Guidance in Community - Part 1
13 03 2007Last Sunday, after 2 years of consultation, dialogue, prayer and dreaming, we announced that we were moving forward to the next stage (fundraising) for a building renovation on our church building. Some folk in the church thought we should have done it ages ago - others still remain unconvinced.
We have a building in a great location, in town, good roads and buses, near students, parking OK (at weekends and evenings anyway!), on a main street. We are noticeable and central. But if we owned the plot of land with no building, the current building isn’t what we would build now. It is an old church building, about 160 years old, that was built primarily at a preaching centre (although there was a school built at the back too): big auditorium, gallery, and all rather centred around a large central gathering of the church.
Now we are looking for other rooms, a space that reflect the kind of church we are becoming. A building that helps us engage with the wider community. A building that enables some of the missional projects that we are planning.
This process has got me thinking about how we discern the will of God as a community? There is more to say in some subsequent posts, but here is one thought to start off:
Often in church (it seems to me) that we model guidance from an Old Testament model of God’s leading Israel. There God called specific individuals (eg. Moses) who lead the nation. They were the ones who went to God, got the vision and direction for the nation, told the people what God was saying, and off they all went (all be it, with some grumbling!).
In many churches, it seems this model of guidance predominates. We want the leaders to be connected to God, get the vision and direction and tell the church what to do. Now while there is a little truth in this, there are a couple (at least) significant differences between this Old Testament model of guidance (and leadership) and how it should operate in church.
1. After Exod 19, God doesn’t speak to the nation of Israel any more. He calls specific individuals (leaders and prophets) and speaks to them on behalf of the nation. They become the mouthpiece for God, and the people had no direct access to God themselves. This has obviously changed in the New Testament, where all can hear the voice of God.
2. The nature of leadership in church is significantly different to the leadership of a nation. One of main passages that speak of leadership in the NT is Eph 4, where the role of leaders is not to do the stuff, but to train / equip others to do the stuff. No longer is ministry the domain of a few individuals, but for all (or at least should be). So a leaders role is to help discern the gifts in individuals and help them into functioning in those gifts. I think this concept has been talked about, but very rarely put into practice.
So now, we have a church community where every individual can hear God for themselves, and have a contribution. That I think changed the way we discern the will of God in the church, from the way the nation of Israel found guidance in the OT.
I think this OT model of guidance in community is much easier … easier for leaders who don’t have to engage the community together in discerning the will of God, and easier for the “congregation” as they can leave it up to the leaders. Trouble I don’t think the results are that good (it doesn’t engage and empower people for starters), and I don’t think it is a NT practice.
What do you think?
Sounds like interesting times, Rupert!
I like how you begun the post, dialogue, consultation, dreaming etc… i think that is something that the community needs to be involved with and be part of…
there is a role in that for leaders in terms of talking about these things, the costs and the benefits, to help articulate the dream and to enable people to partipate and shape it…
so how have you been going about this in practice over the last couple of yrs?
I’m interested as i’m now involved in our church at a strategic level and this is something we will be wrestling with as we go forward with what we do next.
Church is a democracy not a dictatorship.
Well, maybe not a pure democracy, but a lot closer to that model than a one-man state. We don’t vote on church leadership (unless you have red hat and visit Rome on a regular basis).
Leaders lead, but they are also mandated by the Lord and, crucially, the people. If leaders lost the trust of either, then they would no longer have the right to lead.
Yes it is Paul. I really agree about involving the community, to engage and participate.
We have used a number of methods, from conversations in small groups, over coffees, communicating on sundays. But some of the best times have been at larger gatherings (membership meetings for example) where we have used principles of “world cafe” … trying to create that cafe feel in a more formal or organisational way, and to capture the conversations. It was an brilliant way of getting people talking together, dreaming, and feeding back what we are learning.
Here is a link to organisation that i sometimes work with, and thier explanation of world cafe … and to the World Cafe website.
Post 2 might have a bit more info too.
So you too are let loose on your church … brave people
Matthew … now you are setting the cat among the pidgeons! Church a democracy!!!
I have been pondering this for a while … and i actually think i agree with you - if the leaders lose the favour of God or people then they are stuffed. But maybe democracy isn’t the right word?
Theocracy is a word that i have heard used. But that doesn’t take into account the people in the church enough.
And i think that is at least partly my point in this post: we need to find a way of guidance that actually brings people forward together, rather than imposing something on them.
I’m not sure if church is a democracy, but it’s not a dictatorship either.
We all serve one God thru the same Spirit, so if God has called one to a community, one should have a voice in that community…and a voice that should be heard!
There are ‘leaders’ as we all know, but these leaders are to serve the community as a whole, listen to them, equip and love them, not tell them what to do.
I like what Sally Morganthaler says, “Leaders shouldn’t tell people what to do, but remind people of who they are.”
Practically speaking, that can get messy, but when we are intentional about building relationship rather than structures, and putting people before projects, God is in the midst even in disagreement (where 2 or 3 are gathered is not a mandate for God to show up in prayer, but an encouragment to us because God is telling us He is there in the midst of conversation and conflict as we figure out whatever it is we need to figure out).
If you are a part of a community, if you want a voice, you should have a voice to be heard.
Again, that’s not very practical, but practicality seems to be alluding me today.
I think it was Mark Driscoll who said that after studying the scriptures he came to the conclusion that there was more evidence for a church to be ruled by unicorns than there was for democratic rule!
I think he’s right, I can’t see anything in the bible that would lead a church towards a democratic (congregational voting) model. Then again, perhaps that’s not what you meant, Matthew?
I actually don’t think much of democracy. The most democratic country in the world (America) seems to be stuffed full of evils, accountable to no-one, and gives loads of power to the president.
Also as churches move towards a belong-believe-behave model, our congregations should/will be increasingly filled with people who DO NOT have mind of Christ. (Might blog more on the newer post on this).
Of course, I agree with all the other posters that a local church is not and should not be a one-man (or one-woman) dictatorship. The New Testament is perfectly clear on that one.
A good chapter I read on this topic recently was in Driscoll’s Confessions of a Reformation Rev, which in one chapter surveys a whole load of different leadership models.
David, Alastair - good stuff. As i read all that you have commented, i think we are all wrestling with the same thing: how do we lead, prompted by the spirit, and involving people.
I think there are two things that i try to hold in tension, but if i am honest, i don’t know how well i do that personally, but i think of our leadership team, we are better:
- listen to God
- listen to People
I don’t think Matthew (he can speak for himself???) is saying the church is a democracy, but he and David are making really important points i think about engaging and involving people in the process.
So how do we hold these two things in tension? Is that done in team? Or are there other ways?
David - how do you do that in revolution?
And Paul (if you are still listening) - how do you do it in your church?
In terms of leadership model for building here’s an architectural historian’s view.
Theocratic
Moses was given explicit instructions for the building of the tabernacle in the desert and he did it. It was filled with God’s presence and was the centre of everything for the children of Israel.
Dictatorial
Solomon knew what he wanted with the temple and he went for it and it was the centre of the state of Israel for hundreds of years.
Vision-based / Voluntary
Nehemiah had a heart-felt need to do something. He wasn’t called by God to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, but it was something he was desperate for. He asked the King for permission and wasn’t just given a begrudging go ahead, but was told to go on and do it with the King’s blessing and all the things he needed.
We’re certainly in a vision-based mode; doing this build comes from a longing to do something. It does fit with an OT model of authority. We want to do something and we’ve been given the blessing to do it. Rupert, David and Colin are our Nehemiahs and the people of Community Church are those in Jerusalem charged with helping them build the walls.
We’re not going to sit on our backsides doing nothing, but we’ll get involved. It’s permission-based, it’s voluntary, but we’re going to do it because we want to. As they ready the plans, move the proverbial stone (or the RSJs) and get the stuff together, we’ll be there doing what we need to.
A powerful vision and a desire to move it forward doesn’t need to be democratic or dictatorial - it just needs to be blessed. God has given permission for this and we are too. Time to start our Grand Design . . .
Dan - thanks for the comment. I love the 3 different ways in which people in the OT. Perhaps we should do preaching through Nehemiah!
I do think that there is something that we want along the visionary / voluntary approach. It seems to me that it engages people. How do you think we are doing in terms of engaging & inspiring the community? Do you think there are some who are standing at the side waiting to see what will happnen?
Firstly I like the distinction of your OT and NT model in trying to describe different leadership strains.
I suspect part of the leaders’ role is also to help the individual discern what their gifts are not merely to discern it for them. Support for applying and integrating gift is hard to come by I would agree.
As part of leadership is to discern what God is saying as you suggest that may be (and very often is) caught up in and stored in the community. It can remain there or even die for lack of engagement. It makes we wonder what have we lost? Not heard? Not become? Not expressed of Jesus through not listening to God as he comes through people?
Such engagement, of leadership with the community/congregation, will surely be messy and confusing, possibly opening the door to angst and I guess it’s part of the reason historically for not doing it.
It seems odd that the orthodox view that the context for biblical interpretation is the church often does not have much flesh and bones to it. In what sense do we as a church (a bunch of called people) allow for the shaping and formation of each other’s beliefs, responses and expressions?
Good points Andrew … and i agree. This leadership task gets more complex and interesting as go along!
I think we are discovering more about the voice of the community, and i certainly agree about beliefs / theology should be done in community … one of the reasons for this blog to create some discussion.
Thanks for being part of it.