It seems sometimes in our democracy addicted society that we believe absolutely that a group of like-minded individuals will always come up with a more comprehensive, well-tempered solution to a problem than any one individual within that group.
I have recently seen the opposite in action. During a desert survival simulation in a leadership training seminar, there was in fact a group who had a single member that performed much better on his individual score than the group did as a whole. Why? He had special knowledge but was overruled by the majority. In this situation, the tyranny of the majority caused the entire group to die (vicariously of course) in the desert.
Could this happen in the church as well? Could one person know better than everyone else but be sacrificed on the altar of democracy? Unlike the desert simulation, there is no immediate and conclusive answer. If one person might be smarter than the group, who is that person and how do we figure that out without dying first?
The idea that the head of an organization makes many executive decisions is a myth. The Pope. The President. People who think these men make all decisions at their whim without first consulting a large number of trusted advisers seem to me to be a little out of touch with reality. Those decisions are rarely come upon through a solitary time with no outside influence. Sure they must occasionally be decisive and decide something with little consultation, but most often the leader is the one who announces a decision.
One of the most often leveled accusation against these leaders: “How can one man decide what is good for the Church/country?” And even though the perception of a leader the level of the president or the Pope always making individual, unilateral decisions is inaccurate, they do still usually exert more influence over the process than others involved.
Catholics might answer: maybe the one man is gifted with a special grace to do so. And citizens of a democracy: we chose him to lead us. No institution can last long on executive decisions alone, and while the presidency is more easily observed as a collaborative governing I can say with some certainty that the governing of the Catholic Church works in much the same way. “How can one man decide what is good for the Church?” is an unfair, strawman argument that we Protestants often use to create a distance and avoid examining, then opposing or confirming Catholic theology.
The alternative to this type of spiritual pecking order, whether it is actual or merely perceived to be so, should not be reckless individual interpretation, but that fact is difficult to see in an era of prosperity preachers and fake faith healers. The pendulum often swings toward irony. You can find Christians somewhere saying and believing things that are not even tangentially connected to Christianity – at no risk and no cost and – here’s the irony – without consultation.
After all, God “told” them, so how could they be wrong? In fact, they often benefit from their distinct, “unique” interpretation of Jesus’ life. We tolerate all this in a misguided attempt to avoid quarrels amongst ourselves, but heresy needs to be called out whenever and wherever it’s found and we often do more harm than good by being tolerant of this behaviour. But there’s that authority problem again: by whose standard shall we judge what is heresy?
But isn’t one proven fake faith healing enough? How about a $10 million “parsonage”? Routine $1500-a-night hotel rooms? Any takers? Are our standards really so low that we can’t even call 
each other on these abuses? Must we leave it to the “Fifth Estate” and “60 Minutes” investigative crews to expose? Although much criticized for their expose of Mike Warnke , I believe Cornerstone Magazine showed us how investigative journalism and biblical confrontation could work together for the edification of the church at large.
If this is all quite confusing for me, someone blessed with faith, a lifetime of belief, and generations before me with the same, how difficult must it be for someone interested in belief but standing at the gate wondering which splinter of the road is the right one.
How does a seeker decide? Answer me if you know because I have never been a seeker in the sense of being a non-Christian adult attempting to choose a religion. I have done plenty of reverse engineering and tried to simulate this decision but that is all theoretical for me.
