The phrase “Loose Cannon” comes from the idea (made popular by Victor Hugo in his novel
Ninety Three, 1874) that if a cannon was not tied down and left loose on a ship, it can cause great damage and potentially sink the vessel. This was thought to be true especially during battle or in a severe storm. When cannons were used in battle they had to be secured with large ropes (pictured above) because of the recoil caused by the blast of a round. If this heavy piece of artillery was not tethered when fired, it had the potential of launching itself across the deck and damaging the ship structure or killing someone. Likewise, in a severe storm when a ship was tossed about by the waves and wind, all heavy objects had the potential to cause harm if they were not secured.; especially the heavy metal cannons that were mounted on wheels.
Today the phrase “Loose Cannon” is usually defined as
an unpredictable person or thing, liable to cause damage if not kept in check by others. There are all sorts of scenarios in life where people can be considered a loose cannon. For instance, the belligerent spouse at a get-together with the in-laws, or the Hollywood actor or actress who lacks discretion in a televised interview. How about the business partner who makes off color jokes during important client meetings. The examples are endless because people are not perfect. But what about those loose cannons in areas where we expect self control to be exemplified? What about loose cannons in the pulpit?
I once heard of a pastor who was a loose cannon. When members would bring Christian guests to this particular Messianic congregation, they found themselves on the edge of their seats. They sat hoping that the pastor would not
go off and offend their friends giving them a bad impression of Messianic Judaism. They didn’t wanted the pastor to ‘soften’ the message of the Word of God but rather that he would not make inappropriate jokes and remarks. Evidently this pastor lacked judgment in determining what constituted an appropriate joke for Sabbath Service and didn’t care who was offended by it. When confronted, he would usually excuse his way around the incident and not apologize for it or he would shrug off any mention of this harmful character flaw. There was no way to stop him and no mechanism in place to keep him in line because he was not tethered by the accountability of peers. Actually, he had no peers. He was the
Senior Pastor. He was a loose cannon.
This is not to say that every
Senior Pastor is a loose cannon. There are some
Senior Pastors who are godly, self controlled, and disciplined enough to run a congregation single-handedly; but this is rare. Besides, the concept of a single
Senior Pastor is not Hebraic or Biblical for that matter. In the Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) Paul instructs Titus
to establish Elders (plural) in every town (singular). There were to be multiple leaders with equal authority in every town or congregation. One reason for this is accountability.
In his article
Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders,
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at the Dallas Theological Seminary, explains it like this:
Many churches today have a pastor and several deacons. This is based on a model of ecclesiology in which it is assumed that there was one elder in the ancient church. But even those churches that have more than one elder (the pastor being one of them) usually regard the pastor as the de facto head of the church. This is due to two basic reasons: (1) he is the one with biblical training, and (2) he is the one who speaks before the entire congregation every Sunday.
It seems to me that this model (either the philosophical single-elder model or the pragmatic single-leader model) misses the mark of the New Testament teaching on this topic. The early church had, I believe, multiple elders. The pastor would have been counted among them, but was not over them. Indeed, all would have taught, not just one. If we can get back to this model, I think that churches will be stronger in many ways. They will be less idiosyncratic, less dependent on one person, more accountable.
The case for plurality of elders can be argued along four lines: biblical, historical, theological, and pragmatic. At bottom, I would say that the reason the scriptures teach multiple eldership is at least twofold: (1) mutual accountability is necessary if leaders are to avoid falling into sin; and (2) a church takes on the personality of its leader/s: if there is just one leader, the church will inevitably take on that man's personality, including his quirks and faults. But if more than one person leads the church, there is the greater chance that the church will be balanced.
Accountability is the rope that keeps the ‘pastoral cannons’ from wrecking the church. But is accountability for congregational leaders that necessary? Are they not godly men above reproach? Speaking about leadership accountability, Alexander Strauch states:
English historian Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Because of our biblical beliefs in the dreadful realities of sin, the curse, Satan, and human depravity, we should understand well why people in positions of power are easily corrupted. In fact, the better we understand the exceeding sinfulness and deceitfulness of sin, the stronger our commitment to accountability will be. The collective leadership of a biblical eldership provides a formal structure for genuine accountability.
Shared, brotherly leadership provides needed restraint concerning such sins as pride, greed, and “playing god.” Earl D. Radmacher, chancellor of a Baptist seminary in America, writes, “Human leaders, even Christian ones, are sinners and they only accomplish God’s will imperfectly. Multiple leaders, therefore, will serve as a ‘check and balance’ on each other and serve as a safeguard against the very human tendency to play God over other people.”
– from the free online booklet by Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership : Restoring the Eldership to Its Rightful Place in the Church, 1997 (Revised - Booklet)
It is the practice of some communities to only hold the
Senior Pastor accountable in certain areas of their responsibilities. These areas are usually outlined in their secular bylaws that were written by secular lawyers. This is because this model is not Biblical and cannot be backed by Scripture. In the Biblical Elder Model, leaders are held accountable in all areas of their lives,
submitting themselves to each other. This is
true accountability. Although leaders of a community, elders and deacons, are required to meet a Biblical standard before they are appointed (
Titus 1,
1 Timothy 3), in order to keep them on this path of righteousness and away from the pitfalls of sin, they need
true accountability. They need to be accountable in all areas of their lives.
If the
Senior Pastor described above had
true accountability in place, he would have been confronted by his peers and made accountable to address this loose cannon character flaw. Had he submitted, he would have been
stretched in this area, forced to grow and he would have come out a more godly man in the end. If a
Senior Pastor is not submitted to his peers in all areas of his life, he has the potential of becoming a loose cannon.
Is your pastor a loose cannon? Does he spout off during services making remarks that would offend your grandmother? Does he make jokes that are inappropriate for your children to hear? Does he chase people out of your community with course language and brutish letters or emails? If he does, find out who he is accountable to. Make sure he is accountable in all areas of his life. If he is not, he is a loose cannon who has the potential of sinking your church and hurting your family and friends in the process. Pray for him.
“Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue
keeps himself out of trouble.”
- Proverbs 21:23
~
