Leaders, Elders, Contest & Free Stuff
Simply make a comment on this post and you will be entered to win this original watercolor and ink painting of mine. The image size is 2.5″x3.5″, the official size of an ACEO. It is gallery-valued at $50. The contest closes Sunday midnight Atlantic time. You can comment as often as you like, but your name will only be entered into the draw once. The winner will be announced Monday morning. Have fun!
I’ve been thinking lots lately about terminology. For years our community has used the term “leader”, “leadership”, and “leadership team”. These terms do not belong in a community such as this anymore! “Leadership” gives the impression of directing others, telling them how to behave, someone in front of all the others, and that there is a goal to be strived for and conquered. It conjures up images of ambition, competition, manipulation, coercion, exploitation and success. It breeds discontentment for the present reality. It is based on a business model of people-management and is so strongly goal-oriented that it damages the beauty of what is. Love, in this milieu, is in danger of being used as a commodity to achieve the wishes of the visionary leaders.
I’m now thinking that we need to return to the word “elder”. It is old-fashioned, I know, but I think it better describes what community is about. “Elder” is not so much about movement outward towards a goal, but is more about growth and maturity. It is about responsibility, service and care. It is about acknowledging the hard-earned wisdom of someone who has a natural influence among the people that isn’t fabricated or artificial, but tangible and practiced. There is less danger of using people to achieve ends. Rather, people are respected as the end in themselves. Love, rather than a means to an end, becomes the end itself. These are my thoughts at the moment.
art, church, contest, elders, free, leadership, naked Share This
It’s interesting you find so many negative connotations in the word “leadership”. For me, leadership is a positive thing, or at least it can be and should be. When I think of leadership, I think of “leadership by example”. Setting a good example, being a role model, helping organizations and people find their dream, achieve their goals and build their character. I think that kind of leadership is valuable, and not always present in the corporate world. In my experience people want that kind of leadership. And being an elder does not necessarily qualify one for leadership, and being a “younger” does not always exclude one. Lots of ways to look at this subject!
Gorgeous painting.
Well, you motivated me to go to the thesaurus and look up “leader”
…how about
baton, bellwether, big wheel, bigwig, boss, captain, chief, chieftain, commander, conductor, controller, counsellor, dean, dignitary, director, doyen, eminence, exec, foreman, forerunner, general, governor, guide, harbinger, head, head man, herald, honcho, kingpin, lead, lion*, luminary, maestro, manager, master, notability, notable, number one, officer, pacesetter, pilot, pioneer, precursor, president, principal, rector, ringleader, ruler, shepherd, skipper, superintendent, superior.
For your purposes, I like “Shepherd”, but “maestro” has a nice ring to it.
YWAM has embraced the concept of Spiritual Eldership as an intentional value and practice within the mission. While different from the role practiced in the local church, it is essentially a recognition of spiritual authority based on relational and proven experience as opposed to positional leadership. We are still working out what that looks like, but it has been a significant shift.
Peace,
Jamie
Your post sent me back to research a little about the word “Elder” in the Bible. My lexicon points to two primary New Testament uses - in terms of age and rank. I come from a tradition in which I am called a “Pastor”. I’m really not accostomed to the terms “leadership team” or “elder”.
As for me, I don’t care much for titles at all. I don’t discourage titles, neither do I encourage them. I am very happy (and feel no disrespect) having a relationship with my church family in which someone feels comfortable enough to just call me “Brian”. In fact, I believe it’s a compliment.
the word “leadership” holds a very negative meaning for me. It was a license to know all of my business and to speak in to my life in ways that were inappropriate.
Hmm it definitely is an interesting post you have here.
Just like some above, I do not find the word leader to be negative, or to connote any negative images.
In fact, when I think of elder, I think of someone who is out of reach, who is perhaps to old to relate with, someone who is over me and who is looking down on me.
That of course is my own opinion, but the world elder for me holds more of a negative tone then leader does.
It’s funny how it can mean one thing for one person and another for someone else!
But such a GORGEOUS painting!
I was going to argue with you when I first started reading, but when you got to the “elder” part, I caved in. I think it’s a good idea. Although Brad Shorr has some valid points. And “shepherd” was the word I was leaning towards originally, too.
I think at the end of the day it’s a simple case of semantics. Labels are labels. It’s the spirit in which roles are practiced that impacts a community.
Now the term “board member”….that’s just plain bad.
Hmmm….I liked what Brian had to say!
I would come from the perspective that leader, elder, pastor, deacon, king, queen, president, prime minister …. are titles that in themselves are not good or bad. It is the people with hold the office.
Mark my words, “elder” or “leader” you will still have the same issues.
Wow I think this message is so powerful ..it is soooo true..”ELDER” is maturity, love and responsibility. Leading life by example–speaks louder than words.
I so agree with what you have said.
Elder is one who is looked on with wisdom and maturity. Serving others with love and passion and who is respected..
Brings me back to my roots…
well said Dave love it…
Leadership is vastly over-rated. Here’s what I’ve learned after 25 years as a chef…
A really good restaurant can function for a month with no chef before his absence becomes apparent to the clientele. That kitchen, however, can only function for about two weeks with no sous-chef. One week without a line cook and the customers will surely begin to suffer, but that same restaurant is absolutely in the weeds halfway through the first night without a dishwasher.
Unless someone cleans the toilets and fixes the furnace and vacuums the carpets and shovels the snow off the walkways, church ain’t gonna happen. We - myself included - want to be leaders but not servants. Not really. Or is it just that we in church place too much emphasis on being a leader, and not nearly enough on being a servant? Jesus’ last great act of teaching with his disciples was to wash their feet. He then went out and died for our sins. Kind of makes the ‘leadership’ we know to be suspect by default, don’t you think?
The Bible says the key to everything is”LOVE” ;;;love of Cheist;love one another;love your enemy;love your neighbour;;LOVE;LOVE;LOVE:dO EVERYTHING IN LOVE
Elder seems old and out of reach to me. It seems that titles aren’t used a lot in our (your) church, anyways. You’re just Dave. And that’s a good thing!
But, there is occasional reference to the leadership team, but even if it was the shepherd team or the elder team (or team of elders), I think the competitive connotations could still exist.
In this case, renaming the ‘team’ part might be more useful, if you’re looking to change title connotations. How about ‘club’ ? Or something more like that? Although you usually have to pay to belong to a club, which can imply status…
Going back to Abundant Blessings comment, maybe counsellors or pacesetters would be a better fit…
in light of what you say about love,
the tree, in your painting, is still home to the birds, even though it is naked and seemingly barren. the environment is cold and desolated by an expansive cover of snow. but the earth is not dead, it is in process–the physicality of the lush seasons (spring and summer) can never stay but it can be renewed–every year is a different green, the flowers and particular leaves are not identical to years past but they express the same life, the same miracle of biological being. in this way, their is also sustenance.
the beauty of spring is promised by the magnificent red skies and the birds know this. they can feel it and they are meant to comprehend it. they know something that we often forget–we are home and we can love it, and we are living, even if we cannot see or feel the fruits of life. we must know that spring will come, that we will be blessed by the sight of life’s wellness or else we would have no place to go or to endure–environment and the circumstances of life would be meaningless and ever fleeting to us. change would be our source of security, but the sound of the birds singing-and it is like a new song to us- and the sight of their faithfulness to our place of mourning gives us hope–we will see another glorious sunrise over a lush, fertile plain. we will run over it again, bare footed, maybe naked but unashamed.
the birds are seated in the branches because they have returned knowing that life’s radiance will glow again. they are waiting, together. and the first signs of the inevitability of spring, common to beast and man, are the brightness of red skies; they overwhelm the senses and shine brightly into our crying souls, “awaken! sing yourselves, the birds are stuck on simple melody! but you ,men, now you can sing!”
dave, where are the dancing people in your art? (i’m challenging you)
gotta say i am loving these comments.
I’m without words, really; so I’ll agree, do a bit of back patting (Great post, Dave), and wait for others to post comments so that I can selfishly enjoy them.
“If your gift is to encourage others, be encouraging. If it is giving, give generously. If God has given you leadership ability, take the responsibility seriously. And if you have a gift for showing kindness to others, do it gladly.” Romans 12:8
I don’t know what you are actually saying Dave. I think you are playing semantics. I would hazzard to say that some churches are not growing due to a lack of leadership.
Could it be that your locked in the 70s Dave? Ahhh, sit around and smoke pot and enjoy the scenery. Peace man! Let things just happen Dude! Hey, there are days when I would love too! MAybe next time you come up and we go to the cottage!!
Leaders lead! Godly leaders lead “not lording it over others”. If we have a gift of leadership (not my words) we need to lead and take it seriously.
Listen, I had elders in the church I pastored in BC who were corrupt and controlling. They loved the title Elder. They basked in the glory of position.
By switching titles Dave will not change human nature. What I would suggest is good, godly teaching on leadership. There is enough in the Bible to show the good, bad and the ugly.
If the leader doesnt want to lead - who will? People will always be attracted to someone - guaranteed. If it isn’t the leader - it will be someone who will take a church off the rails!!!
My contention is that “leader” does imply taking people somewhere. I’m against that! Semantics aren’t just semantics. Labels are important. Jesus refused them: Why do you call me “good”? Why do you call me “teacher”? Buddha: “If you meet the Buddha, kill him!” Krishnamurti: “I abhor appreciation!” Elder primarily means older one, therefore more experienced and wiser. Leader primarily means ahead of the pack. It is time, I think, to not only relieve the reins off the church, but to remove the reins, bit, saddle, and stirup altogether. Free range!
Even wild horse herds have a hierarchy naturally set up to lead them to safety, nourishment, shelter, and to protect them. Interestingly enough, when wild horses are on the move, the lead stallion is in the rear! This is one example from nature that shows that a leader isn’t necessarily ahead of the pack.
Really interesting discussion!!
WOOHOO!!! YEP free range church.. sign me up!!!!!
We are so untraditional to choose such a traditional term as “elder”.
Giddy up Dave….go bareback and let your hair blow in the wind!!! Hope the horse follows your commands!! If not, it will be a hell of a ride!
hmmm. went through this thought process back when we planted.
I would share my opinion but I don’t want to be disqualified for the draw since I have yet to win a single contest you’ve had.
I do think the discussion is really about the connotations of ‘leader’ and ‘elder’ not leaders really exist.
In my humble opinion…if a word has bad connotations, especially myself, instead of avoiding it, I try to reclaim it. Find out what it really means and make a point to define and explain it and most importantly, live it out. I am not about to lose valuable words out of my vocabulary just because of bad experiences! Bad experiences are such a bad foundation on which to make any decisions.
I am a reluctant leader, but I am a leader. To me, it means I am not afraid to go first. When things are scarey and we don’t know exactly how things will turn out - I will go first. When God asks for big steps of risk in the areas of humility, sacrifice, or love - I need to go first. When he asks us to trust him and not be afraid - God help me, I want to be first. How can anyone see the way if someone is not willing to go first?
As for the free range analogy, it is a known fact that animals under the care of a kind master live much longer and are much healthier than those in the wild. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for freedom and wildness and exploring everything that God has for me in this rich life experience, but my freedom must be defined by Him and his terms, not by my misperceptions based on watching others or bad past experiences.
Matte, I love what you are saying here. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
(OOOO!! OOOO!! Pick me! Pick me!) ::handraised::
I’m a little saddened by this thread. As a lover of language, I am disturbed when a word becomes corrupted from mistreatment. I have always seen leadership as a positive. I believe it’s a gift, just like any other talent or ability. The problem starts when you take some guy and tell him he’s a leader because he has a seminary degree. Some of the most bitter arguments I’ve had with my (former) pastor/(current) father-inlaw have been over this very word. While I see leadership as an opportunity to bring diverse people voluntarily to a place they want to be (together), he still sees it as coercing people to do what he wants them to do.
Max DePress in his books on leadership talks abot the role of elders as part of the overall focus on: Respect for the future, regard for present, understanding of the past
the future requires humility to face what we can’t control;
the present requires attention to all the people to whom we’re accountable;
the past gives us the opportunity to build on the work of our elders.
love the colour wash background
“. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for freedom and wildness and exploring everything that God has for me in this rich life experience, but my freedom must be defined by Him and his terms”
– i think by changing or removing the term “leader” we are more apt to be open to freedom defined by God’s terms then the terms set out by said leaders.
Great painting Dave! and i agree with your thoughts on a name change, to me, not having any past experience with the term “elder”, good or bad, it impies to me spiritual maturity and experience, and the people in our church that i would go to in time of crisis model that spiritual maturity and experience whether or not they are on the team.
I used to view “leadership” in a positive light, but my experiences with pastors and businesspeople and self-help addicts has changed my perceptions of the word. I checked out the word “leader” at www.websters-online-dictionary.com and found the definitions interesting:
Leader:
1. A person who rules or guides or inspires others.
2. A featured article of merchandise sold at a loss in order to draw customers.
I had forgotten about that second definition. The concept of being “sold at a loss” reminded me of Christ’s sacrifice. He was given away to draw people to God. He is a “freebie” to us at great cost to God so that we may have abundant life.
So many people today have abused positions of leadership. They want the position and the rights, but not the responsibilities. So many are addicted to growth at the expense of the individual heart. So many have become too busy to listen and too insulated to experience the reality of the group. That’s why many of us cringe at the word “leader.”
To me, the word “elder” has a better connotation. It implies that with passing years, there has probably been loss of some kind (even if only of youthful energy and time) so that an elder would be able to understand my own losses. But an elder has also moved through the loss and can take my hand and guide me through or shine a light on my path and nudge me forward.
I’m tired of leaders who are hellbent on dragging a congregation down a path of their choice and pointing “resistors” to the door. I’m hungry for elders who will sit cross-legged beside the path with me and point out the things I’ve missed along the way.
I still say it’s arguing semantics because in essence everyone seems to have a good grasp of what makes a good, um, er, “what-cha-ma-call-it”. The problem seems to be the term, and in reality does it really matter what they are called? There are rotten elders, and there are rotten leaders. The buck doesn’t stop at the “title”.
Perhaps a new term would solve the problem, such as ‘fingledorfs’ or something?! Not a very respectable term, but it would incite humility.
Some of you have obviously been jaded under leadership. Do you honestly think - and someone please answer me - by changing the name from “leader” to “elder” will change the climate in your church?
This blog today is like watching a dog chase its own tail.
It’s not just a name change y’all. It is a change of expectations and description of roles, not just a label. I don’t think the church NEEDS leaders, and maybe shouldn’t have them, in our present understanding of the word.
Great painting!
An “Elder” will still, in essence, lead and provide some form of leadership.
Call it what you will, but if your providing any sort of guidance, you’re leading.
I just came across a nice list of Bible references about leadership here:
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/churchleader.html
There are some really good points brought out as you go through the list, like this one:
I Tim. 5:17 - “let the elders who rule well be considered worthy”
Lots to think about…
Jesus didn’t concern himself with titles because he had a God appointed mission and he stayed true to that path. People recongnized his greatness as a leader even though he compared himself to a shepherd….Because of his leadership we are called follwers of Christ. When Jesus left this earth, he left behind leaders to inspire others to follow him…
Unfortunately, this isn’t the days of the early church. We have buildings with people of various backgrounds filled with hopes, fears and incredible pain who sit facing forward to the front awaiting that nugget of wisdom that comes from the so called leadership of the church.
I’m not sure that church as we know it today is how God intended it…but it is what it is. I know there are many new ways to do church….how we do church isn’t nearly as important as how we live out our faith.
Embrace your annointing…there is nothing fearful to the followers about leadership if the intentions are pure and filled with love. Being fearless and having the wisdom to lead even when all around you people are shaking their heads in confusion takes guts. Surrounding yourself with other visionaries who are fearless yet humble in attempting to walk that often narrow path of rightousness leading to freedom in Christ demands a leader!
What I love about Jesus is his choice of a leadership team! One betrayed him, others scoffed at his miracles, they even fell asleep when he needed them most. But, he knew he had the right team around him to build a body of believers…they must have tested his patience and endurance many times…but he believed in them and never faltered from his own path.
I don’t care what you call it…but I need leadership even though I consider myself a non-conformist. I admire the guts it takes to lead…especially when someone like yourself truly has a love for the people in your care.
David, I’ll buy your statement “I don’t think the church NEEDS leaders” if you can promise me that the leaderless church will not have any manipulators “from below”.
hm. no deal.
“I don’t think the church NEEDS leaders, and maybe shouldn’t have them, in our present understanding of the word.”
I beg to differ…..the church does need godly leaders…in my present understanding of the word “leader”.
Whats in the water in New Brunswick?
Let me put it simply: The church needs a leader like a family needs a leader.
If a”leader” is to be seen as beneficial. then that person has to be willing to learn. Seems the term is exclusive, as a leader does not necessarily ask for guidance from those he is leading. Can the word guidance, or guide be subsituted. I think then we can leave the arena that all learning be dispelled by a person. Guidance can be found in the stars and aroma’s, and our own intuitive personalities, and a myriad of sources as opposed to the interpretattions of a single source……the “leadership team” is deep in our own resources, to be shared and explored in a collective prism. What’s your favorite color Dave?
rainbow
I have mixed feelings about both “leader” or “elder”. But I like the idea that a name change can help to define the end of something or the beginning of something new. And I like the suggestion that we teach about biblical leadership again to try to recover some truth and hold our own experiences up to the light again.
Exactly….glad to see you come around Dave! Way to go Grasshopper!
John,
“Do you honestly think - and someone please answer me - by changing the name from “leader” to “elder” will change the climate in your church/”
Leader or elder. I have served under great leaders and under men who need a full scale rescue mission to get out of a wet paper bag. The ladder all had one thing in common. They were after their own interest at the expense of those they lead. The former also had one thing in common. They put every member of their unit before themselves and saw their leadership position as the ultimate form of service. They will make themselves the least to become the greatest.
If using the word elder vs. leader helps to remind those in these positions of the service and sacrifice that it requires then I think it is useful. It is semantics, and in my present understanding of the world, fallen man leans on semantics to try to justify poor actions or performances in the world and in the church. The church does need Godly leaders, that’s true. In the military there are several words we use interchangeably with leader. Sergeant, Captain, General. In the church it could be deacon, elder, pastor. No matter what word you use, it has to remind folks that the word means service, not to be served.
Another lap after the tail complete, Whose next?
Great painting, David.
john: how did i come around? families don’t need leaders.
In our church what used to be called the Church Council is now called the Servant Leadership Team. Since the United Methodist Church uses the term “Elder” to refer to ordained clergy, we probably wouldn’t ever use it to refer to church leadership per say. When we renamed our committees a few years back, I felt that adding “Servant” to the leadership team name would be a constant reminder that all leaders needed a servant heart.
Keep up the good work David.
I think you’re on to something here David. I have never thought about this, no matter what some people assume, the word leader is definately more likely to give the wrong image of the role.
Plus - I’m old-fashioned, and I appreciate the old biblical terminology and when one says they are an elder, I can think of what the bible tells me an elder is. When I’m told someone is a ‘leader’ I have no idea what to expect.
Oh my goodness Dave……you cant be serious? I think we need to come to a point that leader/elder is semantics according to ones experience. I have had bad experiences with elders - so does that mean I change the term?
I would reiterate my point that was echoed by Kathy.
Do a series on what godly, biblical leadership is. Don’t change titles or names as a knee jerk reaction to some asshole leaders out there (opps…did I say that?).
There are many leaders out there that have their ego in check…and have a servant attitude. There are elders out there that misuse and corrupt their position. That is human nature. It is going to happen no matter what glorious, spiritual title one is given.
This brings up another issue with the church. Everything we do is through the glasses of the churched folk. The inner sanctum. The unchurched wouldnt even know what an Elder is, except by our heritage standards - that being Native Elders - who I would say lead - hmmmm with a Chief!
I think the church would be better served if it taught on Biblical leadership. Why? Because the people who come to church own their own companies, are managers, leaders in the marketplace. Wouldn’t it be better if they learned the godly principles of leadership that they can apply. If someone came to a church where they were told the word “leader” has negative connotations to it - and here they are a leader - it would be somewhat offensive.
Teach them how Jesus LED. Teach them how Paul LED - all the others.
I never quite thought about the “Leadership/Elder” thing the way you have just framed it. Your thoughts seem right on at a first read - and I’ll be thinking about it and discussing it more - starting in 5 minutes with my weekly brainstorming session with my Pastor (I’m the music director, he’s the priest). We make up two members of the “Eldership” team at St. Peter’s Anglican (www.stpetersvmr.org).
Blessings. Thanks for throwing out the ideas for the rest of us to ruminate upon.
Stephen Mullin
I don’t follow you Dave. In the family unit, are not the parent(s) the “leaders” of the home? Can you clarify what you mean?
I know this will is a long response and may seem off topic - but please read it and digest is the context of “nakedpastor’s” discussion. The best Elders I have ever worked with were in a House Church setting. No one called them Elders - but we knew who they were. We all sat around the table - and if an Elder needed to elder, he stood up and did so - but he was not only marked by his depth, wisdom, compassion and love - but his earnest haste - he could not wait to sit down again amongst us and be one of us -all of us at the feet of the Master Builder.
John’s remarks on Rom 12:8 are indeed interesting. I believe the instruction was for anyone with a gift “to do it”, not be called by it or identified by it!
Well - the remarks I first referred to are below.
Apostles—Slaves of Christ
Why do some apostles make themselves into super stars? And conversely, why do some folks claim there are no apostles today? Paul identifies it as one of the five gifts needed for the building up and maturing of the church. Why would some exalt this gift ? And why would some believe that God has taken this gift away? The answer is centered in a misunderstanding of what an apostle was in the first place (in the Greco-Roman social context), and is based on a hierarchical understanding that places apostles at the top of the church structure when the New Testament clearly places them at the bottom. The understanding of leadership in the New Testament that should frame our understanding of apostles is the foot-washing, low-status slave (John 13), and the “race to the bottom” to become a “slave of all” (Matthew 20:20ff; 1 Corinthians 9:19).
An “apostle” in the ancient world is simply someone who is sent (Greek: apostolos). An apostle was someone who was sent to conduct business on the behalf of another. There was—originally speaking—nothing religious about them. They were normally an unvalued slave, who was expendable.
Travel in the ancient world was dangerous, and something that individuals did not choose lightly. Who would have the right to send someone on their behalf? A slave owner or a governmental or military commander. The person sent—the apostle—did not have a choice. In the case of the government or military, the apostle sent with orders normally would be a part of an armed entourage. The slave-apostle would not have such protection. The master would pick the slave he could most afford to lose, and send that one to conduct his business in some extended location. The apostle-slave might be the same as the lowest household slave who was given the shameful duty of washing feet (see John 13). Mattering least, and therefore sent.
Paul identifies himself as one such sent-slave in many ways in his letters: “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). Paul’s most common self-description throughout his letters is: “I am a slave who is sent by Jesus to non-Jews to communicate the good news that the Kingdom of God has come in Jesus.” English readers of the Bible find it easy to overlook this important aspect of Paul’s self-understanding, since the 190 different Greek terms used for slavery in the New Testament are sanitized to “servant.” This is not a very appropriate translation, since in Paul’s day 1/3rd of the population of the Roman empire were masters who owned slaves, 1/3rd of the people were slaves, and 1/3rd were former slaves. Paul makes it clear what he means: slavery to Christ is about exclusive ownership—Christ is master/lord (kurios is the simple word for master-owner of a slave). “Am I now trying to win the approval of people or of God? Or am I seeking to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s slave” (Galatians 1:10).
Another problem in understanding how the word “apostle” is used in the Bible is the medieval pictures we have in our minds of the twelve disciples of Jesus with halos around their heads. They were high status people with a lot of power, and there were only a few of them. This is a complete revisionistic interpretation of what an original apostle was. “Apostle” was not a title for a high status leadership position. Before and after Jesus “apostles” were low status slaves with no power of their own, and they were as common as dishwashers are today. If we practiced slavery like they did in the ancient world, when you said “apostle” today no one would think of the manager, owner or executive of a restaurant. They would think of the dishwashers and busboys. “Apostle” was not a claim to high status or authority, but a claim to low status and expendability. When you attached the words “of Christ” this communicated whose business and authority the apostle was operating under. Christ is the boss, he sent the apostle and, when the apostle speaks, he is merely the conduit.
“Apostolic” is not a scriptural term. If I were speaking scripturally, I would have explained why slave-apostles (like helps, giving, mercy, etc.) were common gifts then, and should be now. There were many apostles in the New Testament who were not the Twelve or Paul, who didn’t author scripture, and would not have considered the gifting a title, status or privilege. What we need more than anything is a release of these kind of slave-apostles for the mission of Jesus to the lost and hurting. God is a sending God and commands his followers to go to those who have lost their way, not waiting for them to come to us.
Many leaders have heard the buzz and read the books and would like to be “apostolic in their leadership” and yet remain in-charge, in safety and security, in the cushy-comfort of some Christian bunker. Can’t be done. To be an apostle is to become expendable, low status, and exposed to ridicule and insecurity in this life: “For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. We are fools for Christ…” (1 Corinthians 4:9,10).
Apostles are given by God as a gift to the church and the world (Ephesians 4:11), and are needed most desperately. A church without apostles (and prophets, for that matter) is a fire without the flame. What’s wrong with this Body? We have severed an essential limb of apostles through intellectualism, religious control and the flesh (and therefore most gifts lie dormant and unoffered to God—the role of apostles is a mainstay in equipping the Body for service and maturity; Ephesians 4:11ff). Most apostles are not found in the church-as-we-know-it, and that is why the flame is burning hot elsewhere. Jesus is the boss—as He was sent, so He is sending these He owns to suffer and serve in order to make known the presence and coming fullness of His Kingdom. Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church-as-God-wants-it (Ephesians 2:20; 3:5-6; 4:11).
We need them to be released. They are little “a” and little “p” apostles and prophets, nobodies who have become somebody to God through Christ. We are not talking about a new version of the “one man show” that plagues the church-as-we-know-it. They are little “a” and little “p” apostles and prophets, but capital “S” on the end: “And God gave some to be apostleS, some to be prophetS…” We don’t need more individualistic superstars. We need examples of what it means to “submit yourself to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21).
Please Lord, send workers into your abundant harvest!
Brian Dodd (Doctor of New Testament Studies, Sheffield University) is the author of “Empowered Church Leadership: Ministry in the Spirit According to Paul [Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1991]. That book carries the phrase “The leadership we need today is apostolic leadership” (page 150) and in that chapter he describes such leadership using all extra-biblical language because we so hopelessly misunderstand the term “apostle” and lose its import in hierarchical misinterpretations. Steve
Israel asked for a King, so God reluctantly granted their wish… Interesting how in every story about the Israelites, they become defined by whoever was their leader at the time.
Should we allow our leader to define us? How can we be individuals within the body of Christ while respecting and supporting the leadership/eldership of those chosen to be ‘in charge’.
shame you picked such a controversial topic for this draw - the chance of winning is now slim - but at least you have a great convo happening here
Wow! interesting discussion (especially when reading all comments from the beginning).
I think leaders lead without appointment or title. It is a natural thing. All ” leaders” need teaching and guidance.
I personally believe every group, Christian or not, whatever the size, needs “leaders” or there is often choas. To me this does not imply hierarchy. However, I can see how it may for others.
As far as a leader or elder team…..I’m with Heidi. Maybe we could call it a work group or money management team. This way you are sure to get people with the gifting leading and the stuff getting done. Trust me, no one who is looking for a title or hierarchy is going to sign up for the money management team
No offense Colin 
PS John-love your sense of humor!
I got nuthin…….but a comment to get in the game…
I think Jon’s comment waaay back there began to touch the heart of this. Stop calling people by titles and let people be who they are. Teachers are gonna teach, singers are gonna sing, and leaders are gonna lead. The harmony of the various parts will emerge if it’s not thrust upon the body like a poorly tailored suit.
56 comments! Dude, people want your painting!!! Including me!
57 COMMENTS????
HOLY CRAP.
who are all these people?
i like flying kites
i think everyone should just got drink a beer
At your age Dave I think elder is more appropriate!
Steve’s right , elder is more appropriate for you Dave but I must say ol’ feller suits you better
I’ll have to read through this whole discussion. Maybe its been said before but the early Church was evidently a time of stumbling through various ecclesial models, trying to figure out what worked. There was a lot more plurality in how this was expressed (and practiced) than many of us are comfortable with. Eventually the tripartite model won out - Deacon/Elder/Bishop which became Deacon/Priest/Bishop. Incidentially the role of Pastor as practiced in a lot of Protestant traditions corresponds with Bishop more than Priest (Presbyter). For me I take heart that there is so much experimentation in the primitive Church, it lets me know that we need to wrestle through this until we find what works best for our context, especially in an age where function trumps form. We don’t tend to use titles in the context of our group - more for interacting with other groups. But we do have some in our group that are moderators of our church Yahoo!Group, so essentially we have a moderator/pastor model.
I really like your paintings (especially the portraits) - had a wee nosey y’day!! I particularly like this one because it reminds me of myself at the moment - a bare and lonley tree who cannot even see the beauty,the wealth of colors around itself. Nice once.
Love the painting!
Why do you need a title? Any title. What is the function of the title? What will the term “elder” do, that “leader” cannot do?
Why do our titles have an upward motion? Does a leader have a title for the people below him/her? e.g. Those are the followers/idiots/morons/lay people/sheep etc. etc.. What are the people called who are not elders? Do these lay people have anything to add to the church, except numbers? Is Christ more in an elder than in a layperson?
Now i’m speaking as an elder….:-) An elder is a person with experience in Christ. Because of that experience, he/she will reflect any attention away from themselves. They will try to hide. Sometimes seen, not often heard. Because experience in Christ is grace and not something earned. They have been to the depts of the valley and have found their Saviour there also. I cannot achieve elder-ism. I cannot give people my experience, because they have their own experience to gain from a lifelong walk with Him. What if I struggle? Who will be there for me? Hopefully my friends. And that is what I will be for every person I meet. A friend. Is there a higher calling? I doubt it. Jesus called us friends. What more do we need than friends who walk this funny and unpredictable road with us?
thanks
(from South Africa)
Some of the most influencial leaders that I have encountered in my journey are those who do not carry the label “leader” in the church. There are several in my church at present, who may not sit on the leadership team, but are definately God gifted/appointed leaders.
When we walk in the authenticity of who we are and live out who He has created us to be.. those giftings come to fruition and we walk in leadership, in teaching, in helps, etc. It oozes out of us. It isn’t only used on a Sunday or when the leaders are called forward to pray, etc. It is who you are, what you do as natural as you eat and breathe.
What does it matter whether or not they are distinguished and called out for being a leader??? Just be who you are and do what you do… let God direct and lead. Fluid.. the body of Christ coming together each moving as it was created to do. It works, imagine that!
I like “Elder” better than “leadership”. Its very Quakerly.
Elder, bishop, pastor–in the early church these terms were interchangeable. They’re all leaders. Reminds me of the early Roman Empire (post-Republic). I think it was Augustus who’s first title was First Citizen–implying that he was simply another citizen of Rome; but in reality he had almost absolute power (politically); and he wielded it. Just changing the word is Orwellian doublespeak.
It’s not about terminology. The Body of Christ requires leaders–shepherds, undershepherds, whatever. Jesus was a leader. Peter was a leader. James was a leader. Paul was a leader.
Leadership in love is not outside of God’s plan and the only people that have a problem with a loving leader is someone who is scarred or rebellious. That doesn’t mean we throw out leadership and join hands singing Kum-By-Yah in a circle instead of moving forward with vision and purpose.
Heck, probably the strongest leader in the Bible (outside of God, who’s a pretty good leader, I think) was Moses. Sometimes we are distracted from the sense of his leadership because we are privy to glimpses of his inner battles; we see the leader as a person, warts and all.
But his leadership was undeniable; condoned and supported by God himself. He was a servant, but he was a leader. He was humble (the humblest on the earth), but he was a leader. He was self-sacrificing (Lord, blot my name out of your book), but he was a leader.
It is coming across that the church is an “open range”.
Que Syrah Syrah whatever will be will be - the leaders will lead will lead - Que Syrah Syrah.
Que Syrah Syrah whatever will be will be - the Elders will lead will lead - Que Syrah Syrah
No matter what, the church will always have leaders. There will always be the identified ones who have the influence on people.
Yes, the church needs authenticity, community, love, no egos, an atmosphere for people to become all God intended them to become - but it also needs a functional stucture to work with.
From now on I am going to use the L word when I swear!
Que sera…
Hmmmm…i was thinking Syrah wine…opps….thanks for “leading” me in the right direction “elder” Fred.
I prefer “guru”…
You guys are too funny!
Makes my head spin. I think the choice of words has everything to do with our past experiences. I am kind of tired of the word leadership. I think the organized church has to be organized to survive. The real mission that Jesus left us with is to love and to serve as he did - to bring people into his kingdom. But that is” soooo not popular” in our world today. We only succeed in this when we really love people. We can’t fake it with this and only God can give us this kind of love. It really boils down to spending a lot of time with God so that we will become more like him hopefully - loving. Then we have a chance of becoming a servant leader or elder or whatever. There is a big price tag.
We’re all are called to disciple and will always need to be discipled at some level. I’m with Heidi and John on their thoughts on semantics. Maybe some of us need to get more healing of our issues regarding “leader”… Love the painting David but it doesn’t go with anything in my house. How many ACEO paintings do you have? Can the winner choose their own in the next draw? he he?
Grab it and “lead” !!!!. The title can be meaningful or meaningless.
I like what a lot of you had to say, esp. Matte and Wendy, Chris, and Richard and… Servant leadership team… good name but does a name change the way we view ourself and others? Maybe when it is fresh.. We need leaders and hope that those who are will not be afraid to be one, without leaders nothing would get done. I also like shepherds and elders, whatever gifts God has given you, PLEASE COME FORWARD and don’t let this discussion hold you back!!!
Lets think about grass. Spring grass……….full lush midsummer grass…………weedy grass with lots of dry patches…………burnt grass. Its all grass, but our experience of different kinds can provide a different picture in our minds and understanding. Elder, leader, fingledorf …..rose by any other name…….what does it mean to you,or to me or to the community. Is it about what we call them or more about who they are and their understanding of serving the community. I think its usually pretty clear who they are, and if the term we use brings a fresh understanding, that cool.
Just wanted to say that I have been enjoying this website version of church. It is refreshing change to the browbeating you experience, or put upon yourself, in the traditional church. Thanks. You are making a difference in my life.
Hey David, you’ve got a good debate going on here! Elder is just another name for leader - senior figure, whatever you want to label it. The name doesn’t change who the people are, what they think, how they serve etc. Likewise it doesn’t change how the church view them either. Personally when I think of elders I instantly think of a bunch of stuffy old men
Obviously just my experience of elders!!!
Sorry, it was me (Lyn) who posted the above comment, not Jonathan - don’t want to get into trouble!
That’s funny Lyn, because earlier today I accidently posted under my Jon’s name too!
So much has been said about leadership…I can’t really add to this discussion. However, I’d really love to win the painting, so here’s my comment. Want to join the crowd
Wow, too many comments to read them all, so sorry if I repeat anything.
I’ve been thinking about this lately but haven’t gotten around to posting. Leadership is all about authority - oooh, scary. The only leadership / authority that makes sense is when you have authority with someone (relational), as opposed to authority over someone (positional). The bible says that all authority comes from God. In practice, we only positively accept someone’s authority if we recognise them as operating in the good authority given by God. We sure know about bad authority, whether it be in church, marriage, government etc. But we also know where the good authority lies in our lives. These are the people we look to to correct and help us when we’re seeking guidance. These are our leaders. They are the people with the character David is describing in his ‘elder’ role.
As for labels: We name things to help communicate what they are. In an established community, the label is secondary to recognised relational authority. Joni says that leader has baggage for her - well, Joni, you speak highly of David, and if you recognise him as a good leader, and if he went by that that label then you could begin to build a positive response to the word leader.
The most important thing behind what ever label we give to those who lead among us is that it’s helpful to those who are joining our communities, who don’t yet have a depth of relationship to defer to leadership. Leader could well have negative or positive connotations to those coming from a church background. Outside a church background I don’t believe the term leader is widely used (except, leader of the free world!) In society, its the boss, chief exec ect. So leader could be positive? The term elder could be viewed positively or negatively to the churched, (negatively by Lyn above) but to the unchurched it is not likely to means much at all. You could view this as baggage free, or as a community that has it’s own religious language and is separate from our culture. (negative)
In conclusion … the label can never be free from misinterpretation when it comes to describing those leading the church. This should encourage us to engage people with relationship and describing the story of our community, rather than merely relying on labels and sound bytes. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO CONSIDER, NOT WHO HOLDS THE REINS IN THE CHURCH STRUCTURE, BUT WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO COULD COAX YOU BACK ON TRACK SHOULD YOU NEED IT. Learn to understand and love those people because we all need them.
ALL HAIL NAKEDPASTOR DAVID - OUR FEARLESS LEADER IN CYBERBLOG WORLD!
(I want the painting too!!!!)
Okay everyone! I know it has bad connotations, but I’ve decided that I’m going to chose a new leadership model: I’m going to be a DICTATOR! Don’t worry, I’ll be a BENEVOLENT one. There’s nothing in a word. It’s just a label. Trust me. I won’t abuse it.
:)
Ah! Benevolent dictatorship! The best form of government!
(except that there’s no guarantee the dictator will STAY benevolent…)
Jon,
You make good points. In today’s day of individuality allegiance to a leader is almost always self-imposed; you can always leave. This is neither “better” nor “worse” than the “old way”; it comes with its own strengths and weaknesses.
David,
most of the dictators I can think of were fairly ugly, therefore compensating I think! Now either you can think of yourself as the best looking dictator of all, which would beg the question: what are you compensating for? OR just admit that dictator is a bad idea. IF YOU GO THE DICTATION ROUTE - the tithe had remained steady at 10% since forever now - I suggest enforcing a raise to 12% to finance increased pastor salary!
Dave, I don’t really care if you are a Dictator, I just want to be a recipient of your benevolence!!!! I would serve and follow you always!
Some time ago on your blog you referred to yourself as a spiritual director (or advisor)…I thought you were on to something good with that thought, however, I think the term elder kind of sucks.
I have to say that I agree with Kari’s evaluation of the word “elder”. Your painting would look great in my office!
all hail the benevolent naked dictator……………ok, am I the only one laughing here?
David, you’re way too endearing to be a dictator. I don’t think you could pull it off!
Personally, I prefer the title “Benevolent Despot”. It’s much easier to spell, and would make a catchy name for the church band, if you ever decide to release a 2nd worship CD. (ie “David and the Despots”)
My church phased out the use of the phrase “Sunday School” a few years ago. Everyone started using the term small groups instead. In a very short time the teaching lost its lecture based style and became conversational.
My mom’s church transitioned from having a “Music Ministry” to a “Fine Arts Ministry” and services were sprinkled with skits, dancing, puppets, and other creative forms of expression instead of only hymns and choruses.
Changing the way we refer to church leaders is more than an issue of semantics. When Abram became Abraham and Sarai became Sarah–the renaming began a transformation in who they were. The same was true of Jacob, and Gideon, and Saul.
If you watch any of the makeover shows on reality television, you can see that changing the “label” of a person (outdated, cutesy, beatnik, sloppy, conservative, modest, professional, funky, bohemian, age-appropriate, current) DOES have an impact on the inside of the person. Many makeover victims (I mean recipients!)consider the clothing/hairstyle/makeup changes shallow at first, but at the end of the experience say it has literally, and forever, changed who they are.
Words and their connotations matter. If they didn’t writers would not spend days seeking just the right word to describe a character, advertising companies would not earn millions to create a thirty second commercial, and businesses/churches would not agonize over the development of vision statements and creeds.
To think about the labels and names used by the church isn’t time wasted on semantics. How we define ourselves determines how we feel, think, and act. It is vital that we think about these things.
God gave us many “names” for His many facets so that all of us could find some kind of positive connotation to which we could cling–cloud, pillar of fire, father, shepherd, teacher, bread, friend, king, creator, provider, mother hen, water, rock, tower of refuge, master, physician, light, servant, prince, vine, and many others. However, when pressed to label Himself God simply said “I am who I am.” Maybe we should follow his example.
ttm:
Heres a thought on reality shows: You say - “Many makeover victims (I mean recipients!)consider the clothing/hairstyle/makeup changes shallow at first, but at the end of the experience say it has literally, and forever, changed who they are.”
Lets take the show “THE SWAN”. Remember that one? You take an ugly person and give them a new face, new teeth, adjust the nose, a little nip, a little tuck, nicer boobs, etc.
But, at the end of the day, no matter how good looking they become by the change, they will still have ugly children!!! It’s in the DNA!
So, my wise thought today means this: No matter if you change the name from leader to elder - the DNA of a person is the DNA. Your church will still take on a personality flavour of the leader!!!!
THIS COMMENT IS JUST TO SAY I WAS THE 100th PERSON TO SAY SOMETHING!!!!!
“Comin atcha like a beam, like a ray, like a rooster, like a goose trapped in the rafters of a barn in Shropshire…”
I love competitions, and so does my lovely wife.
I read this the morning after an incredible 2-day training entitled “The Leader’s Discipline” in Vancouver. It was about creating community in the workplace. David I hear you saying that the use of “leader” impedes true community because it points to rank.
I think that it so often has that implication but I am not ready to throw out the word, even in the faith community. For me the question is “who is a leader”. There is a leader in each of us and part of the role of the community is to nurture that in each other. Leader does not imply hierarchy for me anymore. In a coaching culture we all play the role of leader regardless of the titles and roles. Many progressive businesses are abandonning the whole notion of title, acknowledging how much ego gets in the way of both community and business goals.
“Elder” may still create a divide where most people self-select out, thinking that the term does not apply to them. It reminds me of a story I heard yesterday from the First Nations community. This Grandfather, an elder, whenever asked a question by his granddaughter would respond with a question. As a child it drove her nuts. As an adult she is so grateful for that gift and what it did in and for her.
Changing the term does not automatically deal with the problems behind how leaders have conducted themselves. “Ambition, competition, manipulation, coercion, exploitation and success” can happen under any title. True selfless leadership doesn’t need one.
I can’t stop thinking about this one - must be pushing some of my buttons. Some thoughts from the “elder” that I just spent 2 days with:
http://www.columba1400.com/why_we_do_it/philosophy.html
“The principles of the Columban Code of Responsible Leadership challenge us in the spirit of unconditional belief to elicit our potential for purpose – to engage a life-long process of learning and refinement. By doing so, we take full responsibility for challenging ourselves to exemplify an ever greater effectiveness and readiness to respond to our realities – in body, mind, heart and soul - in a manner congruent to our own individual and shared core values.
“As human beings, we share a calling to meaningful purpose – as individuals and as the communities we belong to.
“Upon quiet reflection it becomes clear that this purpose, quite simply, is what we are built for.”
In the faith community we understand that this purpose is community with our Creator and each other (first and second greatest commandments).
I just want to know who gets to decide what the friggin’ thermostat is set at?
Hey, most of us have been there or are there now: elders, leadership, and a whole host of names to try to pin down the essence of “leading.” I think all the name changes point to our desire to do a good job as an elder or leader. I think that we at Rothesay are due for another shift. It’s not just about lables, there’s something in it about redefining. We’re at that place again where the name feels old, meaningless. Defining who we are, who our leaders are is a good thing. That’s what’s so wonderful about this discussion. We’re defining again. I like the idea that we leave the “leader” title behind for the reasons you and others point out, David. One question though: What do you want to see in an elder?
nice legs
Hahaha. I knew you wouldn’t want to answer that one!
I, personally, am partial to that old term “leadershit.” The meaning is two-fold. One - it recognises the responsibility part of the office and, two - it recognises that we’re full of it… most of the time!
Is this some kind of record?
Oh the joy of being jaded!
But, John,the “ugly duckling” children now have an elder who will show them there is hope. They do not have to waddle through life as they are–simple little ducks in a nice straight row following their leader. They, too, can be transformed.
Though some labels might be products of our DNA, perspectives and attitudes are not. Thank God for that.
I’m grateful for the possibility of transformation…sometimes it begins on the inside and we find a new name for ourselves. Sometimes the process is reversed, namechange first, change in behavior or belief later. Quibbling over how the process happens is less iimportant than letting the process happen.
John, you are blessed to have found definitions that “match” who you are. I hope you revel in that place of contentment.
Julia - don’t forget the third definition of leadershit: the ’shit’ that you have to deal with every so often, like the one in the bag, put on your doorstep and set on fire…
Ya John, I’m seeing obvious signs of jadedness here and there. I’d like to see less time spent on “what do we rename ourselves” and talk more about how are we going to redefine the way we lead. A change from the inside out, not the outside in. So in that respect, what Julia talks about (a coming shift at RV) resonates with me. Give me more of that! I’m not quite getting the preoccupation with choosing a label.
If I had to cast a vote, I’m in the “elder title sucks” camp. All I see in my mind is crotchety old men! But that’s just me. If elder is chosen, I’ll seek inner healing and try to accept it graciously.
Hey - whats everyone got against crochety old men?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crochet
(ok, I admit, this is just a ballot entry for the painting - i’m so ashamed)
Why don’t we just get down to a caste system, the touchables and the untouchables, the valuables and the invaluables or call it the shitmakers and the pickerupshitsters… just a thought, this way at least we can make our own labels. People might think we are funny and join our ranks.
I think I need another Brown Cow.
I know Elder sounds a little odd, but I catch your drift. Reverend, Pastor, Minister, so on and so forth are all old fashioned. One is not more odd than the other. It is the meaning behind them that gives them weight.
What does church look like, how does it function best? That depends on where God is taking you as an individual community. Some churches would buckle over at the thought of leaving a title behind. But that is not what God may be directing them in.
Personally, I find leadership a strange concept, but not always a bad one. It has it’s degrees and they can move in or out of the healthy zone. Our group here in Winnipeg operates in an elder type of system. None of us feel like one in particular is called to lead. People have their strengths and those should be fostered and respected and those people may naturally fall into the unofficial, untitled leadership roles. Experience and craftsmanship has earned peoples respect for them and they give people inspiration, hope and trust with their integrity.
As you have expressed many times, no one should think for someone else. With leadership sorts of roles it can force the “lay people” to cling to them for direction and truth. Only God can provide those things. If I catch your drift correctly you are wanting to ween people from those sort of dependencies. It is a brave move, but it may be a healthy one, if you feel god leading you that way.
I find that people like to be lead, we have a lot of folks that are so wounded they need the vision of someone else to create a sense of hope for themselves. Of course this is dangerous at the best of times. But the Elder idea can provide people help in a healthy way without it being just one person. A group can just as effectively help people to step to individuality and they can share the work of a vision. People don’t need to go around saying hey elder Dave or Elder Chuck, or Elder Frank (fictional names), it can just be noted in bulletins and programs in the morning or whatever you communicate with. People can be verbally recognized without being tagged on a daily level. If we love and respect each other it is natural we want to drop titles and call each other by our given names. That does not debunk respect, in fact it is the opposite. We are not in the government, or the days of Saul, Samuel and David. We are of a new generation, what does that mean, something different to every community because the holy spirit has come, and is ministering to us personally. Jesus knows what are needs are.
I agree with sheep learning to think for themselves. Especially if the community is healthy and focused on growth. It would be a sad thing if it was possible and overlooked. It may take time to inch people out but if your vision is focused the shift will take place in it’s time, God’s time. You may loose people along the way, but if you feel called, your spirit can not pretend to be satisfied. If you are looking for something more, you are growing too and your spirit is looking for new truths.
I believe in community as a natural and organic thing. If the holy spirit is watering it’s garden it can’t help but grow. There are not always smooth roads and we have all experienced the odd destructive trouble maker or loss and tragedy in our communities, but God has plans for everyone and the answers can surprise even the wisest among them.
In conclusion, I can’t help but like your idea. It seems logical to me. But that is how God has lead our community here at home, so I’m a little biased. Blessings on your road and prosperity and hope for your community. I pray God will make a clear way for your community and that revelation will play it’s part whatever direction your community goes. Shalom.
ok count me in, ya never know!
Amaris, that’s one nice unique thing about our church. We all are quite opinionated and yet comfortable in our own skin, able to think our own thoughts and express them openly without fear of a backlash. That’s one thing I LOVE about us.
A new model for leadership? Bring it on, we all love the adventure and we’ll give anything a shot. If it doesn’t work, we’ll try something else - together.
Heck, we can disagree or agree, but either way we all pretty much adore each other!
We all use labels to describe ourselves…we even use labels to describe how we want to be…even though we may not be there yet. When I hear people or places describing/selling themselves a certain way, I tend to hold back and take a wait and see approach…is there an effort to live up to that label…or is it just a catchy phrase reflecting the mood of the marketplace with no real commitment behind it.
This discussion reminds me of Walmart. Walmart blazed its way into the marketplace labelling itself as the friendliest, most customer oriented department store ever…our opinions matter…..yeah right!
A new label may bring hope to the wounded, inspire others to change….but the important thing is to really do it…really see it through….othewise your just another walmart pumping out empty words and empty promises….
If this is something you believe in….if this is a path that God is directing you towards for RV…then lead onwards….ultimately it won’t really matter what you call it….its that you do it.
I’m glad you are not advocating the use of the word “deacon”. I’ve seen what a deacon-possessed church looks like…it ain’t pretty.
“Elder” is okay by me, though, with all that the term suggests. In fact, with each passing year, this term seems less objectionable.
It’s all about servant hood. Leadership is served. Revolutionary thinking
I have to say all you RV people, I never had a better church experience in my entire life then when I came to visit you guys for a year. You guys are a profound group and it was so wonderful to get to know some of you, and if that’s you Heidi Hurtle, then you were one of those people. So I can’t help but agree with Heidi, you guys are a brave and unified bunch and I don’t doubt you will prosper in whatever way you travel. I look forward to seeing all of you again, hopefully in the not to distant future. My friend Billy (who many of you know well) is living here in Winnipeg right now and fixed to be hitched to my best friend Sharon. They will be moving back to Saint John in early summer and that means I will have somewhere to stay. It has been 5 years now and it’s about time to shimmy back that way for a visit. Hi to everyone who remembers Jason and I. We remember you too. And Heidi Hurtle your felt work is amazing, I am showing all my friends your store and am glad to know you are stocking it up. I will definitely come a knocking!!
Amaris, trust me we haven’t forgotten you and Jason. I still think about all the funny conversations we all had. You get yourself down here as soon as you can, I hope it’s not too terribly long from now. We’ll all have to have a party then. Say “hi” to Billy!
And right back at you with the compliment, I love your art!
I agree with the idea of letting go of the leadership titles and choosing to address people in a way that reflects more of an equal participation approach. The term “Elders” is more reflective of this then other common terms. It gives the feel of the people, “the elders,” being from within the community as oppose to over it. It also makes me think of those who are respected for their spiritual consistency and as a result have something to offer in helping the others to be built up.
There is a tendency for people to put unrealistic expectations on leadership and then get hurt when they are disappointed. With the use of different terms it is helpful in showing people that we are all human and equal and we have gifts to share to help one other be built up. This role is not just for one person to bear alone and it would be unfair to all to expect that.
Hi Amaris…I never made the connection that it was you….I went to Heidi & Jon’s homegroup and I have often wondered how you guys made out…I thought you two were such a great couple with so much talent! Say hi to Billy for me…I am so happy he is happy! He is a great guy!
Barry,
Ive seen a elder posessed church…go figure. If only they werent given those titles it would have been different….hmmmm
Hey Wendy, Thanx for the hello. I was wondering if that was the Wendy I knew from