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.

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?

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?

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 . . .

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?

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.