I have just arrived home from an exciting meeting of the leaders of our five taskforces (charged with creating and implementing a new vision for our movement of churches to 2012 and beyond). We are all agreed on the way forward, and the Executive Committee of the denomination is now expected to approve our proposals. For the first time in many years it appears that there is unanimous support from leadership, financial resourcing AND strong popular momentum for God-directed positive change.
The projected reforms are across the board -- mission, identity, governance, pastoral health, and resource management. Of the three possibilities for change catalysts [(1) an external crisis forces change(2) a charismatic leader emerges who knows how to engender willingness to change(3) a group within the larger body resolves to seek change -- from a post to our sister Facebook group page]:
(1) is not apparent;
(2) doesn't exist (a strange historical/political anomaly that distinguishes our denomination in NSW from virtually all others); and
(3) looks like where the momentum for change arises.
Three factors may undo all this promising work:
(a) spiritual opposition, most likely evident in criticism and obfuscation through committees, by-laws, attacks on the character and commitment of leaders, etc;
(b) lack of coordination and unity of purpose among the five taskforces (which each have specific and largely autonomous briefs;
(c) apathy on the part of those who say they have "seen it all before," "here we go again," and "it's not broken, so don't try to fix it."
Well, in my opinion it is broken, dysfunction is rife, and failure to take a radical but rational approach to reform would be disobedience to what God is saying to the churches.
For more on the Directions 2012 initiative see the first few post to this blog - check the archive on the right of screen.
Rod Benson is a Baptist pastor and ethicist who attends Dural Baptist Church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To pick up the discussion on Facebook about change catalysts, they are, you have commented, and I throw in my twopence worth as follows:
(1) an external crisis forces change
You say: [this]is not apparent
My comment is that we may just not be recognising the crises we face. When you talk about spiritual opposition, potential lack of coordination and apathy, these are all really part of the crisis we are in. It's just that we are still clinging to our counterfeit of community.
However, just to shoot myself in the foot, I will confess that it is not until the crisis is recognised that it can become a catalyst for change.
(2) a charismatic leader emerges who knows how to engender willingness to change
You say that ...doesn't exist (a strange historical/political anomaly that distinguishes our denomination in NSW from virtually all others)
My comment is that, while we, as a denomination, generally destroy those who rise to prominence and refuse to hear those who challenge our preconceptions, there have been a few who have not only survived these tendencies but have gained the kind of acceptability among us that they could have served as such catalysts had they had a mind to. That encourages me to think that the same could happen again.
(3) a group within the larger body resolves to seek change
You say this ...looks like where the momentum for change arises
My comment is that I will be very glad if this is the case, and I have no qualms about pursuing this path with vigour. However, I note that, historically, committees are not good at directly catalysing change. They usually do better at pointing out the need for change. In this respect it is more that they pave the way for the true catalyst to appear.
What I had in mind when I spoke about a group within the larger body was something like Wesley's Holy Club (which was the foundation of later Methodist societies) or the group around Wilberforce at the end of that century.
Where I think the committee situation is likely to fall down is that it lacks the general unity of place which makes an intensity of fellowship possible.
If the committees, which now seem keen to get change happening, can transform their excitement into leadership in the formation of change-oriented cells in various localities, then I think there is a real chance for revival!
Perhaps our diversity is what restrains us... there is a sense ion which convictions unite and propel forward any movement, but our convictions about diversity seem to dissipate this force. And if anyone proposes a conviction contrary to the mainline, then whateve their direction, they are viewed as "exteme".
Yet it is the extremists that have promoted growth hysterically in our denom.. i.e. Tinsley, Ridley and Morling for the conservatives,
the premills had Lamb, Ecob, and Betteridge. The amill's had...?
and the moderates had...?
Steve
Post a Comment