Nominations for New Director
If I remember correctly, I received something in the mail about wanting ideas for a new CGGCFO Executive Director. I'm sure I'll come across it again someday (it's in the pile somewhere). At any rate, I have two questions:
1). Is there a future for our denomination? I don't mean this in a bad way. I think the world of Wayne, and this has nothing to do with his leadership at all. I'm just wondering what the people who read this blog think? I mean, this is supposed to be about "what church will look like as fresh expressions emerge in the 21st century". Judging from the activity here... is this it? Are we done? Do we have any fresh expressions? Again, don't take this negatively, I'm just asking. I will be the first to admit I spend way tooo much time just trying to get through the day; just trying to get another sermon cranked out; picking songs at the last minute; etc., etc.. Does anybody have a handle, or better yet, a glimmer of hope for us?
2). My second question assumes someone will come through on the first one. Is it bad form to ask here if anyone has any ideas for a new director? I was planning to nominate Brian Miller - just because he's so good looking. :) But I realize I maybe don't know too many people in the CGGC. And, is that the pool we're going to choose from? I, for one, would like to see us go outside again. Nothing against Brian, or any other CGGCer's... but why not dream big. Of course, I don't really know too many people that do this sort of thing. Surely somebody does though, don't they? I guess for the sake of getting things started, I nominate Bono. He's not too old, not too young; a visionary; has a great deal of passion; not afraid to speak his mind; not afraid to get his hands dirty either. Yeah... he's my pick!
3). Okay, a third question: What should be the criteria(um)? Please don't go by mine - except the visionary, passion, speak their mind part maybe.
Can I get a witness?!?
posted by dan at 10:20 AM
6 Comments:
I don't know about anybody else, but my schedule the last month has left no time for anything. But I love this question, so I'd like to tackle a few of the issues.
Is their a future for our denomination? Probably not as it currently stands. Often when I make recommendations (or criticisms) I am told, "Not everybody thinks like you Brian." There in lies the problem. Not everybody thinks like me, nor do I think like everyone else.
Even as I think the denom could rally around something like the standards of www.glocal.net -- international hands on involvement, local community development, and church multiplication -- still the answer seems to be, no, we can't all rally around those.
Unfortunately, I am a cynical optimist. I believe that given the right leadership, we could rally around some things. Fear of upsetting the cart often stops us from moving forward.
As for the qualifications of the new director, I thought the list that was sent wasn't a great list. It required that the new director be tremendously involved already on the General Conference level. I am not very involved on the General Conference level, but I would think that would have to limit it to a very few people and would eliminate the possibility of an outsider (like Wayne and Bono).
Knowledge of our current ministries doesn't seem like a requirement to me for a visionary leader. Could it even be a hindrance?
I may be wrong, and I am not familiar with the whole denom, but I feel like there are three types of churches -- those who are firmly in a traditional bubble and will defend their bubble to the death, those who long for someone to take the lead in a direction that will lead to some vitality, and those who are heading for vitality no matter what and will defend to the death their right to do so.
I personally long for a strong, gracious, knowledgable leader who will head toward fruitfulness for the kingdom.
Okay, so... I guess I will respond again. Thanks for chiming in, Brian.
- First, I assume everyone understood I was not serious about Bono. Even "I" am not that silly. But can we at least think outside the box? Maybe Brian McLaren??? :)
- I think Brian (Miller) brings up a great point. He said he oftens hears "Not everybody thinks like [him]." Does there come a point where more people start thinking like, say, Brian, and less like whoever it is that is deciding what everyone thinks? And who decides when that shift takes/took place?
- As for the actual nomination letter - I dug mine out. I like how it says we're lookiing for someone "with a vision and the capacity to lead a denomination with a desire to grow healthy, reproducing churches and reach different culture/people groups and generations." That "sounds" nice, but I'm not sure what it means. I hope it doesn't mean "we want someone to try to improve on what we're currently doing." Nothing against what anyone is currently doing, but... I agree with Brian, I think we are dreaming if we think our denom will have a future as it currently stands.
- As to the requirements... I guess it doesn't look as much like it needs to be a CGGC person as I thought.
Brian says he is a cynical optimist; I guess I am basically just cynical. But I do hope we find someone who can continue where Wayne leaves off, and lead us to great things. Unlike some, I happen to think denominations are a GOOD thing. And I think the director plays an important part. I hope Wayne doesn't read these posts as though we're trying to shove him out the door. Personally, I would like to see him heavily involved in the process of finding a successor.
And... I thought I heard somewhere that we were going to hire a consultant to come in and make recommendations. I don't see anything about that in the "anticipated process for interested applicants" in the nomination letter. Was I dreaming, or did someone decide that wasn't a good idea???
The Midwest Region is planning to hire a consultant to help us figure out how to be more effective as a region and to start bringing more personal support to individual churches. I'm excited about the prospect personally. It has nothing to do with the General Conference however.
Here's my question: Not everybody thinks like me, nor do I think everyone should. But what are the core values that draw us all together, that make us passionate, and if fanned, make us fruitful?
As of now, I feel like there aren't many core values that we can all rally behind and become fruitful.
I agree, Brent, about the disappointment in having values but not adhering to them. I have to admit though, I'm not really sure the difference with virtues. maybe if you gave an example I would understand it better(I'm from Indiana).
Personally, I wonder if it really makes any difference whether we all agree on anything or not. I don't really like someone telling me what I should or should not believe, value, or otherwise. IMHO, a director shouldn't be about telling us what to think or do, but about INSPIRING us to think and do. Rather than trying to direct and control our churches; setting them free ( or freer). Is organized chaos a term? Or chaotic organization? (?)
Dan,
I agree with Brian's earlier comments that we should discover a few basic priorities that we can rally around. I think these should be in place BEFORE a new director is hired. If every new director brings his/her own set of values (more on this below), how we will ever maintain consistency? We should identify who we are and hire someone to help us fulfill that vision. But it rarely happens that way. Pastors are just as guilty – too often they impose their own preference without giving any concern about the uniqueness of that given congregation.
I also agree with your point about a director needing to inspire us, but there needs to be something that unifies us on some level. I would work toward a minimalist agreement on core values as opposed to a maximalist agreement. [Something like "In Essentials, Unity. In Non-Essentials, Liberty. In All Things, Charity."] The CGGC "We Believe" is a great example, in my opinion, of a very short and to the point belief statement. But, people don't rally around beliefs; they rally around vision, which is very often based upon a few guiding priorities, or core values.
Regarding the distinction between values and virtues:
Perhaps this distinction is more academic in nature, but I think there are a few practical dimensions. I am thinking of general culture here and not just the church - but of course the two are very closely connected. So many people say "I value this" or "I value that" and then follow that up with "But you can value whatever you want."
I am not suggesting that we should be forced to believe exactly the same thing. But too often we forget that our involvement in a church or denomination is tied to choice. When a vision has been presented everyone has the option to publicly support it. If a person doesn't support it, then save us all a lot of trouble and go somewhere else.
I think many people are tired hearing about core values and don't take the discussion seriously. From my experience in the church, using the term virtues maintains people's interest long enough to listen and discuss their priorities. For me, virtues are tied to public practices, not private interests. Virtues must be situated within a given tradition to be considered virtues. That is why I believe so many efforts to impose the "Purpose Driven" model on churches have failed. That approach to ministry presupposes an existing set of values that may or may not exist. If people don't willingly buy into what someone else's vision, the vision will die - whether it's from God or not. But on a more basic level, I think that a pastor attempting to impose his or her beliefs without giving any concern for the developed tradition of the church is flat out wrong. This connects back to my earlier comment that we should develop the core values/virtues BEFORE the new CGGC Director is hired.
Just a note - The reintroduction of the distinction between values and virutues is primarily tied to the work of the Classical philosopher Aristotle. Alasdair MacIntyre, a current Catholic philosopher, has reinvigorated Christian ethics discussions through his use of Aristotle's ideas. The book "Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre" provides a good introduction to the values vs. virtues.
If you are still reading, your last blog was great – it made me think through some of my own biases. Hopefully this makes some sense.
Brent,
Thanks for the explanation. It helped, even though it's kinda over my head. I'm sure you and Brian are probably right about us needing to agree on some core virtues.
Question: Is this discussion heading back to one we had awhile back about rewriting "We Believe"? So many places to jump off of this bridge...
Post a Comment
<< Home