At the core of leadership, then, is the question of one's identity and its source. This is why the church cannot simply borrow its categories for leadership from other arenas and impose them on its life. To do so is to borrow a purpose and end that are not shaped out of this fundamental participation with God. When we borrow from other arenas such as business or corporate governance, we actually form a character and identity as a leader that, though it may be successful by any number of measurements, leads away from formation as God's person. It also gives the church that is involved a distorted understanding of itself and its own purposes. For example, some current leadership models derive from measuring effectiveness in terms of numbers and size, which are not necessarily measures of success in a life with God.I think they are spot on. We have played a numbers game for so long, as if the size of our congregations prove our effectiveness. However, we are called to make disciples not just attract the masses. I've refrained from saying anything else...to just let what they say stand for itself.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Refraining from using business as a metaphor for the church
I'm finishing up Alan Roxburgh's and Fred Romanuk's book entitled The MIssional Leader: Equipping your Church to Reach a Changing World. On p118 I think they give a pretty convincing argument as to why we cannot and should not use the language and metaphor of business for the church. Now, in the following quote they are talking about leaders, but there is a sentence (or two perhaps) on the church using the language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Avoiding the corporate model of church and church leadership ought to help the church be something that it absolutely has to be in our day: counter-cultural. We (starting with me) are so fully a part of Western culture that the church ends up resembling the culture.
I have been thinking about this as I look at developing a re-focus plan. In fact, I am living at the first verse I ever memorized. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths."
Too often, I fear, my own understandings are shaped by culture rather than Christ.
What do you think?
You are right. I'm afraid though that for many pastors/churches they think or feel that the church being the church and allowing what Christ has to say to the church through the Spirit isn't enough for what to be really what they need. When it's put in those terms it's so obvious...but I believe what Alan Roxburgh said (as I loosely remember) that most churches DO NOT believe that they have been given everything they need to be the people of God! We tend to think, "If we only had a better worship band;" "If we only had a better church board;" "If we only had more young families;"
We are called to live in our identity as the people of God in a particular place and time, followers of Jesus into his in-breaking Kingdom and future! Reclaiming our center to be God who is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is where we find our identity. Yes? No? Maybe?
Precisely. It seems to me that we all want to be the church down the street/across town, when what we really need to be is passionate about living for/becoming like God. I guess that is really not very practical, so our corporate model would be unlikely pursue it.
There are several thoughts that I have about the post and the book and our responses. As an ancient thinker in a post-modern world, I am often torn between so many things. Do I teach people lectio divina or teach them to simply fall in love with the scriptures? While I believe we cannot separate these two - it sheds light on some of the misconceptions of 'models' of church. Personally, I work in a very business-like church, which functions within the parameters of a non-profit company in terms of the government of the country we find ourselves in. Do we fundamentally believe that there is only one form of church that can do God's work? Forms of church have been changing since the inception on pentecost. First in houses, then cities, then local parishes, then cathedrals, then small buildings, then mega-buildings, then houses again. Now they are all simultaneous. I hold the conviction and teachings that follow a lectionary and Christian calendar lifestyle and want to live according to a rule which I adhere to. My church does not. Yet, fundamentally I believe that people in my church, especially the leaders - desire and find their identity wrapped up in Christ. Yet, they also live in the real world and work in businesses. It makes sense that that understanding and natural orientation would inform how they understand church. It also makes sense that their orientation from the church community informs the rest of their lives. People find themselves in converging meta-narratives that are shaping them. So I submit to you and to all of us, (especially myself as I have been one of the more cynical critics of the church) that Christ works in all forms of the church. The Wind (Spirit, pnuma, ruach) blows where it wills. So the question for us more along the lines of not - are we missionally tied to form of church but are we conformed to the Will of God. Paul prays in Colossians 1: We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, 10 so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, 11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, 12 and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his people in the kingdom of light.
So rather, the missional leader is one who completely finds himself in the will of God. Whatever form of church (s)he is in.
Ps. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture helps shape my thinking.
But isn't the church working outside itself in terms of its identity what caused the church to be in a Constantinian framework? ultimately causing many of the problems that we've inherited today? I have no problem at all with finding new expressions for the church (and what it means to be church). It's an example of a proper understanding of theology (how we talk about God and spirituality (how we live out our theology) [taking my cues from Robert Webber in The Divine Embrace]. There are inherent problems with the church imaging itself from business, ultimately with two identities competing.
Churches in the local context have different personalities and characters. And those expressions are beautiful and wonderful. But what is each community's identity? I just have a hard time with business as the model for the church. Terms that don't belong to the church are adopted and tweak the gospel: product, marketing, sales--it pushes the church into a seeker-sensitive, church shopping, privatized, the-customer-is-always-right, felt needs domain that changes the whole message of the gospel.
I'm all for new expressions of church. But what is given up/sacrificed for a model? Does the "profits" outweigh the losses?
I think everything is sacrificed, and everything is gained. I do not believe that 'profits' can be put into the church unless we are talking about people benefiting form a relationship with Christ and joining the divine community while embracing the church.
I am simply hoping to provide an alternate voice rather than just agreeing with you and the book. My fear is that we often times fail to see the good in the church. Those who know me personally would say that I am not one to let things stay the same, nor toot the horn of the church - in fact - I am usually the one hating it.
What I am attempting to simply make sure we keep as a part of the conversation is that there is no 'model' for the church that is the model. The church is just the church. God's Spirit on the move through the bride.
As perhaps we seek to change the method without changing the message, I think this conversation has been fantastic. My personal belief is this: the business model of church has done much more harm than good if it takes away from truly loving people into the kingdom. Sadly, in so many cases it has. So our focus must be something different. I appreciate this group allowing me to bid for the opposite side of the argument and it was very hard to go there - yet still a voice we need to hear. Below is the thought's of a good friend who is not able to get to blogs due to the blocking of all blogger sites in the country he lives in.
f the church is indeed the body of Christ on earth then we need to struggle with a divine understanding of the church. What I mean is this, we say that God is omnipresent. Does then, his body reside in the gathering of his people regardless of the form? I think so. Nevertheless, there are always model being used in the church that do not particularly bring glory to the Father. In the middle ages the model was that of fiefdoms. Later models were divine oligarchy, and reclusive communities. God, however, has never been restricted by the human part of the church. We, each of us, if we truly attempt to do the will of the Father on earth, seek to find ways, methods, and models that speak to and reach out to our respective cultures.
I personally have always had difficulties with the idea of western capitalist business model being used for the church. I see in the scripture certain aspects of the body that are, as todd newsom said, 'counter-cultural' or more precisely "Christ cultural." It seems that the church must pursue the Christ Culture and let the Christ of that culture transform the church and the surrounding cultures.
Terry
jt,
Thank you for the counter voice. You are right in many ways. Ultimately, we are all obliged to find God present in our communities of faith and in the members of that community that might be hyper-business modeled.
Michael said:
that most churches DO NOT believe that they have been given everything they need to be the people of God!
It isn't just molding the gifts that are present in our church into a community that uplifts the body and builds the Kingdom, it is taking the various models (that most of us don't choose, but inherit unconsciously) and allowing each to contribute to the work.
So, God bless the businessman. Bring your expertise to the game, but don't think for a moment that your piece outweighs the mystic, the social butterfly, or even the pre-Christian visitor whose comments reshape our ministries.
I appreciate Terry's contribution. Thanks for posting it here for him.
I appreciate your willingness to hold up a different angle of the picture for us to grapple with.
Hey Y'all... Mark, an emerging Nazarene in Kansas City here. I would simply quote William Greathouse from a lecture at NTS 10 years ago: "The church ain't a business and you ain't the C.E.O."
See also a book by Kennison called "Selling Out the Church: The Dangers of Church Marketing." Western, Capitalistic marketing says that business is a success if a fair exchange of goods and services takes place. When we make business and marketing our main method of "doing" church, we make church about a fair exchange of goods and services. Folks come to a church to get their felt needs met by the services a church offers, and once those perceived needs go unmet, they move on, shopping for a new church to meet their needs, and we pastors shake our heads and wonder why.
The answer is, Jesus is not a commodity, a product that we sell. Pastors are not salespeople, and churches aren't car dealerships. Contrary to modern-thinking, church-growth strategies, the method DOES modify the message, and the sooner we all figure that out, the better.
Blessings,
Mark
I want to thank everyone for this conversation. When we confuse the church with being something that it is not or should never have been - we miss out on what redemption and atonement are supposed to look like. Especially as leaders of the church I don't want to send mixed messages to anyone. My hope is that our communities are such that we act as the bride of Christ living out His mission and identify ourselves in atonement and nothing else. When we identify specific demographics or even use business efforts we distort the inclusive nature of the kingdom. So I am happy that we wrestled with the opposing thoughts and also elated that there are more of us in north Texas that do what to see the social specter and very foundation of the church emerge into what Jesus has in mind.
Post a Comment