Leadership Nomenclature
The confusing state of emerging church/spiritual leadership that I have previously addressed is seen in the nomenclature used to refer to different leadership positions and functions. As already mentioned, Solomon's Porch has a "Leadership Co-Op," with elected, rotating members. The term "co-op" has a more egalitarian and postmodern sound than a "board of directors" (which sounds thoroughly corporate-model). Yet, they also have a "lead pastor" who is always in the Leadership Co-Op. Almost all churches, emerging or not, have a "lead pastor" who is the real or figurehead leader. This term is still embraced by many, if not most, emerging churches. Other churches have leadership teams, but always a lead pastor. By definition, that term means that that person is in front, seeing the terrain, and blazing the spiritual trail for the rest to follow. (Senior Pastor is also used, emphasizing authority from experience and wisdom, but the same criticism still applies.) These "lead pastors" are the primary voice in that community. Otherwise, again by definition, they would not be lead pastors.
I have blogged before about the very term "pastor," and therefore will not repeat the thoughts from there. But it is interesting that we still don't have many new (and more accurate?) names of our leadership positions. There are some churches who look back to the ancient order and draw upon that deep well. On one site, the leadership link was titled "Elders." This is a very ancient and well-known term that implies a great deal. I had respect for an emerging church that would use such terminology for its leadership positions. When I clicked on the link, their "elders" were the lead pastor and the worship leader. From their pictures and bios, both were likely between 26-34. Hardly congruent with the term "elder." The ironic thing is that the New Covenant writings are filled with synonyms for elder that don't have such obvious implications, such as shepherds or bishops. Yet these are not used (again, very limited sample size, admittedly).
I don't have any answers, or suggestions. But nomenclature means something. What most people in modern churches think of as "pastors" are usually gifted teachers, or proclaimers, or even "prophetic voices" turning the hearts of God's people back to Him. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a pastoral co-op? With rotating voices? Or shepherds who actually guard and tend the flock, who know each by name, and attend to the wounded, rather than fix budgets and hire staff? What could this body of leaders be referred to that would accurately reflect what they do, while also shaping their actions?
I don't mean to pick on anyone or any church. I bring out this state of nomenclature to identify a lag between emergent thinking and emerging church structures. I certainly have more to contemplate, and will be more aware of what our labels, or lack thereof, say about our communities.
4 comments:
Other than selfishness, another thought is blame/responsibility, etc. In your own field the idea of the healthcare team is a current view of practice yet even then there is one left to take the malpractice hit. Although many voices are heard in the process only one is left to take the responsibility. One who is supposed to know better. Laziness perhaps. Fear. Ignorance.
Although literate, how many Christians truly think, know, ponder their own spirituality? I would contend that most are content to sit and be fed rather than to lead and chew. I think that the most important aspect of emergent thought is simply getting folks to think. And without thinking what is there to say?
I had too many typos and grammatical mistakes and I didn't realize I couldn't edit them, so I just deleted the whole comment (see above). Below is the slightly updated version.
Thanks anonymous! Very good points. I had not considered the "responsibility" issue. Again, I'm just thinking out loud... but is the concept of individual blame, "the buck stops here" a direct product of the individualistic nature of our modern society? (Probably not, but it is interesting to consider.) What about communal blame?
I should explain something further. When I speak of church leadership, communal leadership, and more voices, I'm not talking about a cacophony of indivudual voices. I'm generally refering to a group leadership; a structure where power is not concentrated on one person, but rather a group that somehow (through election, tradition, natural talent, the mode is not in consideration here)is representative and connected to the larger body.
So, it may be true that there is only one person who "thinks" in a community. However, I'm sure many communities have multiple thinkers. Can they not lead together, can they not accept communal blame/responsibility together?
Again, it may well be that the reality in some of the churches I refer to actually function this way, but the structure and nomenclature just don't reflect that. In which case, the emerging church is challenged to bring contextual alignment to these variances.
Again, thanks for the comment anonymous.
Yes, I agree that in a group there are many who "think" but even in the construct of a more literate society how many folks are willing to step up to the plate? I don't disagree that many are able and perhaps the multiple or communal aspects that you are considering wouldn't be great but ultimately decisions must be made. Biblical situations show man as the head of the household, Christ as the head of the church and from that a hierarchical structures of leadership are established. God, even in three persons, is the ultimate in single leadership. Even in the set-up which exists in most churches today I don't see the pastor or even the small group of individuals who are called the leadership as the folks in power. I see that as being God. Even a single leader or small group cannot overcome His will.
I don't think that the structure and nomenclature do match in most cases. And yes through emerging dialogue perhaps this divide can be bridged.
I will have to consider your idea of communal responsibility and blame. I find it hard sometimes to give over my control to God much less compromise with a group. It reminds me of the "it takes a village" concept. I suspect that it is the individualistic nature of our society is in part the reason for this. However, trust and the ways in which it is established and maintained weigh in heavily which start me thinking about faith and acceptance and accountability and judgment.
Nice wedding you guys had for your folks. What a wonderful blessing!
Post a Comment