Church as a statue
Came across this video and I could not help but wonder if there was a connection between the statue and the church in a couple of ways.
Among many church leaders and members we still operate under the impression that we have arrived. That is to say, we have created something that is great and people will come to it because we have "good news" and the church provides for people something they could not get anywhere else. Like this statue, many in the church feel that if you just build it people will come and look at it and admire it and interact with it in "an appropriate " way.
But the thing is the world has and is changing so much that now people are much more like this playful dog than casual observers of the statue.
That is to say, people are interacting with the church differently than expected and the church is still expecting people to interact with it in ways that no longer are viable. People are wondering if the church will move and interact with the world, or if it will just sit there and continue to look pretty.
Among many church leaders and members we still operate under the impression that we have arrived. That is to say, we have created something that is great and people will come to it because we have "good news" and the church provides for people something they could not get anywhere else. Like this statue, many in the church feel that if you just build it people will come and look at it and admire it and interact with it in "an appropriate " way.
But the thing is the world has and is changing so much that now people are much more like this playful dog than casual observers of the statue.
That is to say, people are interacting with the church differently than expected and the church is still expecting people to interact with it in ways that no longer are viable. People are wondering if the church will move and interact with the world, or if it will just sit there and continue to look pretty.
Leadership in the Church
In a recent post on the Ablan Institute site, there was a lengthy post that was fantastic. I will not go into details about the content, you can read the article here.
Rather I was very interested in one section of the article:
During the era of Christendom, clergy tended to have three roles: chaplain, scholar, and part of the authority structure of the town or community. Note that neither “leader” nor “congregational leader” is on the list. Today, however, clergy must be leaders. That is, they must be capable of helping their congregations identify and make progress on their own most pressing problems and deepest challenges. Moreover, clergy must be teachers of the faith and ministry mentors. Both of these roles mean that the ministry is not done primarily by clergy (as in Christendom) but by the people of the church, the members of the congregation.
What captured my attention was the role of the minister is shifting and it seems like lay members get it but the clergy do not.
Much of my time in clergy circles places emphasis on things revolving around a ministry paradigm which is fading away. That is to say, many clergy circles I am in talk a lot about how to "do" hospital visits or what was preached last Sunday or different gossip around the conference about who is being appointed where and attempting to 'out know' others in the room in order to be the most "connected".
This is not all that clergy talk about, but I have not been in many clergy circles in which leadership styles are deeply discussed. I do not hear of many of my peers reading leadership books or taking note of some of the leadership trends or conferences around us. There is a lot of leadership language, but not much leadership conversation.
We use words like authenticity and transparency but we are not sure we know what these words mean. We strive to be liked as we sacrifice the ability to lead. Both Moses and Jesus were not liked all the time by all the people, yet they are the most pivotal leaders in our faith.
How do clergy reclaim leadership?
MLK said the church was once a thermostat to society setting the tone, but now has become a thermometer that reflects back the status quo. How do we clergy help lead the church to become a thermostat again?
Perhaps it begins by taking leadership as seriously as we take theology.
Rather I was very interested in one section of the article:
During the era of Christendom, clergy tended to have three roles: chaplain, scholar, and part of the authority structure of the town or community. Note that neither “leader” nor “congregational leader” is on the list. Today, however, clergy must be leaders. That is, they must be capable of helping their congregations identify and make progress on their own most pressing problems and deepest challenges. Moreover, clergy must be teachers of the faith and ministry mentors. Both of these roles mean that the ministry is not done primarily by clergy (as in Christendom) but by the people of the church, the members of the congregation.
What captured my attention was the role of the minister is shifting and it seems like lay members get it but the clergy do not.
Much of my time in clergy circles places emphasis on things revolving around a ministry paradigm which is fading away. That is to say, many clergy circles I am in talk a lot about how to "do" hospital visits or what was preached last Sunday or different gossip around the conference about who is being appointed where and attempting to 'out know' others in the room in order to be the most "connected".
This is not all that clergy talk about, but I have not been in many clergy circles in which leadership styles are deeply discussed. I do not hear of many of my peers reading leadership books or taking note of some of the leadership trends or conferences around us. There is a lot of leadership language, but not much leadership conversation.
We use words like authenticity and transparency but we are not sure we know what these words mean. We strive to be liked as we sacrifice the ability to lead. Both Moses and Jesus were not liked all the time by all the people, yet they are the most pivotal leaders in our faith.
How do clergy reclaim leadership?
MLK said the church was once a thermostat to society setting the tone, but now has become a thermometer that reflects back the status quo. How do we clergy help lead the church to become a thermostat again?
Perhaps it begins by taking leadership as seriously as we take theology.
Freakanomoics and Church
While not that ground breaking, there is a theory in economics known as the "Human Capital". This is the idea that people contribute to the economic growth and not just machines and money. Seems like a no brainer. So we value eduction as a culture because education contributes to building up people's skill sets. And people, unlink things like machines or buildings, are self-generating, transportable and sharable. Meaning, that a person can learn more, does not loose their skills if they move or teach them to anyone.
In the UMC, we have a fascination with brick and mortar which come in the form actual buildings, or in assumptions like the minister is going to give me answers. And ministers have help promote the idea that the work of the church comes in inspiring people to give money, time or resources to causes.
But it turns out we may have forgotten about the greatest asset in the Church beyond the Triune God. People.
If we took seriously the idea of human capital in the Church then we would be working so hard to not inspire people to give money, time or resources, but we would inspire people to take initiative.
The Church ought to be in the "business" of training people to learn to see the world differently. We ought to be equipping people to learn things like "how to build relationships" or "how to create something they dream about" or "how to identify ways to use personal gifts to co-create the Kingdom of God". Too often Church leaders and Church attenders "go to Church" rather than "create Church."
What are we doing to create Church?
The first step might just be to build people rather than buildings.
In the UMC, we have a fascination with brick and mortar which come in the form actual buildings, or in assumptions like the minister is going to give me answers. And ministers have help promote the idea that the work of the church comes in inspiring people to give money, time or resources to causes.
But it turns out we may have forgotten about the greatest asset in the Church beyond the Triune God. People.
If we took seriously the idea of human capital in the Church then we would be working so hard to not inspire people to give money, time or resources, but we would inspire people to take initiative.
The Church ought to be in the "business" of training people to learn to see the world differently. We ought to be equipping people to learn things like "how to build relationships" or "how to create something they dream about" or "how to identify ways to use personal gifts to co-create the Kingdom of God". Too often Church leaders and Church attenders "go to Church" rather than "create Church."
What are we doing to create Church?
The first step might just be to build people rather than buildings.
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.