Ecclesiological Formation – An Open Question
A friend recently invited to sit in on a gathering in July made of up of theologians (profs & students) and young adults (which I assume I fall under) to explore a trend they are seeing emerge. Many students, once leaving academy and entering into church ministry seem to stop thinking theologically, falling into business models of church structure and leadership. This gathering is (in part) to explore why this happens and what can be done about it.
I still have a great deal of thinking to do on this topic, but many reasons immediately jump to mind. I believe that the nature of academy, rooted largely in propositional and inductive approaches to education, provide little modelling of organizational formation. Two qualifiers here: first, propositional and inductive educational methods are not inherently bad, but limiting and problematic as over-arching approaches. Second, while academy general does a poor job modelling healthy organizational formation, it does teach a great deal on the ideas and theories of such formation. However, I think we forget how powerful the methods and models of our education play in shaping our wordlview and resultant expressions of organization.
Another factor in this is that the business model is not only a predominant one within the larger Western culture, which is bound to have a significant influence, but a vast portion of church expressions have also adopted such models. Church politics and long-standing models are not easily changed. The bottom line is a still a significant factor for many congregations. To expect students to function outside of this influence without an intentional effort to change the system for/with them is probably too much to ask.
Perhaps the largest influencer in this, and thus one of the more difficult to grapple with, is the worlview that guides most Western Christians. For centuries the church has allowed secular modernism to redefine ecclesiology. Even the perceived separation between ecclesiology and missiology represents a flawed understanding of what the Church is. More recently, the impact of the Industrial Revolution has resulted in a significantly mechanistic worldview when considering organizational formation and development. While this may sound innocuous enough, the implications are devastating to how we view relationships with people in those structures, especially in respect to the nature of Body of Christ.
Finally, I also want to point out that there are aspects where the business world has a great deal of wisdom to offer the Church. Recent developments in organizational development are profoundly spiritual, reflecting ecclesiological truths that we would do well to heed. We cannot allow these models to be our primary (or default) source of formation, but neither should we demonize them.
What do you think? What are some of the factors that contribute to this problem and what can be done to correct it?
Jamie,
this is a great question. i started to answer, but i need to let it work a little longer. i’ll try to get back tomorrow.
I’m reading (along with our local youth pastors network) a book by Andy Stanley called “The next generation leader”. It’s a tiny little book and a bit too business model oriented for me but he does make the point that so many pastors are now expected to be a CEO and not actually a pastor. While the business community does have wisdom to offer, too often, the real stuff of church gets pushed aside for running the corporation.
In our discussion of the book, so many of the youth pastors in this group talk about having no time for prayer, study, reading and real relationships with students because they are expected to produce this and that. One guy was talking about having no time to put his power point together and was kinda shocked when I suggested to just not have power point…if it’s in the way of doing the real stuff. There was a resonance around the whole group. Like, “oh, yeah! We shouldn’t be slaves to all those things we are supposed to do.”
But the reality is, expectations from parents, elders, senior staff and just this pervading sense of “this is the way it’s supposed to be” actually does put on the pressure. The whole system is flawed…all the externals anyway. As long as finances are held over minister’s heads, the congregation will put pressure on the staff to produce like a business. Honestly, money corrupts the system. Used to, ministers lived under a vow of poverty and their needs were taken care of by the congregation so the minister could do ministering things. But with staff competing for salaries and “produce or you’re fired” is over their heads, we will continue to pass on the ‘business as usual’ way of doing things.
Cindy,
I look forward to it.
Peace,
Jamie
Chris,
Sad, but so true. Well articulated. Ant suggestions on where to start for change?
Peace,
It’s an interesting Q – i have a few of my own in response:
…how many students on leaving the academy and entering the world of church actually have the ability to influence the structures they inhereit?
How much investment is there in the church/denomination in their ongoing theological development?
How much time do these people get to engage in theology?
How much emphasis is placed on not just the theology learned but how praxis/encounters should then inform fresh questions?
Are they in an environment where actually just communicating the basics is challenging enough? where pastoring takes up most time?
How can they pass on their skills such that others learn and benefit to “feed themselves”?
Paul,
All good questions. Care to weigh in on some options? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Peace,
Jamie
Thanks Jamie, i’m just thinking that a lot of folk working in churches fall into the model because there is no real “theological development/investment”
Paul,
That’s the tricky thing. Even those students who come from very strong theological development in academia don’t find ways to translate that into active ecclesiology.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, I’m glad you added that business can add to the picture. As a token business bloke, I kind of have to stick up for it a bit
It seems to me many of the things we do in business are helpful:
- we have a clear idea of who we are and what we’re about
- we prepare and plan and resource appropriately
- we develop people and realise that succession is something worthy of a lot of time
- we offer people new experiences and constant learning opportunities
- we invest for the future
- we are waking up to the idea of corporate social responsibility (I know, I know….)
Anyway, I too blanch at some of the church books written as if it’s a corporate, but lets take what’s good from business and use that to our benefit right?
How did you incorporate this into the bookstore? I’ve just read your update letter tonight and I hadn’t realised you were doing free coffee.
Duncan,
Many business sources have been wonderful resources to us. Some of your points, however, I would say need qualification. For example, resourcing and investment are important, but we have to be VERY careful we do not approach people as resources. That is the foundation of slavery still alive and well in the business world. Just a thought.
The bookstore will probably not offer free coffee, but coffee by donation. In many ways, we are not going try and run it like a business, especially given our neighbourhood. We want there to be few demands on our neighbours, so making money at the venture needs to be low on our priority list, at least at first. We’ll see.
Peace,
Jamie
I wonder if the gathering will start by defining exactly what they think is the “right” theological approach to “church structure and leadership”… last time I checked, you pick pick any of three and defend it from Scripture. Could be reading in here, but it looks to me like presuppositions gone awry if the basic premise is that drawing anything from business is inherently bad.
otoh as you know, I’m very opposed to the apostolic-pastoral-ceo model, but some of the latest waves of business thinking has several notions that are more inherently Biblical than are the ways many churches approach the issue. The context I came from eschewed business thinking in the church, but built it that way anyhow.
I dunno, maybe the presupposition just rubs me the wrong way… it’ built on a false dichotomy.
BroMay,
The people organizing are from a high church tradition, but participants will vary in background. I am sure there are some presupposition issues (as is inevitable), but they are by no means anti-business. So, as that is not their basic premise and the false dichotomy is perceived, not actual, I put the question back out there.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie,
I’m going to ask a question in response to your question. sound familiar?
Has there been a time and place in which the Church has existed freely (or with governmental blessing)that it did not also allowed secular thinking and/or business models to redefine its ecclesiology to some extent?
Cindy,
As the post mentioned in the last paragraph, I think there are many aspects of business modeling that is helpful to the church. However, I think there are instances throughout history where ecclesiology is not primarily defined by such a worldview. It is how we can move forward appropriately with these different influences.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, the false dichotomy still exists — the preamble notes the group is meeting to see “what can be done about it” and you’ve asked, “What are some of the factors that contribute to this problem and what can be done to correct it?” I think the presuppositions are clear, and they betray the false dichotomy: “stop thinking theologically, falling into business models” i.e., that business models are not compatible with theological thinking. There’s no imperative to pick one or the other in an either/or choice.
An open question of course would be why this is happening, what they’re seeing that is attractive or preferable to what the academy has taught, whether the two are incompatible, and what adjustments may be required to the academic and practitioner’s models. The end result of the conversation may not change, but more confidence could be placed in it because the original questions aren’t so leading.
I think the request for input is good, and by all means I’m not suggesting you withdraw it. I would however suggest starting further back (if they’re willing) and examining what’s so objectionable about the business models and why so that the “problem” isn’t so nebulous. Until you’ve done that, I suspect that the panel members won’t be starting from the same point.
Cindy (comment 13) asks a great question though — given that one could argue that since Constantine, almost every church structure and leadership model we’ve seen has been influenced by external examples or input as much or more than they have been by the Bible.
BroMay,
I was hoping my closing paragraph and later clarification would clear this up, but apparently I have not written it well enough. Let me try to rephrase.
Neither this group nor myself believe that to think theologically means to stop thinking in a business model. Neither are we saying that external, cultural influences on the shape of church are inherently bad. Rather, it is the unhealthy primacy that the business model receives.
So, chalk it up to my poor writing skills (I have been medicated for the past week from a lingering illness), but there is no false dichotomy at play in their conference. I hope that clears it up.
Peace,
Jamie
That’s helpful. I’ve posted some thoughts on my blog as well, so your question might be highlighted there too… the nature of the questions that this sparks for me are quite different than your purpose here, so I didn’t want to hijack your comments ;^)
Certain of my thoughts still hold – they need to start by defining what is good and what is bad about the business models to which they’re reacting. Absent that, it’ll be inevitable that not everyone in the room will be trying to solve exactly the same problem. Assuming they’ve got a common ecclesiological perspective, a definition of that is perhaps less critical.
It seems to me one of the presuppositions that makes the business model problematic is the whole sacred/secular split. If how we organize the church, manage money, pay salaries to pastors, etc. are essentially “secular” concerns separate from the strictly “sacred” concerns of preaching/teaching/evangelism/mission, then we will default to the wisdom of the surrounding culture to manage those issues. And then that way of thinking creeps into the rest of what the church does. If the pastor is CEO when it comes to managing staff, then he’ll act as CEO regarding the church’s mission.
Of course, one could be really cantankerous and say that the whole system of paying certain people to lead/minister in the church sets up the inevitability of business structures and business thinking — not to mention the fact that such theological gems as “the priesthood of all believers” get undermined pretty quickly from that point.
BTW, I came across an interesting post from John Stackhouse recently, where he makes the point that our theology of sin should inform our organizational structures in terms of limiting the power of charismatic leaders — just one example of the lack of theological thinking, I suppose. (http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/leadership-structures-as-if-we-believed-what-we-preach/#more-62)
BroMay & Maria,
Thanks for your input, both. I have been close to removing this post as a result of my obvious failure to communicate the intent of the meeting/question. Alas…
Peace,
Jamie
This is late and probably no one will read it, but being from the group that invited Jamie I’ll throw my two cents in.
First of all, as far as the dichotomy issue perhaps some history will help. Our church has grown exponentially over the past several years, mostly young adults. This has happened for what we think are two reasons, 1) deep theological teaching 2) deep liturgical worship. In light of this growth, our rector has turned to business models to cope with the ever changing and challenging organizational needs of the parish. In his view this has been a wholly acceptable thing to do. There is no sense that business models are bad.
Our gathering is not about how to save the church from business models in favour of theology, but rather how can we help pastors think theologically about the business models they use. This is actually only a small part of what we are worried about, which is an apparent lack of theological depth in churches at all, which should, at least in part, be the pastor’s responsibility. Perhaps in our invitation to Jamie we stressed the business model side of things, but we are really interested in how to bridge the gap between the academy and the church, how do we bring theology back into the church and how do we remind the academic theologians that they are writing theology for the church. Church without theology (meaning Christian thought)is not the church and theology without the church is not theology. We are using the discussion of the business model stuff as a way into the discussion, but it is not the whole discussion.
Sorry to Jamie for our inability to communicate that. We hope you still love us! We think you’re pretty neat.
Don,
Thanks for the clarity. I may repost using your comment.
Peace,
Jamie
Don,
This presents the situation quite differently and is very helpful in reframing the question. Sounds to me like you have a very good approach to the issues.
Thanks for stepping in to clarify.
Don, an exciting direction! More broadly to me your question asks
I’ll try again. More broadly to me your question asks “how does the Church do theology?” The academy is only one small part of that process, and the pastor or leadership team is also only a part, albeit key players in their ability to engender and empower a wider conversation.. Incidentally, Alan Roxburghs recent article on the ALLELON website where he talks about Michelle de Certeau is closely connected to this question. He writes, in part,
“The work of the theologian is to enter… pitch his or her tent beside, the
local church and its contexts in order to attend to the actual, real, lived narratives of the ordinary
men and women who form those gatherings of God’s people. In the language of Paul Ricoeur the
theological task today is to begin with a hermeneutics of appreciation which seeks to discern – like a
poet offering language that gives meaning to people’s experience by inviting them into a space of
new possibilities or a mid-wife detecting the rhythms of a birth that has begun but not pressed out -
the narratives under the narratives among the faithful living in a strange liminal place.
This listening cannot be from some position outside and above the life of ordinary people in our
churches as answers and the actions based in some universal, abstract truth. It is a listening that can
only take place by being with and among a people.
Incidentally, the broader issue Roxburgh addresses in the paper is WHY it is so critical to move the discussion about missional engagement from the realm of professionals and academics and into the pew. The link is.. http://www.allelon.org/articles/article.cfm?id=363&page=1
Len,
Excellent stuff. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
thanks Jamie, i agree – the academy is a poor place to experience ecclesiology and ecclesiology is a poor place to re-encounter the academy…
Paul,
Thanks. Check out my most recent post, as I re-tackled this one with more clarity as to my intention behind the question.
Peace,
Jamie
I have a couple of observations. I want to apologize ahead of time for the length of my ramblings and the simplistic generalizations. I hope they don’t offend.
The academy should be a place of blue sky biblical thinking – wondering what God wants to do with the church, imagining how the world can be changed because of a church that is doing what Jesus is calling them to do. It should be preparing people to understand their culture and see it with the eyes of Jesus. Instead the academy is often trying to prepare people for what the church looked like 20 years ago. So when students graduate from seminary they are often unprepared for the reality of church and culture as it is.
My experience upon leaving the academy was that it didn’t prepare me to be relevant in the world or the church. It didn’t prepare me to do theology in a real world environment. It didn’t teach me what people were really like or how to talk to them. It didn’t teach me about suffering and it didn’t tell me how much administration was involved in running a typical church. It didn’t tell me how political church life could be.
It did teach me to believe that the meat of the Word was a correct understanding of Reformed theology instead of humility, servanthood, death to self and learning how to hear and obey the voice of God. It taught me to preach theologically correct sermons instead of a message that changed my heart. It taught me that it was possible to study and understand the Bible in the original language and still be far from, and cold towards, the Word of God.
The academy lives in an ivory tower and the church has created an imaginary world in which to live. The church’s imaginary world parallels the business world in that they are both removed from real people. The business world’s success is measured by the bottom line and whatever it takes to get ahead. It uses people to make money and beat the competition. It needs effective leaders to make the tough decisions to grow the company – even if it means firing a few people or closing a few factories.
A church’s bottom line is often growth, measured by attendance, large buildings, many programs and a big budget. To accomplish this a good leader needs to be in place to make the tough decisions – even if it means firing a few people or eliminating some programs. Churches often use people to improve their bottom line. The leadership (pastor) is expected to put in lots of overtime to make it happen. The organization’s health and success is usually more important than the welfare of a few people who may become disgruntled. So a CEO type leader can be effective at running a large church. Firing staff when he needs to, getting people to run programs they are not gifted at (because we have to have a nursery/Sunday school/bus ministry/etc.) even if it means people are hurt or burned out in the process.
My response is that churches can learn much from many of the business models out there – especially the move toward teams and flatter, smaller organizations. However I think we made it the ideal that churches are to be big organizations instead of smaller organisms. A big organization needs a well-trained CEO. Most pastors are not effective in that role. A smaller group needs a father or a shepherd. The role of the academy is to dream. The role of the church is to disciple people to pastor in their place of business so that businesses can fulfill their role of providing honourable and equitable employment that gives value to people.
pastor@hillschurch.ca
Hey Michael,
Thanks for your very personal and thorough contribution. While you over generalized some things (as you pointed out yourself in your intro), I think you present a fair and challenging look at what is and should be. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie