Freedom of Expression

Several days ago I posted about the role of Bishop in our denomination. I posted that I believe one of the key functions of the position is that of perspective keeper. As I have thought about this I have found it helpful to think in terms of structure to give a picture of what such a position would look like.

One of the strongest desires that we must resist is for a national plan. As I stated in the earlier post I do not believe that this is a very viable option. It relies too much on the charisma of the Bishop and it assumes too much about the abilities (intelligence even) of the top leadership in relationship too the rest of the denomination.

Many have proposed that we are entering a post-denomination era. Whether true or not is yet to be seen. My own prediction is that denominations will at least need to look differently. I dream of a denomination that takes its behind the scenes support role very seriously and allows for multiple expressions of church within its scope. Of course getting people to agree that multiple expression of church are acceptable is a major hurdle.

As I have listened to people talk about our denomination I have been amazed at the fervor with which they promote their perspective of church as the only way. They also are married to organizational/management strategies that have developed in the modern world. The frightening part about it is the degree with which they support such modern strategies with scripture as the only way to do things.

A good example of this occurred during the national board meeting held this month. The proposal was made that the bishop be allowed to hire staff as he sought fit. One example that was presented was that of Director of Healthy Church Initiative. I thought we had been making progress until this example was proposed. In my view the denomination must limit itself to essentials in order to truly allow multiple expressions of church. As soon as it goes beyond essentials it begins to dictate a particular expression over all others.

In my view a position of Director of Healthy Church Initiative could be a wonderful thing. However, such a position should be funded and overseen by those churches that actually want such a director. The current proposal is that all churches be grouped in clusters of about 7 churches. In my view these clusters should network with other clusters that share a similar vision for a Healthy Church Initiative. Once they reach a certain size, say 15 clusters, they can then look into whether it would be beneficial for them to have a Director to serve them. This would eliminate the burden on those churches that had no desire to participate in such an initiative.

Several have expressed a desire to continue with our current annual conference structure. The same principle applies here. If churches want to organize that way they are free to do so. What they can’t do is force churches to join them and therefore they cannot be a burden to them. Free association provides for better relationships, which I believe, should be one of our distinctive features. (This is why I favor allowing churches the freedom to join the cluster group of their choosing and why I support having the Bishop choose cluster group leaders. The working relationships are preserved in both instances. I remember a mentoring program that tried to dictate relationships and it was a disaster.)

The proposed structure has led many to believe that we are centralizing control. Actually just the opposite is true. Our current structure all feeds back to our HQ so we basically are centralized now. The proposed structure has the potential to allow a high degree of decentralization. This also brings us back to the role of Bishop. It is not a position from which to dictate. Instead this person is more of an observer. He looks at the big picture. He watches our back for us. He keeps perspective for us but allows us freedom of expression.