We’re in the middle of some conflicts at our church. Isn’t everybody? Conflict/differences are part of everyday life. I am a pastor alongside other pastors trying to lead a church amidst a post Christendom which isn’t entirely here yet. When we have conflicts, we view them as the point at which God works in the community to make his truth incarnate. The epistemology (assumptions about how we know truth) I follow makes me post-foundationalist post-Christendom incarnational missional Anabaptist. This means I seek to ground myself/ourselves in the ongoing incarnation of Christ in His community via Scripture, the Table and the “gifts of the Spirit.” Of course we submit to received orthodoxy. Yet this ongoing incarnational process of discerning truth contextually continues and extends orthodoxy. This extending does not happen through a few professional clergy deciding how we should discern the issues disagreed upon from the top down. This extending happens in the concrete lives of real communities discerning real issues. This is how our faith extends into the real lives of people. And so we must enter into disputes carefully discerning, listening to each other, studying Scripture, discerning sin, until we all “together discern the mind of Christ”(1 Cor 2;16). At Life on the Vine, we take seriously, that “whenever two or three gather and agree on a anything in my name, there am I in the midst. What ever is bound on earth is bound in heaven. What ever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.” God inhabits conflict as if it were a sacrament – incarnating his truth further into the lives of a people living in the world (Matt 18:20).
This goes against two kinds of leadership so prominent in American church today. I call them autocratic and democratic. I reject both of these forms of leadership for the church in Mission.
THE AUTOCRATIC APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP (typically) puts authority in one (usually a man) senior pastor figure in the church to solve conflicts. For this approach – truth is always obvious, clear and perspicuous, it just takes an expert to explain it. And so, in the midst of church conflict, the senior pastor’s job as expert is to ascend to Mt Sinai, pray, read his Bible, hear from God and then descend to the church to tell them “this is the way it will be.” Those who agree stay, and (in America) those who disagree leave to start another church. This way of truth shapes people for arrogance and exclusion instead of openness to what God is doing. We get no where in God’s Mission and where he is taking us.
This conception of truth/leadership is sometimes typified by Al Mohler – blogger and president of So Baptist Theo Seminary. For Dr Mohler – truth is absolute. It is revealed. There are some things we know because God told us. Now of course there is “truth” to this, but this fails to take into account the way God reveals truth in history via the incarnation and the ongoing work of the Spirit in the church. It cannot be that simple when the disputable matters of the church are at stake (as opposed to the core orthodox established matters of doctrine). For instance, when Dr. Mohler says here “The Bible presents the knowledge of hell just as it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment: these are things we had better know. God reveals these things to us for our good and for our redemption. In this light, the knowledge of these things is grace to us,” does he get the varied ways these doctrinal matters have worked themselves out differently in various histories? say between the Reformed, Luthern and Wesleyan? That it is not self evident that sin, hell, judgement etc. mean and function the same for all historical expressions of the church. There is history in context at work here. From reading this here, it appears Mohler is resistant to the idea that truth needs to be worked out in a context. He could often be accused of a version of “Absolute Truth” that is devoid of a contextual hermeneutic (although I think he could ably defend himself).
THE DEMOCRATIC APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP seeks to solve conflicts by a community accepting many (all?) “voices”, tolerating disagreements and letting the conversation continue. There is a core orthodoxy around which we gather, but we must tolerate the many differences around the core. There are two weaknesses to this kind of leadership. FIRST – Real conversation is not fostered because an enforced tolerance minimizes our disagreements (says they are not important) because we have already agreed that we must accept them. Since any real substance in our disagreements has been diminished, we have little to do but talk about these issues (not discern them). It should not then be surprising that people contend these conversations also go nowhere. The SECOND weakness is that this form of democratic leadership in essence decides where the “line in the sand is”. Someone has to decide what disagreements are central to the community’s commitments and which disagreements are sufficiently benign for us all to tolerate. Someone determines that these tolerable disagreements are simply not important enough to discern. They do not hurt anyone sufficiently (a democratic value if there ever was one) to get into serious discernment over for the future of the gospel. This itself is a form of autocratic leadership. In the end, there is little difference between the autocratic and democratic because some singular leader/leader group is basically making uniteral judgements as to what affirmations and truths we will be lead by, and which disagreements we will tolerate as part of us.
Brian McLaren’s recent statement on homosexuality here falls into this category of democratic leadership. He claims that we must learn to disapprove of homosexuality while at the same time accepting it (I think he means in the church). This only other option is divisiveness in the church.
This does not really help the pastoral situation however. There are many people who see the gay/lesbian peoples as hurting, vulnerable and victumized in their sexuality. We need to invite them in the life of uncovering hurt and seeking healing and renewal that we all desire for our sexuality. Democratic tolerance covers over these issues disabling these kind of cinversations. There are people who see all desire, especially sexual desire, as the place of spiritual formation. For these folk,. not only what we accept but what place we give gay and lesbian life in the church will have profound effect on how we see the shaping of all desire (especially consumerist desire). These people argue, “to accept gay and lesbian life as “OK” within the Christian community is in essence to make a decision to allow this understanding of sexual formation to shape our kids.” In essence then, an approach that appears benign and innocent to Brian, refusing to cut off and divide, is a blatant pronoucement in a Christian community as anything the autocrat would do.
Democratic tolerance shapes the conversation to be one-sided. Perhaps this is what is happening to Brian and the launch of his new book where he is seriously getting taken to task on such matters here and here (HT Bill Kinnon). Read brad/futurist guy’s comments on this blog post. Does Brian then, as much as I like and appreciate him, end up (innocently?) making Mohler-like pronouncements in the name of “generosity,” “inclusion” and “love.” Is he assuming an epistemology as individualistic and violent as Al Mohler. I give both Al and Brian the benefit of the doubt because of their track records in the ministry of the KIngdom of God. Yet I think they may have forgotten what it means to work out disagreements and doctrine in a live real incarnate community (a church body) where these things matter and require contextual engagement. Of course not much of this kind of discernment actually goes on much in churches anymore. We need then to push for an incarnational approach to leadership.
THE INCARNATIONAL APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP I propose the incarnational way of leading through coflict where God works in conflict as the means to push us forward into our context for Mission. Here we do not depend on a divinely appointed hierarchical figure to ascend to the mountain and pronounce from above the way it shall be. Neither do we depend on a leader or leaders to arbitrate which issues shall be declared “tolerable.” Instead we allow the community where God is at work to determine when a disagreement is important enought to discern for the will of God among us. When such a disagreement has occured, the pastors invite those offended or in disagreement to go to the person – one on one. If there is not an agreementhere they bring thr disagreement to a third and/or fourth person. If still no agreement, take it to the church, which at Life on the Vine means the shepherd board, those recognized leaders of the community. If after several sessions, this issue remains unresolved proving it is too important for who we are and the people/problems we are engaging, we call a “Council” of all the people in the church interested in this issue, to pray, listen, to hear those recognized in the study of Scripture, to submit to one another, to die to ourselves and recognize our own sin, and out this discern together for a common agreement – so that we can say to the church ..”It seems good to Holy Spirit and to us ……”(Acts 15:28). In this way, the community of the Spirit where He is Lord determines the issues concretely that need to be discerned, because they perculate organicly to the surface becoming an issue for the whole body. Here orthodoxy cannot be defied only extended into new terrotory – new orthodoxy. Here the gifts are listened to, those who are gifted in wisdom, reading Scripture, teaching etc.. And with prayer and charity and courage we discern what God is calling us into. And wherever two or more agree on anything in His name, there He is in the midst of us. What is bound here is bound in hevane, loosed here, also in heaven (Matt 18:15-20).
Conflict is crucial to the community in Mission. Because Mission pushes us into new territory, new things we’ve never faced, there will be new conflicts. As we all submit to each other in prayer we resolve to do this or that into the world. Jesus inhabits thee conflict (“there am i” Matt 18:17) Their resolution pushes the community forward into Mission. We who come together to live as Christian incarnational community in the world should therefore welcome conflict as the place where God works to incarnate us into new territory, to discern what Christ looks like here anew. And if we have no conflicts, no differences and no disagreements, we have become stagnent.
All of this requires real relationships and concrete communities living our disagreements, not only talking/writing about them.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Disclaimer: I’m not a heresy hunter.
I am confused by what you mean here:
“In this way, the community of the Spirit where He is Lord determines the issues concretely that need to be discerned, because they perculate organicly to the surface becoming an issue for the whole body. Here orthodoxy cannot be defied only extended into new terrotory – new orthodoxy.”
I think it would help if you gave a concrete example, because I’m not tracking with what you mean by new orthodoxy, but a mini-case study may help me track.
David,
This is a very important issue and I appreciate your comments here. I think you have rightly identified the democratic form of leadership as another form of the autocratic. My question relates to the incarnational type of leadership you propose. I was tracking with you and getting excited about helping a future body I am a part of embrace such an approach, but then I got confused when you said:
“If after several sessions, this issue remains unresolved proving it is too important for who we are and the people/problems we are engaging, we call a “Council” of all the people in the church interested in this issue, to pray, listen, to hear those recognized in the study of Scripture, to submit to one another, to die to ourselves and recognize our own sin, and out this discern together for a common agreement – so that we can say to the church ..”It seems good to Holy Spirit and to us ……”(Acts 15:28).”
This sounds really good, but at the same time, who is the person or group who decides what comes out of that council? If there is still not unanimous agreement there, is not a small group of people again engaging in a form of autocratic leadership, where they say “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to US” (though not to some of you) “to come down on this side of this issue.” Do you understand what I am saying? It seems that on some issues, especially an issue that you mentioned like homosexuality, the fervor is going to run high for some people to the point that they cannot and will not see the issue the way the rest of the community does. In other words, if there is not unanimous agreement, at some point someone is going to have to say “This is what we as a community believe; this is what the Spirit is leading us to.”
How does this line up with/differ from the autocratic and democratic forms? I am asking honestly, trying to work this out for myself…
Kevin
shalomer.blogspot.com
Nice post! I especially resonate with the statement of being “amidst pos-christendom that has not arrived yet.” These are difficult and marvelous times!
Kevin,
what I think is a difference here in the incarnational way is the dynamics that are given space when people come together and listen, submit to each other, and die to themselves. It is in this space where some real conversation can happen as opposed to talking past each other or trying to find out who is right/wrong. Likewise, if common agreement is not found then more gatherings need to happen until common agreement happens. Its unefficient according to American business models yet crucial to a people who are trying to figure out what it means to live together participating in the Mission. This inefficiency will also tend to avoid the whole autocratic circumstance.
so, to make it short, I disagree with the statement that people will not be able to listen if there is submission and dying to oneself. Likewise there should not have to be someone declaring, “this is what we as a community believe.”
chad
[...] I participated in a couple of years ago. I may try to connect with him near Chicago in April. David perceptively draws out some points about leadership as he thinks through the issues floating a…. As Bill Kinnon tweeted, David is smarter and more gracious and brings Mohler to the table. [...]
David,
I really appreciate the incarnational approach you mention. It certainly opens the way for the Spirit to speak.
I wonder if part of our issue here is the scale of our disagreements and the medium. I really wrestle with how we use blogs to air our grievances and to challenge one another. I’ve made my share of mistakes on this one, and it seems like disagreements on such a large scale and impersonal medium can flare up so easily.
This raises obvious problems then with a controversy surrounding someone’s very public book. While I really like your approach, I wonder if that means we need A New Kind of Conversation… and if we do, I’m honestly not sure how to do that with a book such as Brian’s. Any thoughts on that?
Ed,
I agree with you that a new kind of conversation is needed. Those of us who work within academia are used to the fact that when we publish, not only have we already been submitted to a group of critics/scholars, but we expect alot more of it. That’s the academy. But then there are rules – like we can’t discuss someone’s personal life. Yet, this ends up detaching scholarship from real life. More and more, the Academy of Religion becomes a conversation unto itself … and soon there will be few left who care about it, because it has little to do with church, or anyone who care about living with God (the Academy lives off the university system which seeks only to study religion as a sociological phenomenon. But who’s left who thinks that matters?)…
I digress eh?
My point is, the blog world, and the publishers have set the tone for determiniung the future direction of theology and the church in N. America and we have very few rules if any … The true work of theology however I contend will start from the life of a community incarnating Christ in the world … here real theology will bubble to the surface and be publishable .. and its merits will be evident … I think the discerning conversations must not be “cohort” like .. but be based in committed Christian communities … engaging life and Mission … Here we can report on what’s happening and speak theologically about we’ve learned… people then should have the right to ask about our communal life, our personal life in that community… no? Because we cannot separate life from theology.
So there’s a tension here eh? I think we are right to ask about the personal lives of people speaking … but we can’t make judgements about these same personal lives unless we are in community with them … I think the easiest answer might be … the church that I am a part of is the marker of my credibility …
Somehow .. theology and practice … how we discern the way forward doctrinally must be attached to the everyday life of living in Christ together as a people for God’s Mission in the world.
All these things would contribute to a more productive furtherance of orthdoxy into Mission …
Blessings .. sorry I rambled .. DF
DF – Are you using the phrase “new orthodoxy” to refer to refer to orthodoxy and orthopraxy as it relates to a given community [church] context? If so, I’m [mostly] tracking with you …
I appreciate what you’re saying, re: the possible ‘tyranny of inclusion’ as neutering legitimate beefs that might otherwise be aired. I’ll be thinking about this over the weekend, even as I continue to process my own thoughts…
David:
Very thought-provoking post! I agree that Brian and Al seem to function at times as mirror images. And I like the gist of what you say about incarnational leadership, particularly about the practice of discernment–we would really need to grow up into Christ to do that! I am not clear what you mean by “a new orthodoxy.” Can orthodoxy really be “extended into new territory” by a local congregation? How would this new orthodoxy relate to other local congregations? Would it be binding on them? And did the Jerusalem gathering (Acts 15) define a new orthodoxy, or did it enunciate a wise beginning step for Jew-Gentile relations that Paul would further modify in Romans, etc.?
Chad,
I understand and appreciate what you are saying. And I agree that we must seek out resolution even if it is not “efficient.” But I was not really making a statement about how things are; I was more asking the question: if there is not unanimous agreement on an issue, despite MANY meetings and councils, what is the way forward?
David,
I’d love your thoughts on my questions, or anyone else with insights here…
Kevin
Kevin …
it depends on what you mean by unanimous agreement … when we all sat down to discern women’s ministry at our church, there wasn’t unanimous agreement … rather we came to a joint consensus .. of which 2 out of 35 agreed to trust and consent to the agreement – even thoiugh that some reservations… in this way “we came together to the mind of Christ.”
On those who ask about the “new orthodoxy,” I’m referring to the way orthodoxy is extended into new territory… into new questions. So perhaps it’s a bad turn of phrase. When “the Trinity” was discerned in the 4th century councils … it was engaging questions that had not been asked before (Arianism etc.). Today the Trinity is orthodoxy (even though not in the Bible … this extended orthodoxy into new territory, drew on the Scriptures and past understandings to asnweer new questions and also shape the language to better communicate the realities of which we speak. This is what I meant by new orthodoxy …
Thanks for those thoughts, and that definitely fills out what you are saying more. At some point there needs to be trust from those who do not agree, to go with what the vast majority feels led to. I suppose a key in this is making sure any who are a part of such a community (or council) have humble hearts and are willing to submit… If not, I suppose that person may be asked to not take part in such a council…
And thanks for your clarification on new orthodoxy–I actually understood where you were going with that and really appreciated that insight. I had never thought about how since this is Jesus’ church, and the Spirit is still leading us day by day, we will confront heresy regularly as it comes up among us and must respond in the leading of the Spirit, thus creating a new orthodoxy in a sense. The challenging part is that the councils of the early church, at least in theory, were ecumenical, church-wide councils deciding on these issues. If your community in Illinois decides on a new direction of orthodoxy for a heresy it is confronting, while another church in California has not taken part in that leading of the Spirit or that controversy, the two churches may be on different pages theologically. This is the only part of the equation that is still a question mark for me…
David,
Interesting you bring up the women-in-ministry question, as well as alluding to Brian McLaren’s words on homosexuality in the church. Both issues are contentious, I believe, because gender and sexuality are such deeply rooted human experiences.
Can you clarify about the consensus you reached? It sounds like you’re saying you reached a joint consensus that only 2 of 35 people agreed with. Which doesn’t really sound like consensus at all. If God works in conflict, then it’s okay if there’s no consensus, to a point.
But what do we do with the situation where people on either side of an issue draw their own line in the sand? How do you incarnationally lead a person or group of people who say, “I cannot ever compromise on this issue, and I will not listen to anyone who proposes a consensus that is anything other than what I currently believe?”
Like Kevin says, At some point, doesn’t someone–perhaps the Council–make a pronouncement about doctrine? It could be the council says, “consensus on this issue is not critical–we will tolerate differences” Or the Council could say “after prayer and discussion, we discern this position, set of beliefs, as the truth God has revealed to us.”
I think you are spot-on to see the problems with “autocratic” and “democratic” handling of conflict, but I think the incarnational approach eventually results in one or the other–it’s just done with more patience and in real relationship.
DF – Helpful on the “new orthodoxy.” I’m tracking.
If there is a commitment to community then dying to self, seems to allow the idea of consensus and ultimately the Acts 15 result. I suspect there is also the idea of a shaping/formation of the community, so while the community may at times take the form of the autocratic and/or democratic, with the commitment and the shaping, seems like incarnational may indeed emerge.
Thanks for your reply. Lots of positive stuff in there to take some steps forward, which is exactly what we need right now.
Blessings!
[...] a comment » There’s a really interesting post here from Dave Fitch, entitled “Stuck between Mohler and McLaren.” By coincidence I was [...]
[...] David Fitch had a interesting perspective on leadership. [...]
David, I haven’t read all the comments, but here’s something that occurs to me:
Wouldn’t both Mohler and McLaren say their approach emerges out of a community discernment, which they are expressing as individuals?
How often do we hear Brian say he’s connected to many others who think as he does? And doesn’t Al express the judgment of a host of evangelical Southern Baptists, now with a Reformed theology?
So, while some might push back by suggesting the incarnational approach will struggle to survive the autocratic stripe, I suggest the autocratic and the democratic only gain strength in their voice because they emerge from a group’s beliefs.
Anyway, great post brother.
Time for coffee again with you.
[...] A great piece by David Fitch on church leadership. There is an option other than democracy and autocracy: The Incarnational Approach to Leading in Our Disagreements [...]
Greetings Scot,
I think you have a point … the group beliefs you refer to I think are related to the post Christendom culture/assumptions that undergird such versions of authority… The So Baptist Neo Reformed don’t need the communal hermeneutic … they are well secure in a Christendom based hierarchy and it is unquestioned for now. The “emerging church cohorts of democratic tolerance” … can live off the common agreements from the Christian past … sufficient enough to have a reason to gather … and entertain wides differences which don’t mean anything because everybody gets to goe home and do their own thing …
However, in post Christendom … seeking what it means to live in Christ for His Mission … into the world … we must discern differences for how we will live transformed lives in the world …
For me this is still one of the telling differences between the two “emerging” theologies … (emergent versus missional).
At least that’s my take.
This summer … we’ll do that coffee … and this time I’ll pay
… I promise
[...] has written a thoughtul post On the McLaren Nay-sayers and David Fitch has offered some thoughts on The Incarnational Approach to Leading in Our Disagreements. And you don’t have to dig very deep into the comments to discern that we’ve got some [...]
[...] David Fitch reflects on the two most common approaches to leading through conflict: autocratic, and democratic. He argues that these are really the same, or more exactly that they share the same problems. [...]
Nate,
I think Dave was saying that the 2 who did not agree with the other 33 were willing to be part of a joint consensus — as opposed to a unanimous consensus — which suggests the 2 have felt heard and respected and are willing to go along.
Great post, Dave!
[...] Church conflict. The very words can raise blood pressure. David Fitch at Reclaiming The Mission searches for balance between the autocratic approach to church government and the democratic approach; and finds it in The Incarnational Approach to Leadership. [...]
What you call democratic doesn’t seem to bear much relation to being democratic at all, and this mislabeling may result in other problems in your analysis, including mischaracterization of others.
You seem to be focused on determining doctrinal parameters. Perhaps this is not what should be key in a faith community. It isn’t in mine. We have agreed that the center is Jesus Christ and we have agreed on a vision which is quite broad. The agreement signed by new members has no doctrinal statements, but does have broad principles on how we live as a community. We have ways we operate as a community, but we don’t exclude people. People who find themselves in substantial disunity with those ways generally leave at some point for a community with which they are more in unity, but they are never pushed out.
Major matters are worked through the congregation over a period of time using a variety of means such as congregational gatherings, opportunities for feedback to members of a team set up to guide the process, etc.
We have continuing opportunities to wrestle with major questions, including in our neighborhood discipleship groups and feedback sessions with church leadership. Currently we have a discipleship series in which we go over ways we generally approach things in the church, including key questions such as how we view the Bible. There is free and open respectful discussion of these matters.
The process for dealing with issues of who we are as a community would seem naturally to be very different from the one used to deal with personal conflicts. There seems to be a confusion between the two in the blog post.
[...] Church conflict. The very words can raise blood pressure. David Fitch at Reclaiming The Mission searches for balance between the autocratic approach to church government and the democratic approach; and finds it in The Incarnational Approach to Leadership. [...]
[...] being said, I think that David does something in a recent post which is not authentic. He is discussing how to deal with conflict in the community of believers. [...]
Great post, Dave. Very thought provoking. My comment here is more of a meta-reflection, however. You write about the leadership approach of three white men, and the blog lights up with discussion. You write about the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., or ask if missional communities need to be racially diverse, and it’s crickets. I think that shows us something about how courageous the missional church really is when it comes to doing church in a different way.
If we continue to cave to the racism inherent in American churches, then the missional movement will solve little.
yo Bill…
I’m using “democratic” within the general usage of democracy as a political means of reaching agreement …Bill you say “You seem to be focused on determining doctrinal parameters. Perhaps this is not what should be key in a faith community. It isn’t in mine.” But then you say immediately following “We have agreed that the center is Jesus Christ and we have agreed on a vision which is quite broad.” Although we both find distasteful some of the exclusionary implications of “doctrinal paramenters” … and we both acknowledge we should flesh these out together … it appears you’re contradicting yourself … here eh?… or at least nuancing in a way I would be favoruable to …
Hey Matt … ouch!! thanks …
[...] Nathan Colquhoun posted Reclaiming the Mission » Stuck between Mohler and McLaren: The Incarnational Approach to Leading in…. [...]
[...] different than the one most associated with (what was) the emergent church as I articulated over here. So before I actually outline pos. 3 on these two questions, I’d like to show why Missional [...]
[...] in salvation. Yet there are differences as well which I tried to make clearer previously over at this post. This incarnatiuonal, post Christendom driven understanding of life and truth in the gospel leads, [...]
[...] series of posts that began here (and continued here and here and probably should include this post here as necessary background). The three posts to follow all deal with this last and probably most [...]