.
Previous Post – The Book of James – Part 4
This morning I read Neil Cole’s post “Defending Organic Church – Part 1″ (via David Fitch), in which we responds to concerns about the need for more leadership in organic churches. Neil offers three cautions in response to this need:
1. Recruiting mature leaders is a consumerist response to the problem, rather than growing leaders from within the community.
2. Evaluating maturity based on “check-lists” of knowledge is unhelpful. Rather we must patiently allow people to mature through process & time.
3. Depending on the church to produce leaders won’t work. Jesus will bring His Church into being through the maturity of the community.
While I understand and affirm these points as generalities, I worry that this article fails to acknowledge the grassroots complexity of these issues. Perhaps I am responding in defensiveness, since we are considering things he expressly discourages, but I don’t think so. Rather, it is the unqualified simplicity of the answers that concern me. I acknowledge that this is only Part 1, with more to come, so let me note that I am not attempting to refute Cole here, but only add some perspective.
I believe that, as much as possible, we need to seek to develop and disciple communities out of which the share leadership of the church can emerge. However, this should preclude bringing in mature leadership. In our community- an inner city house church- the very work of discipleship and leadership formation (combined with the complex pastoral issue common to the inner city, such as mental illness, addiction, etc.) is such that it we need greater stability and diversity of gifting in our current leadership. While we strongly champion (and practice) releasing leadership from within the community, we have also learned that it can be unfair and irresponsible to push people too quickly into certain responsibilities. Further, as the welcome and love of the community continues to draw in more and more people (most with high needs), the leadership vacuum is significant.
At one point, Cole says “To try and coral that energy and consume it with Bible study lessons by older Christians who are far removed from a changed life is to lose all the inertia of a movement. We need mentors who will release and empower rather than hold people back and create dependency.” On one hand, I can completely affirm this value. On the other, I am frustrated by the assumption that mature leadership from outside the community is caricatured so unfairly. The criticism here is not with recruiting mature leadership, but the nature of the leadership recruited. As we look for mature leadership to work with us, we hold a very high and hard standard, which includes meaningfully entering into the community, both geographically and relationally. So perhaps I am missing something in respect to how Cole defines “recruitment” or even “mature leadership”.
Scripture gives us many example of mature leaders being called from and sent to other communities, often to help serve the needs of maturing, but struggling churches. While we must resist the influence colonialism has had on this approach, we should not reject it entirely. Further, in communities such as the inner city, intentional diversification of the community (in such areas of age, socio-economics, etc.) is critical (and wonderful) wherever possible. Bringing in mature leadership, done responsibly, can be one way to do this.
More could be said on this point (and the other two points), but let me stop there for now. Again, I am not rejecting or even disagreeing with Cole on these points, only expressing concern that they reflect an unqualified and, perhaps in place, an unfair over-simplification. While we cannot expect him to speak to every context, this qualification is necessary. Well intentioned communities could easily burn themselves out in pursuing this ideal rather than seeking the appropriate and necessary help elsewhere. I know that our community could not survive without a more nuanced and careful engagement of the leadership question addressed here.
What do you think?
Tags: Leadership, Missional
Thanks Jamie, for weighing in on this leadership conversation. Your perspective is valuable.
So much of what Neil Cole wrote in Organic Church resonated with me and challenged me. But on the issue of leadership development, I was uneasy. Still am.
You hit on a key word when you wrote: “Well intentioned communities could easily burn themselves out in pursuing this IDEAL rather than seeking the appropriate and necessary help elsewhere”
Idealistic. That seems to be the rub. I love the vision of development from within; however, this can discount unique contexts like yours. It can also ignore the realities of communities racked by unhealth. Sometimes, recruiting mature leaders can be a necessary corrective drawn from the larger “church” – a response of the local church birthed from humility and the desire for accountability.
Look forward to the subsequent parts of Cole’s “defense” and the ongoing conversation.
Thanks Wayne. I agree. That is just it: in our community we are seeking the ideal that Neil suggests, but are also carrying that ideal alongside the current, contextual realities. Further, I know that several mature Christian leaders from suburban communities that have found it deeply beneficial to them (not just us) for them to be involved. This kind of cross-context partnership is critical (see the book “Linking Arms, Linking Lives”).
Peace,
Jamie
I can’t even begin to tell you how timely this is for me. One year in to our missional community me and my wife are struggling powerfully with exactly this issue. Thanks for bringing a more balanced perspective Jamie.
Jason, us too. It is deeply concerning to us. Let’s keep talking about this, as this is, I believe, one of the more critical questions facing the church. The “solutions” should not ignore the wider Church, which means we have some serious creativity and partnership needed.
Peace,
Jamie
I’ll chime in with some thoughts.
Our story is similar to Jason’s, but we started with ZERO! There is a certainly value to ‘planting’ with a core. Our circumstances meant NO core to start a missional church movement. That means in some ways we covet mature leaders (or heck, just any leader who buys into the vision).
There’s nothing wrong with bringing like minded leaders with your movement, especially if it leads to new networks emerging (another church plant?). Conversely, I can spend all week lamenting on the lack of leadership and why God won’t provide a handful of bright eyed and reckless visionary…..Perhaps not the best use of my time or dreams.
So there is a balance between having a dedicated core, developing your leaders from within, and spending less time dreaming about the ‘what if’ you had more leaders.
Hey Ro,
We are in the same boat, lacking a core before we got started (though we wanted & valued one). I agree that we cannot waste time dreaming. However, I am also concerned that too many people, in their commitment to persevere, put themselves in position for burn out. As you say, a nuanced approach is necessary.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
I’ve got concerns with Neil’s post too … I think we all know what Neil is getting at. And there has to be a way forward away from the hazards of professionalization … but from where I am viewing things, the lack of leaders, sufficiently grounded in the belief and practice of the way of Christ, is a major looming disaster for the missional movement not as easily solved …
Thanks for your post … I hope to comment later. I’m at a church planter training workshop at a monastery right now … The setting, as well as the format of what we’re doing here, is giving me some hope … but it will take a siginificant shift in the way we think about leader apprenticeship …
peace bro …
Thanks David. I hope it was clear that I greatly respect Neil and generally understand his intent. I really look forward to hearing about your time at the workshop. If I can be involved in helping work towards this new shift, count me in.
Peace,
Jamie
[...] Previous Post – Neil Cole on Leadership [...]