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.
Can we acknowledge the distortions as John Frye does, then ask how then should we lead/pastor if we are following Jesus’ pattern? Jesus often pastored "his flock" by leaving them to go and connecting with God the creator through prayer. That’s pastoring by example. Why don’t we do that instead of saying we don’t need pastors? Jesus lead by serving others can we do that instead of saying we don’t need leaders? Instead of advocating no structures how about cultivating organic structures instead of mechanical ones?
subversive influence also raises some interesting issues
Problems here are (a) the flat model is not non-analogous (by the way, what’s the opposite of analogous, anyway?) to servant leadership, as I would argue servant leadership will naturally exist in flat structures; and (2) effective servant leadership is not necessarily hierarchical (this facet is redundant to the prior point
He also points to a whole other aspect of this distributed leadership the complex Christ where I raised the issue of organic vs mechanical. I think this raises a much more important issue. Is the model of individual professional leadership sustainable for the church moving into the future? Distributed leadership may be the only sustainable way to go.
This raises all bunch of other question about money and the accumulation of wealth being discussed over and into the mystic (Alex McManus blog)
This is a very stimulating question