I think our denomination has two competing views of what our denomination should look like and I don't think there is clear understanding on this point yet. Hopefully we will reach some agreement at the national conference.
The traditional view sees a central leadership for the denomination that generates vision and then sees that the vision is implemented throughout the denomination. The local churches are expected to fall in line with this vision and this vision/purpose/mission becomes the "face of the denomination." To head up this institution we want a "visionary" leader who has the charisma to get his vision implemented.
I see at least three major problems with this approach. First of all it has a tendency to waste the creative and intellectual capital that is scattered throughout our local churches. We can get some of it but in the end we are limited to those who have been chosen for the highest governing bodies of the denomination.
Secondly, strong visionary leaders with big charisma are extremely rare and the chances of finding one to lead our denomination is quite small. Don't bother talking about a shrinking leadership pool because that misses the point of how rare these individuals actually are. I would bet that they you couldn't name more than half a dozen such denominational leaders from history off the top of your head. I was surprised that Time Magazine's list of the top 25 Evangelicals listed very few denominational leaders. Many were local church pastors who had national influence. To say this is the type of person you want sure sounds good but is highly unlikely.
Thirdly, I think the face of the denomination should be the local churches themselves. The denominal relationship is a background issue that lurks in the shadows. If the denomination insists on being the face of the denomination it is like one of those parents who hog the limelight when their kid has done something amazing.
Instead I want a denomination whose vision is to help local churches reach their vision. Simple ain't it. We have enough good thinking people who will really take off with their vision for their local church. Yes, there will be some churches who don't seem to get it but that's okay. That's between them and God. I say if they want to stay that way leave them alone. Just keep them from being a burden on the rest of the churches. The more time the denomination spends trying to push them the more they are wasting denominational resources. If they do want to change they can take the initiative. In the mean time they will cease to hold back other churches.
The Face of the Denomination
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11:59 AM
You're right about the rarity of charismatic leaders. Bishop Meadows was probably the last one we had, and he left office in 1969. The expecation we have placed on a bishop to set "a" vision for the denomination isn't very realistic. I think Bishop Seilhamer was frustrated by that.
In case you're wondering, I'm agreeing with you a lot more than I'm disagreeing.
Steve
9:18 AM
What I am saying is that I don’t think we really can think in linear terms about function and then form. They are interconnected. It is kind of like agreeing that the church is biotic and then being mechanistic in how we go about being biotic. I’ve been in situations where we were linear about function and form and the meeting felt good, provided clear direction and seemed to have been a great success. It didn’t fly on the ground though. Having said that I’m not sure everyone involved is aware of the competing views and I’m not sure we can settle the issue at NC as it may take several years to work it out. In the meantime we need to be careful we don’t do something that reduces our options too much.
Post a Comment