Aug 20 2005
Following Jesus into leadership
Was Jesus a pastor or a leader maybe both or neither?
The more I hear the rationale of some in the emerging conversation for the flat model of leadership the less convinced I am that the conviction in based on following Jesus patterns. It seems more like a sixties retro headless democracy that I think eventually caused the church to lose its way and fall into the hands of the modernists thinkers.
Having a leader is not just about wanting to know who is in charge that is just a simplification of a very complex and layered issue. God has always raised up leaders for his people and to deny that or reject it (The shaping of things to come, not withstanding) I think is misguided.
This is one of the things that frustrates me the most about some emergent thinkers. More credence is put in follow the latest intellectual thought than following Jesus’ which is what we claim to value so highly in the emerging church. It’s no wonder that D.A. Carson and others are beating us over the head as not standing for anything biblical and abandoning the core faith.
Carson et al are wrong but we are giving them tons of ammunition by just reacting at the other extreme to all the abuses of the modern church, leadership being chief among them. Jesus was open , he was inviting, but he lead. He showed his followers how to live and he gave instructions for us to follow those patterns.
As Kester Brewin says in the Complex Christ we are trying to mount a revolution when what we need is an evolution. I think we need to get over our fear of strong leaders and realize that strong servant leaders are an asset not a liability. We need leaders, flawed imperfect, servant leaders. Not managers, not tyrants, not dictators, not CEOs and not whatever wimps! Leaders! We need leaders willing to follow Jesus at all costs into mission; To serve people and sacrifice for them as Jesus for us.
(sidebar: I think this i one reason why some people of color don’t get the whole emerging church thing. The Afro Christian church values healthy leaders and those leaders play a very different role than they do in most anglo settings)
The flat model thing just feels like such a cope out for not laying it all on the line if God has given a mission to lead. think of all the people responsible for keeping the faith going that God called to lead what if they said I’m really more comfortable with a flat model because that is what it say in the shaping things to come.
Well I got that off my chest!
Popularity: 10% [?]
Loading ...
Andre, I’m glad you got that off your chest. Quite challenging. In the past years hanging out with some African-American fellow pastors in the city and praying with them, I learned that “leadership” is viewed differently in the African-American community than in white churches. Perhaps we need to make leadership as contextual as we attempt to make the gospel. A “one size fits all” gospel seems to parallel a “one size fits all leadership” model–either hierarchical (top down) or flat. Good food for thought.
John,
I do think that contextualizing is the key. But so much of the emerging church conversation seems to shy away from that in favor a euro academic worldview of things like leadership. So let’s really think contextually since that is something we say we value.
Andre
Andre, expand for me the meaning of “euro academic worldvew.” Do you mean gabbing about postmodernism ad nauseum? I may be wrong and part of the problem, but since the whole emergent thing is primarily a white thing, history and theology and the gospel from the bottom and margins doesn’t (or even can’t) get on our radar screen (e.g., H. Thurman’s JESUS AND THE DISINHERITED). I’d love to read an overview of Christian history from the perspective of those who were powerless.
a looser approach (Kansas City Star) `Emergent’ churches seek a looser approach (Macon Telegraph) `Emergent’ churches seek a looser approach (The Times Leader) [Technorati] Tag results for emerging church emergent ireland… Following Jesus into leadership
John,
There are two connected aspects of what I mean. First having “postmodern” (I really do hate that word) conversations without doing anything “new” and impacting for the kingdom.
Secondly, driving the conversation from a starting point that is primarily derived from western academic thinkers who aren’t necessarily doing any praxis either.
I guess I feel there isn’t enough emphasis being put on praxis and contextualizing the stuff we are starting with. Instead of just saying N.T. Wright says this, West says this, Frost said this or Thurman said this we should also be saying what does what they say look like in N.A., W. Mich. and my neighborhood?
Otherwise I think we fall into the modern pattern of just taking the latest and greatest new idea plopping on top of our environment and expecting things to change.
[...] Are the leadership models of choice more than an reaction to unhealthy leadership patterns of the modern church. Some don’t think so. In response to my previous post and comment on his blog Lucas over a my four walls continues the conversation about the flat model of leadership in the emerging church, by comparing Jesus as pastor and leader to these unhealthy patterns. Our current patterns of living out these biblical leadership roles are distorted. That much is true but I don’t think that means we just swing to the opposite extreme of no leadership no pastor. [...]
[...] Are the leadership models of choice more than an reaction to unhealthy leadership patterns of the modern church. Some don’t think so. In response to my previous post and comment on his blog Lucas over a my four walls continues the conversation about the flat model of leadership in the emerging church , by comparing Jesus as pastor and leader to these unhealthy patterns. Our current patterns of living out these biblical leadership roles are distorted. That much is true but I don’t think that means we just swing to the opposite extreme of no leadership no pastor. [...]