Toxic Values of the Shepherd Dominated Leadership Culture: Change is Traumatic
Since I began to grasp the Bible teaching that Christ is still gifting His church with apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, I have also come to realize that much of what I assume to be true about life in the Kingdom has no root in Scripture.
The unadorned reality is that much of what we take for granted in the church comes from tradition rooted in Constantine’s scheme, not in God‘s revelation. Much of what we accept without question regarding the church comes to us from tradition and myths. Some of it actually defies what Scripture teaches.
One example of such tradition-based wisdom is that change is traumatic among God’s people.
You know the old joke I’m sure: How many CGGCers does it take to change a light bulb?
The biblical reality is that to live in this world for Jesus is to enter into an existence defined by continuing change.
That reality was first defined by God’s call of Abraham. God came to Abraham and said, “Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.”
From that moment, Yahweh began to define the life of faith as one in which He leads and His people follow. He was saying to Abraham, “Leave the place where you are settled. And, when you get to the place I want you to be, I’ll let you know. Until then, everything is journey.”
For Abraham, the call was not to travel to a destination. Abraham didn’t know the destination.
Curiously, he didn’t ask about the destination. Abraham understood that the call was to a journey--a walk of faith in the Lord which was characterized by continuing movement and change. Change was the one constant that the Lord introduced into Abraham’s life on the day He called him.
The fact that a life of faith is a life of change was also made clear to Moses when Yahweh called him. Moses was the first apostle. Very early on in His first appearance to Moses the Lord said, “I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.” Yahweh sent Moses on a journey to lead His people on a journey.
For Moses, to believe in the Lord was to accept the reality that he was sent and that faithfulness to the Lord would be characterized by the act of leading God’s people on a journey.
In the New Testament, the reality that a life of faith is defined by change could not be more clear.
When Jesus called Peter and Andrew, He called them to a life of continuing change and motion. This was His call: “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” For them, to be a disciple of Jesus was to leave what they accepted to be their structured and settle life and to go where He went when He went there.
When you read the Gospels you can’t even begin to suggest that life for a disciple was settled. To follow Jesus meant to enter into a journey characterized by continuing fluidity--constant change.
The concluding verses of the Gospel of Matthew emphasize that our task, what we call our GREAT COMMISSION, is to continue to engage in a life defined by change. Jesus said, “Go.”
One sad reality of having English as our primary language is that we don’t have a built in reminder of the centrality of change because we transliterate the Greek word apostolos, we don’t translate it. We call the Twelve “the apostles” because that word sounds like the Greek word. But, that word apostolos has a very significant meaning that reminded the people who bore it and everyone else in the church what their task was.
The word apostolos comes from the Greek verb apostello which means, to send. To be an apostle is to be one who is sent.--a ‘sent one.’
So, if you were in a church which received a letter from the Apostle Paul, you understood that the letter came from ‘Paul, the sent one.’ You were immediately reminded that our faith is one defined by motion and change.
The centrality of change can also be seen in the way the early followers of Jesus thought about themselves. Paul gave a clue to this when he spoke in his trial before Felix. He said, “I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.”
Get it? First of all, Paul was a ‘follower.’ In his mind, he wasn’t merely a believer in Jesus.
And, Paul didn’t call our religion “Christianity,” though the word Christian had already been coined. No. To Paul the movement in which he was participating was “the Way.” Paul never conceptualized of the movement as being about a set of beliefs. He knew it to be a community of people who were in motion on a path.
So, as I’ve said, The biblical reality is that to live in this world for Jesus is to enter into an existence defined by continuing change.
That’s the BIBLICAL reality.
But, the biblical reality is not the reality of life in the shepherd dominated leadership culture. In the shepherd dominated leadership culture change is a four-letter word.
How many CGGCers does it take to change a light bulb?
CHANGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
In the shepherd dominated leadership culture, change is pure trauma. Change must be planned for. Vision for it must be cast. It must be explained. Motivation to achieve it must be carefully laid out. And, everyone must agree to it.
In the shepherd dominated leadership culture, unless change is embraced at the level of the weakest and least faithful member of the group, the shepherd dominated leadership culture cancels the change, no matter where the Spirit may be leading.
In the shepherd dominated leadership culture the status quo, no matter how dysfunctional--no matter how deeply steeped in mindless tradition or sin--is superior to a change not supported by one and all.
That’s the value of the shepherd dominated leadership culture and, according to the Word, that ain’t right!
Why was change so easy and natural for God’s people in the days of Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Peter and Andrew and Paul yet so hard today? I think there are many reasons. In this context, though, think about just one of them. One that we can and must, well,...change.
In the Western church, we are being led by a Shepherd Mafia!
The shepherd calling is legitimate and essential to the function of the Body of Christ. In His grace and wisdom, the Lord determined that the Body of Christ would be led by an interdependent community of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. Each of those leadership callings is legitimate, important and vital.
But, some time in the last 70 years or so in the CGGC at least, the shepherds were given permission to take controll of what began as a prophetic/evangelistic movement. And, take over they have! They rule with a velour-gloved fist. In their gentle warmth and fuzziness, they tolerate no leadership values but their own. That means they permit no change.
No motion.
No journey.
Shepherds are not consumed by mission nor vision as are apostles nor are they maniacs for truth as are prophets. Shepherds are guardians of relationship in the Body of Christ. Shepherds care and share. Shepherds fight for the little guy. They allow no one to be excluded or left behind. The way of the shepherd is to nurture the weakest in the flock. The shepherd will keep the whole flock in place as long as possible for the sake of the one who may not be able to make the journey.
In the mind of the shepherd, change should only happen when everyone is comfortable.
Acceptance of change is not a matter of obeying the will of God. Only the change that pleases the flock is acceptable.
While Jesus continues to gift the church with shepherds and always will and always should, He never intended for the church to be led by the values of shepherds. The foundational leadership Jesus empowered is the leadership of the apostle and prophet (Eph. 2 :20): the sent one and the speaker of truth, the ones who chafe if they are restrained from living the ever-changing life of a follower on a journey.
Jesus didn’t commission us to attend to the needs of the slowest and weakest. He didn’t commission us to be cautious and comfortable. He said, “Go.”
When they are permitted to dominate, the values of the shepherd are toxic.
How many times in recent generations has the Lord called the CGGC to change when our shepherd leaders have looked at their unsettled flock and, without the balance of apostles and prophets, simply and gently yet brazenly said, “No, Lord.”
Imagine Abraham adopting the values of the shepherd dominated leadership culture and saying, “Lord, first let me cast vision with and get permission from Sarah and Lot.”
Imagine Moses waiting until the least faithful in Israel was ready to move from Egypt toward God‘s promise.
Imagine Jesus saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore, nurture the weakest and least faithful among you and only then, when everyone is comfortable, go and make disciples…. Don‘t worry. I‘ll wait.”
Imagine Paul saying that the church is built on the foundation of the shepherds, not on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
No. You don’t have to imagine these things. Simply glance at the CGGC.
Observe the scores of insolated congregations out of touch with their communities.
Observe the tepid spirituality.
Observe a former movement dead in a state of hyper-ambivalence and visionless stagnation.
Observe this toxic change-phobic value of the shepherd dominated leadership culture.
Repent.
posted by bill Sloat at 8:25 AM
5 Comments:
I'm sure some who read this blog are offended by your "shepherd mafia" comments, but I hear you saying that indeed we do need the shepherds, but we need them as one of five callings, and we need them in the right relationship to the other leadership roles. There is a reason the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and that reason is that they insist on vision and mission. The prophet says, "This is what God says, and what God wants", and the apostle says, "I will show the other leaders where we go with this, how we live it out."
I think you are right in your assessment that nearly all the official leadership roles in the CGGC are filled with people who are gifted as shepherds. I also think you are right that the more visionary leaders, willing to lead change that can help the church become more what God wants, have been kind of locked out of the system.
And at this point, despite our negative protests and our positive calls to vision, that seems to be the end of the story.
I don't know what exactly made me think it, but as I read through this post it made me wonder: what if our missionaries and church planters were paid out of the general conference coffers, and our directors and administrators had to raise their own support? Not that we don't need all of them, but it seems odd which ones have to justify their existence to get support and which don't.
bill,
i appreciate your concerns, and on much of this i agree. a few things crossed my mind in reading this.
when you quote Ephesians 2:20, that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets", i had always heard this as a reference to the Scriptures, apostles representing the NT, prophets representing the OT, with the teachings of Christ as being the cornerstone of both.
also, with metaphors like "foundation" and "building", it seems like there is an intentional tension in the Bible between movement and growth on one side, and permanence and structure on the other. while i completely agree that the western church, and specifically the cGgc, has swayed way to one side and become "institutionalized", i want to make sure that we don't just as easily swing to the other side and lose the good things that have a history just because they're not new or innovative.
you mention Jesus as the Way, and this is true and good, but He's also the Rock of our salvation, and the end of our race (cf. Hebrews 12). i don't want to be argumentative, and i don't want you to tone it down. i just want to make sure we don't make the same mistake in the opposite direction.
and i may be wrong, but the way you're describing the shepherd as "can't move without everyone" and "relationship over truth and calling" seems to be at best an extreme of that gifting and at worst sinful. i'm all for unity, but our unity is to be built on truth, not compromise (cf. Ephesians 4). a shepherd who restrains all the sheep at the place of the weakest does no good, as far as i can see, for the rest. and yes, Christ's call to go for the one lost of the 99 found is powerful and wonderful, yet at the same time i find that to be all the more reason for multiple shepherds (i.e. plurality of elders), so that while some go after the lost, others grow and nurture those who remain. just my gut on it.
i guess this is all to say yes, we need change and badly. and we have to keep a close watch on it, so that we change to balance, not the other extreme. thoughts?
walt,
Good comments as always--as I have come to expect.
when you quote Ephesians 2:20, that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets", i had always heard this as a reference to the Scriptures, apostles representing the NT, prophets representing the OT, with the teachings of Christ as being the cornerstone of both.
I've heard that and once thought it too.
However, when you consider that it is in Ephesians that Paul says, "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets...," you have to realize that when Paul thinks of prophets, he's not thinking of Isaiah and Jeremiah but of the ones who Christ is still giving the church.
Also keep in mind that Paul describes the gift of prophecy as the one spiritual gift a believer should desire above all others.
No, I'm convinced that the prophets to whom Paul refers in Ephesians 2:20 are the same prophets Christ will continue to give the church "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
also, with metaphors like "foundation" and "building", it seems like there is an intentional tension in the Bible between movement and growth on one side, and permanence and structure on the other. while i completely agree that the western church, and specifically the cGgc, has swayed way to one side and become "institutionalized", i want to make sure that we don't just as easily swing to the other side and lose the good things that have a history just because they're not new or innovative.
you mention Jesus as the Way, and this is true and good, but He's also the Rock of our salvation, and the end of our race (cf. Hebrews 12). i don't want to be argumentative, and i don't want you to tone it down. i just want to make sure we don't make the same mistake in the opposite direction.
Amen.
and i may be wrong, but the way you're describing the shepherd as "can't move without everyone" and "relationship over truth and calling" seems to be at best an extreme of that gifting and at worst sinful.
Good point.
The way I am describing the typical shepherd is the way most shepherds I know actually function within a shepherd dominated leadership culture.
My friend, Ed Rosenberry, makes the same point to me that you do.
But, it seems to me that shepherds, in particular, need the balance of apostles and prophets and that when such balance is lacking, they give in to their nurturing side to so great a degree that many of them, at least, become dysfunctional.
a shepherd who restrains all the sheep at the place of the weakest does no good, as far as i can see, for the rest.
Yet, walt, that is precisely what I see happening in the CGgc and most of the Western church in recent generations.
One important role of the shepherd is to bring a necessary word of caution to apostles who tend to be overly optimistic about the possibility of change and to prophets who are so maniacal about truth that they care only about principle.
But, when the leadership culture is dominated by the one whose role to is to provide balance and to bring a cautionary word, change become nearly an impossibility.
dan h.,
interesting ideas. i'll have to think more on that.
bill,
as far as the whole prophets bit goes, i may need to do some more digging. i'm still rather uncertain as to exactly what the meaning of the "gift" of prophecy is, as far as the NT goes.
as for the rest, i think we're on the same page. i tend to be the more prophetic among the crowd i run with, so it does my heart good to see more of that here. i just want to make sure we have a explicitly balanced view, because from what i know, what's held in one generation, then assumed in the next, is lost by the third.
all that to say, glad to have us thinking together that we may run together.
Post a Comment
<< Home