Looking for Jesus: Refuges in Faith
An interesting article in the age today with some familiar names quoted and mentioned: Credo Cafe, Cheryl Lawrie, Mark Sayers, Ruth Powell, Alan Hirsch, Don Carson and others.
Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
April 12th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I appreciate your comments Rev! I agree about the hierarchy, power structures and structuring everything around Sunday services and professionals.
I can also see your point Janet too about many administration issues. Just one comment though that I have to add here about bringing in outside people where I have to agree with the Rev. The church I belonged to which was part of the Churches of Christ had a conflict between myself, the church planter/founder/pastor/leader/whateveryouwanttocallit and the Leadership Team (who came to be part of leadership through relationship).
My disappointment was that we didn’t struggle through the conflict relationally as the Rev is saying above. The Leadership Team instead brought in the big guns from the CofC (Janet, who you know very well), and because of their position the conflict resolution process took on an entirely different track where I was suspended (because of difference of opinion), then isolated (told I couldn’t be involved in anything or be part of the community in any way), and then told to see a counsellor to get my views sorted out. Now this is not a relational way to deal with conflict. I was mourning the isolation and rift in my friendships with the team. They refused to see me unless they were in a group together! This was all at the recommendation of the Churches of Christ! Then at the end of it all after agreeing to their suspension, isolation and counselling process because I wanted to do everything to reconcile, when my views did not change, I was sacked.
I only tell this story to illustrate the point about relational leadership, and working things through relationally, and not through heirarchy and position and power structures. My biggest dissappointment through the whole process was that we sacrificed relationships for the organisation and organisational processes.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Janet - “wasting my time” in the sense that I could be doing far more productive things, that don’t seem to have such negative outcomes.
Janet - re: structures - that’s exactly what I was trying to say. The Rev, I also agree with much of your post. However, I don’t think anyone was trying to say that legal structure insure quality or integrity…I think they definitely set minimum standards that, if observed, are more likely to result in quality and integrity. For example, I do believe that the reporting requirements of organisations encourage accountability. NOTE, I am not saying that accountability cannot exist without legal mechanisms - I believe the law sets minimum standards to fall back on when other things are going wrong.
I also think that living in real relationships and real community encourages, but does not GUARANTEE quality and integrity. I think human beings are too complicated for that - and I’ve lived in communities where it’s not possible to “call each other on the bullshit” because of the complexity of relationships. More than that I don’t want to say on a blog!! But an example: a family can live together, and someone in that family can have a gambling problem, or a drug problem, and hide it quite well if they try hard enough. We all know of horror stories of someone in a partnership whittling away the shared bank account to almost nothing! And this is in a nuclear family - most house churches are bigger than that, and the bigger you get, the harder it is to have quality relationships with everyone (another reason I’m drawn to smaller churches).
I think Janet’s pointed out some really good examples of the advantages of having a legal structure, and while like the Rev I am drawn to models that don’t have “labelled” and “qualified” leaders but are somewhat more organic, many of these legal structures require people to be “labelled” (ie you might have to have a board of directors or someone designated to look after a particular area of policy or issue). So for me, it’s a case of working out how to find a balance between these two models and cultures.
I would also note that I’ve seen people shift between these two models (the legal and the organic) as it suits them, and in manipulative ways. I’ve seen people resort to “the rules” to push their point, and then refer to the fact that “we’re a community, we don’t need to follow those rules” at another point in time. I’m definitely not advocating that kind of fluidity - the “balance” between the models and cultures I refer to is one that is consistent, and serves God, not our own ends (though determining what serves God can turn into a political game itself…)
One more note: Rev - I don’t like the idea of organising things around a church service performed by a select few “qualified” people either. However here again, what is appropriate depends on the model of church you have - in the churches you and I are a part of, the structures are “flatter”, there is a culture of living in real relationships and taking responsibility for ones’ own spirituality. There is a culture of “journeying together” rather than “being led”. These are the communities I’m attracted to. I do, however, feel very strongly that there are situations in which it is more appropriate for the people “up front” to have formal qualifications - for example, I know of plenty of church services catering for high-school aged kids, that have high stages, and have people up the front who have titles, who preach from those stages. I really have a problem with the fact that many of those people have never formally studied theology. Why? Because I think that if you’re going to adopt a hierarchical model of church, and if you’re going to wear a label and proclaim yourself to be an expert, then you should be. I could reel off a whole bunch of churches (but I won’t on here!) where I feel that there are people who are being held out as “experts”, and are placed in immense positions of power with young people at a vulnerable point in their lives, and yet they know nothing more than me about theology. To me, that is having the best of both worlds - that’s manipulating the structures to suit your needs. On the one hand, being held out as an “expert”, but on the other, having no substance to that claim.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Signposts is busy this morning - two more long posts from Janet and Wayne while I write mine!
Wayne, your story resonates with me, and I wish I could share more, but these conversations get difficult in this kind of space…and I find these issues difficult to engage with hypothetically because they’re too close to home to be hypothetical for me!!
April 12th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Couple of things Janet, when things stay small, and don’t have the need to call themselves a “church” the administrative needs are almost non existent. Therefore much less neccesary. I like having relationship with COC however I do not believe this is really all that important to my ministry, and worked for years without denominational covering in America.
Wayne, might be time for that elusive cuppa? Waynes experience shows that even COC, which in my mind has a pretty flat system and is more empowering than most denoms that I have come across, there is still a reliance on structures to the detriment of relationships.
I might add that in this situation we again wind up with a “leadership team” which is a group of people that “know better” than everyone else what we should do. Now I have not perfected this, and it is an ugly and difficult process, but Dave Andrews talked to me about leadership by consent. So rather than have decisions made by consensus, which can end up leadership by the minority, they try to get consensus, but if they cannot they ask the minority to consent to following the path of the majority for a time and re-evaluating things after this time. The idea being we would rather go the wrong place together than the right place apart. This is relational, and at anytime anyone can break with the group. Now if someone absolutely says, no, I will not consent, then things would I guess get a bit ugly. But in principle this empowers everyone in the community. And it is not too cumbersome to live this way in small groups. And leadership becomes truly servant leadership in these situations.
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Rev, would love to catch up for a coffee. Would be good to see you again….
April 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
shoot me an email bro
April 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
how come wayne gets to have a a coffee with the rev - but I just get ignored… “whaaaa!”
April 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Because Wayne doesn’t live in the most isolated city in the world. Sorry mate the window of opportunity was pretty small. I might be coming to Perth again though, so we will coffee ourselves then.
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oh yeah - go to Perth you big tattood yank - but don;t come to the Central Coast - oh no don;t do that.
Hey guess what I started going to Karate last night with my step daughter - GKR - apparently I look pretty tough!
April 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Nobody comes to Canberra either.
Maybe you and I should form our own little faction, Greg?
April 12th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Wow!!! Karate! how cute!
You see Greg, the guys in Perth pay my flight over, and pay me for my seminars, and speaking gigs.
Hiiiiiyaaaaa
giggle giggle
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I didn’t know people lived in Canberra, I thought just politicians were there.
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Rev, no offence, but I can’t imagine you “giggling”.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
politicians, and nerds.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
That is my only response to karate
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
you jujst wait till I’m a white bestl yellow tip - I’ll come donw there and kick your yankee arse for you
Oh yeah I’m opening up a big ol’ can-o-woop ass
hieeee yaaaaa
April 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
the day a karate geek wups my ass is the day I have truly learned nonviolence.
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
lucky I don;t like to hurt people
April 12th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
You’re feeling threatened and that is to be understood grasshopper - when you can grasp the stones from my hand you will be a man (I said stones from my hand
April 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
your typing sux, greg
April 12th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
yeah but s say thiong real good!
April 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Look my silly little friend, I will take your hand off of your arm and then take the stones out.
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I get by on my good looks and dashing personality http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=5838
April 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
a te alst resort of the scared - threats of vilence
Well I’ll block your attacks with vigour and firmness
April 12th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Ahh the last resort of the scared that should be! damn me and my fingers of doom
April 12th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I’ll attempt a slightly more serious post to ruin everything.
Wayne… I’m really sorry the organisation I work for hurt you… it saddens me. I know nothing about the details of your situation because I’m not privvy to that information (nor should I be). To make a couple of generic comments based on my understanding… because in the C of C legal structure the eldership are the leaders of the church, where favorable outcomes don’t occur for everyone the minister will tend to get the raw end of the stick… they actually don’t hold the power in a conflict situation. Secondly… as the EO was a member of your church I suppose you didn’t get the benefit of the “outside voice” in the same way that other churches might (and perhaps the C of C organisation got involved in the situation sooner than otherwise would have been the case? Just guessing, don’t know.)
I’m sure mistakes are made… but I do think the people in question are well intended… I see the pained looks when a conflict situation arises and it gives noone any pleasure.
Bec… I think I’m on the same wavelength with you on this… I think one should aim for empowerment of all, broad consultation, level power, Kingdom of God values etc. etc…. but not be averse to organisation per se, and legal structures where they are needed or helpful. Those organisations, where necessary, should be the servant of mission and not the master of activity, and need to be evaluated on an ongoing basis. There is no one organisational “ideal” that works for all situations… we just need to seek God’s wisdom and do the best we can.
Rev… God bless you and all… love your work… but I don’t embrace anarchy whole heartedly (and in reality, I don’t think you totally do) because of the complexities of living in a 21st century democracy.
April 12th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Janet is a spoil sport
April 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
At least I don’t have “fingers of doom.”
April 12th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“My disappointment was that we didn’t struggle through the conflict relationally as the Rev is saying above. The Leadership Team instead brought in the big guns from the CofC (Janet, who you know very well), and because of their position the conflict resolution process took on an entirely different track where I was suspended (because of difference of opinion), then isolated (told I couldn’t be involved in anything or be part of the community in any way), and then told to see a counsellor to get my views sorted out. Now this is not a relational way to deal with conflict. I was mourning the isolation and rift in my friendships with the team. They refused to see me unless they were in a group together! This was all at the recommendation of the Churches of Christ! Then at the end of it all after agreeing to their suspension, isolation and counselling process because I wanted to do everything to reconcile, when my views did not change, I was sacked.”
What did you do, kill Bambi?
I assumed you were an AOG victim…not a Churches of Christ victim.
Even Ted Haggard got to communicate back with the church (via email) and Frank Houston got to live in church digs until he carked it.
I’ve even seen radio station sackings handled better.
These Churches of Christ big knobs are the ones who always go missing in action at Easter and Christmas when all the other denominational leaders are doing the heavy-lifting..trying to get the message of Christianity out into the public domain.
And they’re completely missing in action from any kind of public discussion of Christian themed issues or the gospel itself.
They seem to huddle together in offices in leafy metropolitan suburbs.. having strategy sessions on whether to get their manila folders from Word or Officeworks.
They periodically run drills where they prostate themselves over their desk and get an assistant to set fire to their pants, so they know that in an emergency, they would still be able to tell if their arse was on fire.
They give dead weight a bad name.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Janet, I believe whole heartedly in Christian anarchy, one hundred percent committed to it. I understand that you don’t agree, but do not read into anything I write a secret desire to have some form of power structure. I understand that there are times when I have no choice but to work with the system, like my visa application. I also understand that I may have relationships with people that are part of the systems, and yet I trust them anyways, so as relationships are concerned I still have some kind of submission to them as members of the body of Christ. But I am firmly committed to the idea that in a Christian context leaders are empowering servants, and that structures that create power bases are building kingdoms of this world and not God’s kingdom.
And Lance, I no longer have your email, and I would like to talk to you about some very important things for the churches I am involved in, please give me an email.
rev