The local pastor: an analogy.

[Dennis M. Scott]

There are few local churches in our movement pastored by two or more persons with equal authority. Most have one pastor who is the senior, lead, or head pastor who is the vision caster and CEO. I'm having a difficult time envisioning a local church with six pastors with equal authority and responsibility - at least envisioning one that could be significantly successful at what we have stated as mission. Even if the six are one in spirit, heart and mind - someone must lead, or it's going nowhere. Powerful staff can work together, but someone must stand at the helm and give direction.

Neither can I fantasize one single district with six equally bridled superintendents. It's difficult enough when a district has one superintendent and an advisory board with several DS wannabes on it.

Maybe if every pastor and DS could look at this and reflect whether or not they'd like to have a similar situation in their role, perspectives might be different.

For those who aren't comfortable with using a business model, perhaps one from the church is more agreeable.

[Crystal Lutton]

We've found it works with 3 when the areas of leadership are divided and the vision is fully shared by all 3. We are in agreement that if we have disagreement one or more of us isn't hearing from God. In that case we've agreed to step back and pray and discuss and call in outside perspectives. And we have a 3 step plan for how to handle confusion and disunity (which we define as God not in the solution). We first ask if God says something specific about it in his Word--if so, we do that. Second, we ask if God has given us principles in his Word that apply. If so, we apply them. If we are still unsure what to do we defer to the person with the most expertise or who will be the most greatly impacted. In fact, for one human to make the final say in cases of disagreement is, imo and ime, to fall short of seeking God's best for the situation. One flawed human cannot be expected to have the right answer all the time. When the authority is given to them to do so anyway, everyone suffers when they get it wrong.

My husband and I have operated in this way in our marriage for 12 years and we've never had a situation where the solution either wasn't obvious or the waiting for full agreement was part of God's plan. We've found the same in our congregation.

Again, though, in both situations there is a foundation of a shared vision and a division of primary leadership. I admit there may need to be a season of great change before the shared vision is in place--I would just hate for that transition plan to be a final goal.

[Hans Deventer]

Again, though, in both situations there is a foundation of a shared vision and a division of primary leadership.

Well, there you go. That's what we had in our local church. We have team leadership, and without that shared vision, for two years in a row we have seen people leave the church board. It just does not work without that shared vision. We finally adopted one last February.

And we don't elect GS's based on a shared vision.

[Crystal Lutton]

And we don't elect GS's based on a shared vision.I think we should.

[Hans Deventer]

I think we should.

How do you propose to change the system to accomplish that?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I actually think that part of our problem in the church is that we do send out pastors alone. The phenomenon of "senior pastor" is a problem as I see it. Here's something I wrote recently:

Christ’s Sending of the Seventy (Luke 10:1-16)
Christ, in sending out the seventy disciples, wouldn't let them go alone. Even after noting the need for ministers of the gospel ("The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" - v. 2), he did not spread them too thin, and sent them out in pairs (the NIV says "two by two"). Why? In the very next verse, He warns of what these laborers are to do and where they are going: "I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves." If Christ will not send his leaders of the Church out on their own, why would we? Many of our systems in the modern American church are well-designed. And yet, the phenomenon of a "senior pastor," out on her or his own, facing the realties of culture, society, family stressors, temptation, and so much more, is a weak link in the chain. It should be no wonder to us that we hear of and see pastors falling quite frequently, and “green” pastors giving up before they’ve even barely begun.We must establish relationships such that no one is working the fields of the world alone.

Back to the GSs:
If the problem with six leaders is that they cannot have a single voice together on any given issue, perhaps the problem is not with the number of voices, but rather the problem is with the assumption that they must come to the exact agreement on that issue.

Isn't that how the Body is to work? That there are different parts that work differently. But despite the fact that they work differently, they can still work in harmony as long as they are connected to the head. Our leader - the head - is really Jesus Christ, not any one of us - we are but the Body.

I'm not sure I'm saying that I disagree with this aspect of the proposal. I really don't know. I guess I just struggle with the notion of "this is how it works in the corporate world, so it'll work for those working for the Kingdom of God."

But I don't see why we can't let the GSs disagree, but still come to a decision together when it's necessary (and when is it necessary?).

[Crystal Lutton]

How do you propose to change the system to accomplish that?

I admit I'm still learning the whole system and the recent upset at our congregation made it clear the person who was teaching me was not clear on some things himself. So please excuse my lack of specifics and references to the manual. I assure you I plan to spend a good chunk of passenger drive time this week pouring over these exact things.

From a more global place, though, I'm a big believer in applying conflict resolution skills to any area where there isn't full agreement. IOW . . . start with redefining the problem. Everyone involved needs to have the humility (that I would HOPE would be present at a GS level) to set aside their *goals* and be willing to find a better plan (i.e. God's plan whether it matches theirs or not). If the next GS elections were based on electorates agreement that the goal of seeking a new and unified vision for the denomination that might impact who is elected. Maybe someone will feel led to pursue it next time around, or seek their heart a little more to see if God is calling them to *this* purpose.

If the problem can be defined as "We need a new vision that will make the CON relevant in a global community" or however it gets worded then brainstorming can take place for ideas. Together the GS's evolve the ideas--throwing out obviously inadequate ideas and building on good ideas until they are better. Sometimes wording has to be worked on, sometimes you step back and work on another aspect while you pray on one. When the GS's HAVE a shared vision they will ALL be able to express the shared vision within their areas and using their specific giftings and personalities. That common vision expressed in multiple ways will help it shine like a prism and anyone who can't catch that vision can seek the Lord on whether this is the denomination for them.

It's a more organic approach; sometimes more time consuming; but ime always worth it. We may not get the immediate results we want, but we might be surprised to find that if the Lord is moving on our denomination and we're open to His moving we'll get that unity fast.

I have *never* seen true unity come out of one person pronouncing a vision and everyone else being expected to line up with it.

[Dave McClung]

I admit I'm still learning the whole system and the recent upset at our congregation made it clear the person who was teaching me was not clear on some things himself. So please excuse my lack of specifics and references to the manual. I assure you I plan to spend a good chunk of passenger drive time this week pouring over these exact things.

From a more global place, though, I'm a big believer in applying conflict resolution skills to any area where there isn't full agreement. IOW . . . start with redefining the problem. Everyone involved needs to have the humility (that I would HOPE would be present at a GS level) to set aside their *goals* and be willing to find a better plan (i.e. God's plan whether it matches theirs or not). If the next GS elections were based on electorates agreement that the goal of seeking a new and unified vision for the denomination that might impact who is elected. Maybe someone will feel led to pursue it next time around, or seek their heart a little more to see if God is calling them to *this* purpose.

If the problem can be defined as "We need a new vision that will make the CON relevant in a global community" or however it gets worded then brainstorming can take place for ideas. Together the GS's evolve the ideas--throwing out obviously inadequate ideas and building on good ideas until they are better. Sometimes wording has to be worked on, sometimes you step back and work on another aspect while you pray on one. When the GS's HAVE a shared vision they will ALL be able to express the shared vision within their areas and using their specific giftings and personalities. That common vision expressed in multiple ways will help it shine like a prism and anyone who can't catch that vision can seek the Lord on whether this is the denomination for them.

It's a more organic approach; sometimes more time consuming; but ime always worth it. We may not get the immediate results we want, but we might be surprised to find that if the Lord is moving on our denomination and we're open to His moving we'll get that unity fast.

I have *never* seen true unity come out of one person pronouncing a vision and everyone else being expected to line up with it.

Crystal

I am glad that things are going well in your church with a committee as a leader. I hope it continues that way forever.

My own experience is that when things are going well, it really doesn't matter who is the leader or even if there is a leader. But, when times of crisis come, it has been my experience that someone has to step forward to provide leadership. It helps if that person has some authority.

My experience extends across military, corporate, legal, educational and church organizations. It isn't about the kind of organization. All of them are made up of people. When groups of people get into trouble they need a leader.

When it applies the to the Church of the Nazarene, the group leadership idea worked well when the denomination was growing. Now that the denomination has started declining in the U.S. it takes a different dynamic of leadership.

[Hans Deventer]

I have *never* seen true unity come out of one person pronouncing a vision and everyone else being expected to line up with it.

I've been trying (but apparently failed) to explain that of course it won't work that way. The entire board will be involved in creating the vision, and likely, some more people even. Only, so far, there have been different views that prevented the actions needed. Point in case, the AD2025 report, published in 1997, called for some actions that apparently the board at the time could not agree upon and hence has never been worked out. Though one of the members of that committee has actually been elected to the board. So what we need is, after all the thinking and praying, is one person who at the end of the day, with all the input received, says this is it.

Unless we fire those that are already on the board and set up a system to elect people with a unified vision, it seems to me Dave's proposal is the way to go. I haven't heard any better, so far. And it is clear something needs to be done.

And you know, I've been a strong proponent of team leadership. Until I saw it in action. There are many directions a church can take, but a single direction in stead of 10 is probably already one of the best things one can do to reach the goal. Our church is going in 10 directions and reaching little or none.