Yesterday during our worship gathering someone had a small child who, at the end of each song/prayer/whatever, would say loud enough for everyone to hear, “Are we done?” I thought it was cute the first time…. But pretty soon it started to be quite the little distraction. And I know there were probably some adults who were thinking the same thing, but I also believe there are many people who really want to worship God, to sense the Holy Spirit's presence, and learn and grow, and they (as well as the kingdom) truly do benefit from our gathering together each week.
As a church leader perhaps I am over-sensitive to all the talk in the blogosphere about *leaderless churches.* If I were a better blogger I would cite a few examples, but… I’m not. And I suppose everyone has their own definition, but I think what most people mean by “leaderless church” is a church where no one tells them what to do. You know, “Why can’t we all just get together and talk about God and follow Jesus in community and everything will be peachy keen cool.”
Hey, I’m all for not having to tell anyone what to do. That would be great. But…. What freakin’ planet do you live on?!? I mean, do you really think you can get a group of people together and things are just going to *happen*? My experience is – there are people just waiting to pounce on opportunities to make things all about THEM. People who want to dominate conversations, who want to air their dirty laundry, who lack social and emotional skills and the maturity needed to keep things from deteriorating into a demonized demolition derby. “Are we done?”
I have led and attended way too many gatherings where one or two people have done more than just create a distraction - they’ve derailed the group entirely. And it’s always funny, because what often happens in those situations is…. the very people who complain about leadership are often the ones demanding “Why doesn’t somebody do something?!?” You know, “I don’t want anyone telling ME what to do, but would you please tell THEM what to do.”
I guess my point is: I don’t think leaderless church is the answer; I think we need better leaders. By *better* I mean humble servants who not only have the spiritual gift of leadership, but the humility and character to lead from a heart surrendered to Jesus Christ.
Let’s face it, there are some terrible leaders in some of our churches. I don’t know that it means the church is beyond hope (I don’t believe we could kill it if we tried). But I also know there are some good leaders out there – young and old – and we need for them to step forward. In order for good leaders to be developed it’s also going to take some good followers to step forward. People who will give them half a chance, who will encourage rather than tear down, who will offer to help rather than hinder, who will listen rather than trying to manipulate and control.
We are NOT done yet, my friends. But we can’t just idle along and *hope* things turn out. No, we press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called us heavenward in Christ Jesus (Ph. 3:14).
So…. GO!
27 comments:
Amen.
I have come pretty much 180 degrees on this one, and am aligned pretty much where you are, now. As I said in a comment to a comment on one of my posts yesterday, "Nothing happens unless it happens on purpose", and nothing happens on purpose unless someone takes charge and makes it so.
I think the only other thing I would stress is that there can be multiple leaders in a church. Sure, there's the pastor (don't want to make you think you're not important :o), but also people who take over and manage getting things done in specific areas. Hey, that Lenten breakfast comes to mind - you said you appreciate that it just happens and all you have to do is show up, because someone else took leadership over it. That's the kind of stuff I am talking about.
My struggles right now are on (a) forgiving leaders their failings, and (b) being forced (for that's how I feel) into a leadership position myself recently, and that's a real struggle for me, because I do not have the personality for it. I have a blog post that's been bubbling that is going to detail more of that out soon, so I will leave it at that.
Good post, Dan.
"demonized demolition derby"
SHEE-OOOT! That's some good writin'!
So, should I step up to the plate and said family in the direction of the nursury? As a person who comes to church to worship I have found the last few Sundays nearly impossible to totally focus. But how do you tell someone nicely that their child/grandchild is a HUGE distraction!!!!!????!!!!
I forgot the word 'point' in that first sentence.
Carrie Jade:
Hi, you don't know me - I bug your dad from time to time here on his blog.
Question: I, too, wrestle with the same issue, i.e., kids being a huge distraction during worship service (at least until they're old enough to know how to sit quietly and be bored to death). But how do we (I) reconcile that with the "suffer the little children" verse ? ("suffer" - what an interesting word choice that was!)
Many argue that the children are as much a part of the church as the adults, and deserve to be a part of worship, and not just warehoused off to the side somewhere while the grown-ups have their time. I honestly don't know where I stand on that issue. But I do know I was somewhat altered in my thinking recently by this post, by a church planter in inner-city South Central L.A. It made me do a double take on my own prejudices. Would be interested in hearing your take after reading that post, and your dad's, for that matter.
Ciao for now.
We have a bit of an unchurched crowd on Sundays. I've started serving communion every Sunday. So, this Sunday, as people begin to line up for communion, a guy, probably 20 years old, fairly unchurched, gets up and goes to the Coke machine in the hallway off the back of the room and I see him... and sure enough... clunk, de clunk, clunk clunk... out comes the coke. LOL
I had a brief conversation with someone about putting up a sign on the Coke machine that says, "Don't get a Coke while service is going on." And I think, "Seriously? We have to tell people that?"
I did finally put a sign by the coffee and donuts that says exactly that. I remember one Sunday serving communion and a young gal got up and I thought, "Wow, that's great, she doesn't usually take communion," and then she made her way around, got a donut and sat down.
People don't know. People are very easily offended. So we have to find ways to tell them. I'm thinking of using funny videos to try and explain things.
That's okay Carrie, I miss the point all the time.
haha. thanks mister.
Thanks for all the good comments. Jim has a good point that I'm not only talking about pastors, but there are ALL KINDS of leaders needed in the church. And it's not just about the Sunday morning thing either. We could even say someone like the Good Samaritan was a leader (which puts distractions in a different light). I certainly don't have it figured out, but am glad there are others thinking about it too. Peace.
Great post, Dan. One of the important points that you make is that there WILL be a leader, whether the organization - church, whatever - declares one or not. And the informal leaders that often rise up out of "leaderless" situations are not always the people that should have that role. And then, because it's such an informal usurping of power, it's hard to get rid of them. The Good Samaritan as a true leader is an interesting picture. I like it. I'd like to be that kind of leader. By the way, I happen to think you do about as good a job as anyone I've seen at handling in church distractions -- and you certainly have your share. Part of the casual atmosphere - but there is a limit.
Good point, Joan. Reminds me of when Kramer got fired and says, "Well I don't really even work here." The guy says, "That's what makes this so difficult." :)
(There's a Seinfeld episode for every area of life)
As I have spent the past year coming out of 'bad' leadership I wrestle with this issue. I have been in small groups long enough to know that even they will be led by someone. So the no leadership will not work. But I am still not sure I want to join myself to the group that points at 'THE' leader either. Right now just satisfied with the one on one relationships. At least there you can give the toddler something interesting to do like watch Dora. :)
Hi Barb,
Thanks for stopping by, and weighing in. I don't think I've ever been involved with an abusive leader (unless I am one myself and just don't know it). I think our journeys take us to many different places, and I'm glad you're finding satisfaction where you are now.
Very interesting thoughts. I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy that pops up in these discussions about "leaderless". Because honestly, my experience says that, if the Holy Spirit is allowed to be completely in charge (i.e., Jesus really is the Leader), then people really DO get together and have things happen.
The question is, what do you think needs to "happen" when you get together? Maybe it's a matter of rethinking our expectations about the gathering.
For example, one commenter wrote:
I had a brief conversation with someone about putting up a sign on the Coke machine that says, "Don't get a Coke while service is going on." And I think, "Seriously? We have to tell people that?"
My question is why can't someone "get a Coke while service is going on"? What is "service" that precludes someone getting a Coke? And why does it bother you that they got a Coke?
I think that it's not about needing better leaders or better followers. It's about the need to actually disciple people into maturity in Christ and not just try to contain them, so to speak, while we do what we think is so important and sacred that it can't be disrupted (by our definition).
Steve,
I think you are on to something there. There are complaints about how people come to church service now and are passive and expect to be entertained, but OTOH we've gotten so hung up on "the program" that if anyone steps outside the bounds then somehow that ruins it. So of COURSE people are passive in service! They've been taught to be. It gets back to my earlier comment and link on this thread about what children are "supposed" to do/be during service, which adds up in most people's minds to be "seen and not heard".
Dan,
My apologies. I don't mean to pollute this thread with all my comments, but you wrote a good 'un and it has triggered a good discussion. Thanks for that.
Steve,
Just to play the devil's advocate for a bit, though, and even though I just commented agreeing with what you wrote, I will note that you said "the need to actually disciple people into maturity in Christ". At least one definition I found of "disciple" (at Bibles.com) says that a disciple is "A person who follows and learns from someone else." So if they follow someone, then that means that someone is a leader by definition, no? So going back to Dan's original point - there are always going to be leaders in church.
I just happen not to be one of them.
Steve,
I appreciate your thoughts. And I suppose it's possible there are those churches (or groups of people) where everyone is a very cool and hip 5-star Christian full of the Spirit and all that. As for my experience though - most of the people in my church are NOT like that. We're not a Christian club. We have people that don't know what they're supposed to do. We have people who haven't surrendered their lives to Christ, who don't even know who the Holy Spirit is. But they're here because they're searching for ....something. And I believe they DO need someone to disciple/lead them in the way.
I'm not suggesting that people need to follow *my* program, but, say you're wanting to sing a very contemplative song, and to set it up you want to tell a little story about it. You're telling me that if a bunch of people just start talking and laughing and carrying on - you would be okay with that?
Some things just come down to a simple matter of respect for others. Like, turning your cell phones off or on vibrate. And that says nothing about those people who might be present who have spiritual problems - be they demonic or just rebelliousness.
When I suggest we need better leaders, it's not to "contain people so I can do what I think is important." What I'm talking about IS discipling people. I think we need more leaders who have that in mind. And part of discipling is teaching people to have a certain amount of respect for others. And by respect I don't mean bowing down to someone in authority, but mere acknowledgment that other people matter too. Self-centeredness is rampant in our society, and even in the churches I've been in. Perhaps this isn't the case for you. If not, I guess that's good. :)
Jim,
Your comments are never of a polluting nature. Nor is anyone else's here for that matter. I delete the ones I don't like. :) Feel free to comment away. I think you're becoming quite the leader. ;)
Jim, I would submit a couple clarifications.
1) "disciples of Jesus" are not followers of us. They are followers of Jesus. While we help them along that journey, I think it is a mistake to think that the fact that a disciple is following someone means that we should be trying to get them to follow us.
2) I think that helping disciples along that way has a lot less to do with corporate times together and leading them "from a distance" (i.e., the front of the church building), but relationally, 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 or 1-on-3.
Jesus taught large crowds of people the basic news of the kingdom. But he always drilled it down to relational situations (12 or 3 or 1) to really delve into the personal aspect of a relationship with the Father.
This was kind of what I was getting about our expectations. If we expect that the "service" is meant to be all things to all people (lead unsaved to Jesus, disciple new believers, speak into the lives of more mature believers, etc.), I think we'll always end up sorely disappointed and missing the mark.
It seems to my reading that 1 Corinthians 14:26ff is the most detailed description and instruction that we have for our gatherings together. And Paul indicates that the purpose of our gatherings is to edify the body and allow the Holy Spirit to move through whomever He chooses (I'm basing this last part on the larger context of chapters 11-14).
So it seems to me that we should be starting with that in mind and working in that context.
Dan, I appreciate your response. I think you're still seeing my comments (and the whole idea of "leaderless church") in a distorted, extreme view. Almost a straw man when you include comments about "very cool and hip 5-star Christian full of the Spirit and all that."
But, anyway, to address the substance of your response, I think that the discipleship you are describing is (as I was saying to Jim above) better accomplished in a relational situation.
That's just my opinion, and I sure don't want to overstay my welcome, just having stumbled on your blog and jumped in and all ;)
I'm here via Kingdom Grace, by the way.
Have a blessed week, guys.
Steve,
You are certainly welcome to stick around as long as you like. I have to say though, I don't really appreciate the "straw man" comment.
I'm sure we ALL have our own distorted view of how church should be. And I don't know that anyone here is arguing that there shouldn't be one on one, or more relational-type discipleship. But that's not ALL there is to it either. Part of that relational stuff comes in a corporate setting as well. Church isn't JUST about discipling people one on one.
And leadership isn't just about what happens on Sunday mornings either (I might add). :)
Jim, I'm genuinely sorry that the "straw man" comment came across as bothersome.
I was actually trying to point out that I felt you took my comment and stretched it to the point of almost being ridiculous by implying that I was talking about "very cool and hip 5-star Christian full of the Spirit and all that."
Your comment came across as dismissive, but I was not trying to offend in return.
My sincere apologies.
ooops, that should be directed to Dan. My bad. The comment page loaded in the pop-up and Jim's name was at the top, and it just stuck in my mind! ;)
Steve,
I can see your confusion. They are both three letter names. ;-)
Dan,
I am still figuring out how to get back at you about the "leader" crack. ;-)
Blessings...
Steve,
No problem. I don't really know that we're disagreeing as much as we're just using different terminology. I have a tendency to not make myself real clear. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Peace & blessings.
I see I'm a couple years late in commenting on this post!
Anyway, AMEN!
What you've written concerning the myth of leaderless churches is so true. In any situation where you get a bunch of people together there will always be "leaders" even if we claim there are none. I find it fascinating that those in the house church movement advocating for "leaderless" home groups are actually the new leaders! They write books and lead from their blogs!
Mike
Post a Comment