Who Moved my Church? – Oliver R. Phillips
Our church in the US & Canada, I believe, must address two fundamental challenges if it is to either become or remain vibrant for the remainder of the 21st century. While some lament the slow collective growth rate, this is no time for others to become the proverbial ostrich, pretending that there is no cause for alarm. Nothing changes if nothing changes!
The two challenges that should demand immediate attention are one, the rapidly changing immigrant landscape here in the US & Canada, and two, addressing the tragic gap between existing and emerging leadership styles in our congregations and districts. If Dorothy of Oz has taught us anything it is that “we are not in Kansas anymore!” Under both scenarios, the church, as we have known it in the past, has moved. New wineskins are needed for the foreseeable future.
We have been historically a missionary-oriented denomination. I have just returned from a trip to Kenya and was proud to witness the results of decades of prayerfully aggressive initiatives undertaken by faithful missionaries. I heard retired Regional Director Richard Zanner chronicle the strategy for evangelism on the continent with a litany of successes. The indigenous leaders have now been trained to be the church of the future. My guess is that this pattern has been duplicated in other world regions as well.
My concern is that, if we are not careful, we might obviate the purposes of God’s immigrant movement of people groups to the US & Canada. Should the American church intentionally develop strategy, or permit strategy to be developed to engage the hundreds of people groups who now have become integrated into the demographic landscape, the results could be a quadrupling of the present successes that we have witnessed. As I have often communicated, the movement of immigrant groups to the US & Canada is not the result of the capricious whim of our God; but God has wittingly moved people groups to these shores as a part of God’s heavenly strategy for global evangelism. We must seize the moment!
The second challenge for the US/Canada church is the tragic gap that has been created by the practice of leadership between existing and emerging leaders. Parker Palmer referenced the “corrosive cynicism” that has pervaded the ethos of the emerging leaders who are convinced that the entrenched leaders will never deliberately move in the direction of accommodating the creative juices and environment for which the emerging culture yearns. According to Jimmy Young, in his recently published book “The Leadership Jump,” three options are open for the church in the midst of this tragic gap.
One, the present (existing) leaders could cede the reigns of leadership to a selected cadre of new leaders who would guarantee a continuance of the old paradigms.
Two, emerging (post modern) leaders could choose to leave the church, frustrated that the changes they yearn for are unattainable, or far too distant.
Or three, the present leaders could empower and bless the emerging leaders with the conviction that missional leadership would be manifestly different from the old ways. This could be a very healthy partnership that merges the comfort and certainty of the past with the unpredictability and uncertainty of the future.
What are your suggestions to assist the church as we move forward into the future? How could the third option become attractive to existing congregational leaders? How could the church best maximize its missional initiatives among immigrant groups?
Think on these things!
April 26th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Quite an interesting insight, I must say Dr. Phillips. Our present leaders perhaps need to take a critical look into the communities/people groups that are experiencing significant growth. These communities most definitely may be the ones that hold the answers to the church going beyond the 1st century.
A question that should be addressed is how did the present leaders become leaders. Did they inherit their leadership position through some sort of succession process based on relationships or were they chosen based on their abilities, vision and a solid conviction of the kingdom of God concept?
April 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
a very timely blog & one that our
church finds itself in & at present with about 8 people groups attending
each week & the youth/teens wanting
more involvement & adults not really
knowing how to handle them.Tradition-
alism vs.post-modernism which can
change the paradigm which many are
satisfied & comfortable with.
April 27th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Ron, thanks for your response. I believe that, as a faith community, we must revisit the process by which leaders are elected/selected within local congregations in particular. It seems to me that most leaders are in position by default. If we are to become a vibrant organism for change we must be sufficiently courageous enough to insist on utilizing the most qualified saints to lead.
It might be that our political structure prohibits this from happening!
April 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Sam, thanks for responding. This is a great challenge for the present-day church. We must be willing to address this challenge prayerfully and with utmost wisdom. This is a challenge for us as a denomination and as local congregations. Let’s be the change agents that God demands!
April 27th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
For the reasons given in this post, as well as a host of others, I believe the General Assembly this summer will be the most pivotal of my lifetime.
April 29th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
These are some of my sentiments. I think that as leaders we have to understand that our biblical purpose is to equip, expose and empower the people to whom God has given the church. To use their education, gifts and tallents in new and inovative ways to reach our global communities; in a multiplicities of ways. Not in the same way we have done things for years but with what through the spirit God is doing in the now recognize areas of our church
April 30th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Thanks Lealand, for your comments. We must do things differently if we are to achieve different results.