Relational Leadership As Missional Leadership
Previous Post – Revival In Greenland
This afternoon brought to a close our recent YWAM Western Canada Leadership Team meetings hosted here in Winnipeg. After hosting more than about 20 people in our house (it used to house an inner city gang, so it’s quite big), things are eerily quiet now. Well, “urban quiet” that is, the gently song of the sirens (police & ambulances) and screaming children still drift in, but that’s pretty typical.
While I won’t go into specifics, todays discussion was one that reflect an important growth in our district leadership/ministries. More and more we are finding that the structures of organization, tasks/jobs, policies, etc. are not effective or genuine for the nature of our interconnectedness as a ministry. Increasingly we are defining our structures and responding to challenges without escaping into the easy convenience of institution, but as a organic, relational community- a family.
We have not perfected this by any means, though I feel we are significantly unique in this respect compared to much of the international organization. We find ourselves stretched by the oft enormity of emotional and pastoral dynamics involved by taking this path. And yet, as we do so, the nature of our missional engagement in our communities and those communities we travel to continues to reflect fresh Spirit-led innovation and creativity, rooted in relationships above all else.
This is exciting to me, as we have worked for a long time to see this fruit. It is tentative and will need much nurturing, but I am very hopeful. In the same way, I wonder what would happen if other ministries and churches took this journey, even on regional and/or denominational levels. Our district covers a region from Vancouver Island to Winnipeg, with dozens of ministries centres throughout. If we can do it on that level, I believe it can be done in other contexts as well, large and small.
What have you see that reflects new ideas and approaches to leadership, community and ministry that are born out of relationality?
jamie,
relational leadership as missional leadership is extremely close to my heart. however, i feel like im barely scratching the surfice in praxis and understanding. could you please, please, please, please, elaborate more on this… give several examples… continue with us in dialogue concerning this? we are trying to be transformed in our leadership in our local body of believers. i absolutely believe that any direction, experience, insight you might have will be invaluable to us.
thanks,
brad
Brad,
Fair question. Given the context specific nature of our ministry, plus some of the confidentiality issues involved in the specific examples we explored, I did leave it fairly vague. I will give it more thought and (perhaps) post on it later next week. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
A few years ago, we had invited a leader from across the state to our church to share about his experience with some issues we were facing. What made an impression on me is that he GLADLY stayed in our modest home (as opposed to staying in a hotel paid by the church), he shared several meals with us in our home, and neither asked for nor expected any kind of honorarium. He simply wanted to share what he could to encourage us. We had a delightful time and deepened our friendship with him.
We don’t pay our friends and family to visit us, do we? Institutions pay speakers, and a certain distance is maintained between audience and speaker. The main objective is often to give information, but families give freely to each other and spend time together.
I think some things need to change in order for us to be relational, but like you said, it’s worth it.
I look forward to hearing the ideas and approaches others have.
Mary
jamie,
i completely understand the need for confidentiality. it’s encouraging to hear your report:)
brad
Mary,
Great point. This is very much like the experiences we have. However, it is less about the exchange of money than it is about the meaning of such giving. It is the institutional wordlview that we reject (and thus those acts that result from said worldview are not right), but the act independant of said worldview- or rather, the same act stemming from a different worldview might be acceptable.
Let me give you a clearer example. During our recent meetings we had several guests from the First Nations community. Before the meetings started, each (without any communication, as they were from thousands of miles apart, no prior relationship and representing three different tribal heritages) presented gifts to one another out of protocol. They were signs of honour, respect and a deeply integrated worldview that went far beyond the gift themselves. In many business cultures gifts are giving, but for entirely different purposes and with very different intentions.
All this to say that sometimes giving of honorariums, etc. can be deeply relational. I say this not to debunk what you are saying (as I LOVE what you shared) but to remind us (myself included) that it is not the external act, but the internal wordlview, that is central to what it truly means to be missional/relational.
Peace,
Jamie
Brad,
Thanks for understanding. And thanks for asking for more detail. It will push me to thinking more about this.
Peace,
Jamie
You are right, Jamie. Money isn’t the issue, but the worldview and heart are. Thanks for the reminder. I think I’m coming from some abuses in which speakers wanted nice hotel rooms with a gift basket, meals out at nice restaurants, little direct interaction with people except the pastor, and an honorarium plus an offering – and they wouldn’t go to a church that couldn’t provide these. That just seems anti-relational to me.
I love the example you gave. That’s what I long for.
Mary
Mary,
I share your frustration with this challenge. I recently discussed something similar with a very well known speaker (I’ll leave leave them nameless) who found himself receiving so many requests that he started a board to help decide which invitations to accept. Unfortunately, boards tend to use business values to determine things, such as size and demographics of the group (i.e. only groups larger than 100 people, requiring a significant number of those being pastors) or they institute a fee that eliminates “impulse” or casual invitations, but thus eliminating small ministries such as ours.
Again, I don’t think the board needs to be eliminated, but the values and approach taken should be, plus the speaker should maintain more control on her/his choices. Anyway, I’m rambling… Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
jamie & kim … just keep at modelling the relational. I think that old saying … “easier caught than taught” may be what happens with this ( granted, I am an eternal optimist ). when other parts of the organization or other ministries see how your ldrshp team relates to each other, to challenges, to opportunities eventually they will come asking “how?”
Don,
Wise words and very encouraging. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie