know how to and actually do implement it in a situation. The grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, be with you.

Reference: Roxburgh, Alan J. and Romanuk, Fred The Missional Leader. San Fransisco, CA: Josey-Bass, 2006.