Donn asks: (Saturday, Nov. 3, 2007: "President Denominationless")"What focus should denominational leadership take when their role is not longer assumed to be important by a growing majority of church-goers?"
Well, if a church is congregational in polity, and if it is indeed the case that the majority doesn't think that denominational leadership is important anymore, then the whole question is moot. These people should graciously fade away into memory, accepting the fact that things change and that their time has passed. Or perhaps they should be retained as figureheads (much like the British royalty): objects fit for scandal, amusement, and building dedications.
No?
Okay, then let's give it another try:
"What focus should denominational leadership take when their role is not longer assumed to be important by a growing majority of church-goers?"
I hold that the answer depends on why churchgoers no longer assume denominational leadership is important.
Some will disagree with that, saying that what matters are facts, not causes. This is tempting, because facts are typically obvious and uncontroversial, whereas "causes" are not. But in my opinion, that is like saying, "My roof is leaking, so I need a bucket" rather than saying, "My roof is leaking because the builder used shoddy materials. I will use this bucket for now, but what I really need are some new shingles."
In the end, if we don't address "causes," and only focus on "facts," we will be at the mercy of events, and not necessarily the Spirit. Transformation will be haphazard and half-baked ("blown about by every wind of doctrine") and we will risk failing to fully image God in terms of our discernment and stewardship.
Let's brainstorm here, assuming that the "why" question is relevant, and ask, "Why do chuchgoers no longer assume denominational leadership is important? Here are some possible answers:
1) Churchgoers are no longer are organized according to denominations. Instead, leadership occurs some other way. (For example, everyone becomes Catholic and assents to the authority of the pope; everyone becomes Orthodox and follows the church fathers; everyone reverts to an ancient Hebrew model and is led by a High Priest, or a Judge, or a King.)
Hmmm. This doesn't seem to be the direction toward which things are moving. So let's try again.
2) Churchgoers are so filled with the Spirit, they so mature, that they have at last attained the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Therefore they no longer need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers, muchless popes, kings, priests or denominational leaders to prepare them for works of service and build up the Body. (Sort of the spiritual equivalent of the Marxist vision of the withering away of the state, this is the withering away of the denominations/institutional church. cf. Ephesians 4:11-13)
Somehow I don't think we're there yet, either. But I may be mistaken. At least I'm not there yet!
:-)
3) They are so filled with themselves that they do not see that they need help to attain the the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Thus they reject any authority beyond themselves (cf. Judges 21:24-25)
Perhaps this may be true of some, but I don't think that this is a fair characterization of the majority of churchgoers.
4) They are blinded by the gods/philosophies of this age, so that they cannot see that they need help to attain the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Thus they reject any leadership beyond themselves.
Of all the possibilities so far, this is the one I think is most likely, and so I've written elsewhere about the nominalist mindset that I believe undergirds that blindness. If this is an accurate answer, then what responsibility does the church leadership and the church fellowship have to recognize and repent of that mindset?
Hmm. Could this be a possible answer to Donn's question? The focus denominational leadership should take when their role is no longer seen as important by churchgoers is to remind them of the following, and to model it, kinda like what another church leader named Paul did, long ago:
Romans 12:1-8
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
4) other possibilities. What do you think?
4a) Donn says: "Are our plates so full of cultural offerings that anything more than the local church starts a yawn?" (see comments)
4b) Ted says: "what I guess you could call my alternative #5, can be summed up in one word: cynicism." (see comments)
6 comments:
Thanks Beth for taking the surface observation into some deeper places. Nominalism? That is fascinating. Speak more in your blog about that. Why do you think "body-life" does not translate beyond localism for so many? Are our plates so full of cultural offerings that anything more than the local church starts a yawn?
I am not sure that those who are Covenant leadership have functioned as authorities. They have effectively run ministries such as missions or programs such a CHIC but I do not see how they have functioned like authories in our church.
I would also disagree with #4. i believe they are looking for leadership but have not seen it. If presented with a galvanzing vision they would readily follow. Since unlike Don I had to look up nominalism, I cannot comment on that element of the issue.
I love "wondering" with you, Donn. Your questions deserve further exploration.
I think you present another good reason why "body life doesn't translate beyond localism: our "attention overload." (A recent Covenant blog mentioned an African woman who observed that Americans have so much, while they "only have God.")
But, again, I think that another reason for this lack of "body life," is related to our metaphysical commitments as Americans and as Protestants. Specifically, we are a Modernist people, which means we are nominalists and voluntarists. (I owe you another blog entry to explain what I mean by that, but for now check out my Nov 18 2005 blog entry, "the Slippery slope of Nominalism" and my June 14, 2007 entry,"Institution or Body?")
Thanks, Kent, for your comment. It seems we have two different conceptions of what constitutes authority and leadership.
Yours seems to me to be more "charismatic," requiring an appeal to will, imagination and emotion for its validation. That definition is a natural one for modernists and hypermodernists/postmodernists.
For example, it is why the social contract is the basis for modernist political theory: individuals, responding to some appeal to unite as a collection, choose to follow someone who can give them what they want.
For modernists, authority is a relationship grounded in the will of those who "buy in" to it. Under this conception, it is crucial that the one who seeks authority be able to "sell" his vision to those who will be choosing it accept it or not.
But there are other conceptions of authority and leadership besides Modernist ones--for example, leadership and authority based on servanthood. (Cf. Luke 22:26-27, "the one who rules [should be like]the one who serves...I am among you as one who serves.")
On this conception, leadership isn't grounded on the will of a collection of individuals, but rather in the actions that flow from a person of godly character, who is imitating Him who has all authority on heaven and earth.
Because I am neither a nominalist (rejecting universals, and therefore institutions) nor a modernist (for whom will is fundamental) I disagree with you that those who are in Covenant leadership have not functioned as authorities.
In fact, by effectively running Covenant ministries and missions programs, they have incarnated the compassion and faithfulness of Christ. Now that is what I find galvanizing!
Beth,
You preferred alternative #4 (congregants are “blinded by the gods/philosophies of this age, so that they cannot see that they need help to attain the whole measure of the fullness of Christ”) strikes me as a rather sweeping generalization without much evidence to back it up. “Nominalist mindset”? Among those who are currently actively involved in their churches? I don’t think so. If you gave a textbook definition of nominalism to a sample of Christian adherents I doubt that 1 in 10 would say, “yes, this is what I believe.” I suppose you might argue that people are affected by the philosophy (which does have some currency in secular circles) whether they consciously embrace it or not, but I just don’t buy it.
I do believe there is an element of the American ideal of “rugged individualism” at play here, but that is not something new – it has been around since the founding of the republic. The key factor, though, what I guess you could call my alternative #5, can be summed up in one word: cynicism. People look at “leadership” in the world today and what they mostly see is leadership that has failed them. Unfortunately, this is just as true of church leadership as it is of other kinds (perhaps especially true of church leadership).
Catholic priests who abuse alter boys; anti-homosexual crusaders caught soliciting the very acts they are publicly condemning; televangelists driving Rolls Royces and giving themselves multi-million dollar “bonuses” out of the offerings donated by people who are in some cases barely scraping by; a professed born-again Christian president launching, on shaky pretexts, a war that has killed close to half a million people (and still counting); a whole continent (Europe) that needs to be re-evangelized due largely to the failures of a moribund set of church hierarchies that was more interested in liturgy than in what is going on in people’s lives. So I think people are generally disinclined to put much stock in any kind of remote leadership unless they can see that it’s doing something relevant and important to them. Who can blame them? This is not a "rejection of universals", it's a rejection of blindly following where human tradition wants to lead us, the same rejection that motivated both Martin Luther and Martin Luther King.
Personally, I think denominational leadership does have an important role to play, especially in the “big picture” work of organization and executing the kinds of ministry and missional programs you describe. But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that in today’s culture they have to continually show that they can be trusted to execute their duties faithfully.
I say “amen” to heeding Paul’s call in Romans 12 to offering ourselves as living sacrifices. If only we could be sure that the leadership of the church will be more of a help than a hindrance in achieving that goal.
Ted, thanks for adding your perspective to the conversation. You raise a good point about cynicism that needs to be added to Donn's observation about
attention overload.(Check the blog proper--I've edited it to reflect your contributions!)
Taking the conversation a little deeper (and perhaps in a different direction than I have limned with my thoughts on nominalism,)I'm curious how you go about explaining why today's political, ecclesiastical, academic, and other institutional leaders are failing so miserably, and therefore losing people's trust. Do you think they are failing worse and/or more than in previous eras?
If so, can you point (in general, of course) to a time when they did a better job? (Maybe you could give us some further examples of good leadership, besides Martin Luther and MLK, to provide us with a fuller picture and clues for improvement.)
What has changed, do you think, to cause things to go downhill? Can anything be done to stop the momentum? If so, what? If not, what do you see as the result of the attending widespread cynicism?
If we could have another coffee I'd like to talk with you more about nominalism. I've written on and off about it throughout this blog but nothing can substitute for face to face conversation, don't you think?
Post a Comment