To Be or Not To Be |
| Posted by Mark (mark) on Oct 06 2008 |
Over the past few years, as we have travelled a path that led us to shed our institutional structure, and relentlessly question every intent, word, and action until we’d reached the core of our beliefs, there have been those who undoubtedly labeled us as deconstructionists. That is a very long word which (in my unscholarly mind) means we tear things down. I don’t blame people for arriving at that conclusion, as on first inspection, it may have appeared to people we had thrown overboard everything we once prescribed. Not to mention, that it seems rather fashionable in these so called “post-modern” times, to deconstruct everything. And to that end, I’m sure it is quite useful to label anyone who thinks differently as a deconstructionist, so as to ease the work in marginalizing anything provocative and unsettling they might say.
To be certain, we have sifted through much and left even more behind. And I do believe there is a necessary place for deep and sometimes difficult questions to be asked, as they help us understand what we really believe (read live) and what our beliefs actually say about who God is, and who we are. However, I think true deconstructionism subsists wholly in breaking things down. We don’t fit that description because:
1) Our goal is not to tear down the institution many call church, it’s just that our beliefs when applied, are apparently rather subversive to religious institutions. In other words, we can’t walk our talk in an institutional way, and visa versa. In sharing our beliefs, I suppose it can come across as though we’re attacking the institution (especially if you identify with it), but in all honestly that is hopefully never, but more probably, rarely our motive.
2) We have not done away with the Church, and in the wake of our eroded institutional beliefs, our desire to live the Kingdom and be the Church has, if anything, increased. Thus, while we don’t shy away from tearing down that which we have come to see as an impediment between us and God, it is not really our focus. In fact, our focus hasn’t changed in spite of all the upheaval; we still desire to intimately know God. And we still desire for others to intimately know God. This has always been our heart.
That said, making the transition from one view point to the other poses some very difficult issues. One of these issues has been plaguing my thoughts recently, as numerous people are asking me similar questions. Namely, where does leadership, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists etc. fit into a non-institutional Kingdom. What you don’t realize from inside the institution, is that everything in your world is defined by that institution. So, upon leaving the institution behind, it can feel like your leaving everything behind—including pastors, evangelists and whatever else. Yet, as I already stated, we have not done away with the Church, thus we haven’t done away with leadership, or apostles and prophets and pastors and teachers. However, they might be unrecognizable to us who have learned to view those things only through the lens of institution.
Boiling it all down, one question remains: how do we function and live in the kingdom? To be unflinchingly honest, I must state I’m not sure I can answer that question very well; partly because I simply haven’t walked far enough down this road to be very definitive; and partly because I no longer think these things (apostle, prophet etc.) are so much defined roles, as they are us being who we’ve been made to be, and us being and discovering who God is in us (reflections of His character flowing out of us—eg. pastoral comfort and mercy in times of need, or hospitality). In fact, I’m beginning to wonder if the question we should be asking isn’t: to be, or not to be?
This side of institutional religion, without the systems and controls, the Church naturally becomes more and more relational in nature, and function. Therefore, I am beginning to believe that Church leadership is more an issue of being, than doing.
In the institutional system, the roles of leaders by necessity become largely political and administrative. An institution needs some uniformity in order to function, and so models and formulas are born. When it becomes model, the leadership become pieces that must be shaped properly to fit into that model. Thus, you can take twenty pastors from a particular denomination, and though you will find mild variance in personality and style, they will all have been trained to pastor in essentially the same ways. They will run fairly similar services; they will all be trained in the same methods for counseling certain situations; they will all describe their function in similar ways; they will all be thoroughly ingrained with that denomination’s particular dogmas, and so on and so forth.
Over the years, our idea of what a pastor is, or what a prophet is, becomes so intertwined with the institutional position modeled before us each Sunday, we come to whole-heartedly believe, that that is what a pastor is. And generally, our definition is formed from what that pastor does (his institutional job description), rather than who that pastor is.
As we begin to move away from institutional structure, and much of what the pastor or leadership did (mainly, running the institution) becomes irrelevant, we can be forgiven for wondering if we’ve left leadership behind altogether. I will admit that there was a time when I too wondered where they fit, if anywhere—but then, I was also wondering where I fit, if anywhere. However, as we continued to walk this road a shift in identity started to make itself known.
This shift was from doing to being. Please don’t jump to exaggerated conclusions and think I’m implying there is no more doing. It’s just that our doing begins to flow out of our being; it flows out of our rest in Him, and out of our revelation of who He is in me, and I in Him. Unlike the institutional system, where our doing so often and quite naturally flows out of meeting the needs of the machine; or from a list of unspoken moral obligations. And the beauty of learning to simply be, is that all parts of Christ’s body (not just leadership), in their new found freedom, begin to naturally function as they were created to. Someone who is a pastor, will be pastoral. Someone who is hospitable, will be hospitable. Someone who is a prophet, will be prophetic. Someone with a healing gift, will heal. Teacher’s will naturally teach in their everyday interactions with other parts of the body. And one teacher may teach and communicate in drastically different ways than another. And when the body gathers, whether in groups of 2 or 200, the apostles will simply be apostles, the evangelists will be evangelists. In their conversations and gestures and interactions of any kind, they will simply be, and relational leadership will emerge by Holy Spirit’s direction and guidance.
This is strikingly different from what we are used to. This kind of leadership is not mandated and formed into the image men so often visualize. But I dare say, far more effective teaching is done in relationship, then from the pulpit, and far more impacting generosity is lived in relationship, than passing around the collections basket, as just two examples.
I think in many aspects, we have come to rely upon “leadership” in unhealthy ways. There is only one reason for apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers and pastors to exist: to help bring the body to maturity. That’s it. They are not around to formulate vision statements. They are not here to build empires and play religious politics. They are not called to be doctrine police. They are not here to be an intermediary between us and God. They are not here to lead our lives—in that sense, the term leadership is quite misleading when applied to them, because we are all to know Him, and He is our only shepherd. Good kingdom leadership functions in one very basic way, and does not deviate from that: it continually and consistently points us toward Jesus. That is how we grow up. We grow up in Him. We grow up by knowing Him. That is all kingdom leadership is truly for. Yet we have consistently and continually demanded far more from them. In fact, we have often demanded they fulfill roles in our lives that only Holy Spirit can fulfill.
Ultimately, I am beginning to believe real kingdom leadership, is far more valuable when functioning relationally as opposed to institutionally. So, where does leadership fit into a non-institutional kingdom? Everywhere. Anywhere. Wherever it is, and wherever Holy Spirit leads it.
Last changed: Oct 21 2008 at 3:57 PM
Back
