The most significant event that boarding schools may offer is the chance for the parents to sit down together (I am talking about from our organization here) and cross-pollinate one another. There is nothing quite as healthy and as satisfying as discussing, agreeing and disagreeing about the work that we are all involved in. What is even more fascinating is how encouraging it is to discover that your frustrations, struggles and challenges are shared by almost one and all. There is some form of deep comfort in that.
For instance, on this trip to Black Forest Academy thus far I have learned that a leader on another Field is struggling with many of the same issues that plague me in terms of job-related issues and stage of life issues.
Another missionary and I agreed together that the Western church spends way too much money on herself and gives far too little to the rest of the body of Christ! Moreover that the CMA should officially revisit her Victorian-era missiology and begin supporting the work and the workers around the world. (we currently have a policy of not supporting national workers)
Another missionary and I agreed on this trip that the CMA could be a far more powerful organization were we Christo-centric, rather than Ecclesio-centric in our theology/missiology/practice. This would greatly expand our influence in the Kingdom of God rather than keeping us focused only on church planting activities. There are many powerful reasons for moving in this direction (not the least of which is that church planting is never mentioned in the scriptures). Best of all being Christo-centric does not inhibit us from planting churches too, yet it opens many other doors and avenues to accomplishing the Great Commission, which incidentally is making disciples, not planting churches.
Another missionary and I agreed that our parent organization consistently confuses administration with leadership. What this means is that our organization chooses the safest people to be administrators and then we call what they do each day (administrate the organization) leadership. Leadership is sometimes administrative granted, but mostly it is something completely other. Leadership is where the risk-takers and the "infantry" (as my friend called them) live. It has high risk of failure, it is usually resisted, usually makes waves, it is entrepreneurial and chancy, and its where our best ideas come from -- in practice. Administrators are rarely those people, because our organization rarely chooses such people to administrate because they are way too risky, and plus frankly, none of them would take the current administration roles to begin with . . . boring. At the same time, we consistently see the administration role framed as a leadership role. It certainly could be, but most often isn't.
These are a sampling of the currents running through our missionaries. It was a bit shocking to discover that there is far more continuity among the grunt missionaries than I ever thought. We weren't always making a judgment, but rather simply agreeing that this is what is, in our organization. There is a good reason for boarding schools after all.
5 comments:
Dude, GREAT post. you should hang out with those guys more often!!
I love how you stated Christo-centric versus Ecclesio-centric orientations.
Let the revolution begin!
I love that part of BFA - you're absolutely right, the interaction and conversation with others in the same boat is extremely satisfying, and just fun!
We must have pretty different definitions of leadership, David. In my experience the entrepreneurial risk-takers usually don't have people following them - not because their ideas are necessarily bad, but because others realize that often the people pushing ideas are only interested in those around them for what they can produce or contribute to their own world of ideas.
Those who have been true leaders in our ministries have often made things happen that are not as obvious, appearing "safer" and even doing more boring jobs but making the tremendous effort to build trust-filled relationships so that vital, wide-spread changes can be made in the right time.
Keep prodding us to not let our minds settle into comfort mode, David! It's great to be able to sharpen each other in places like BFA and your back patio, and as Jeff does so well in his cyberspace world.
Pattie, I wrote poorly in that I made lots of generalizations and did little to state my opinion in a well defined way. Forgive me. As you showed well in your comment (on this blog and others recently), our experiences in life are amazingly consistently different.
This is a very complex discussion when one seeks to define leadership. I wasn't, and you didn't. I was only relating the gist of a conversation (well actually a series of conversations) that I had with some of our co-workers from other locations around the globe while at BFA recently. Furthermore I was (and am) not denigrating administrators nor administration. We need both! But I believe the entire point was that administrators are not automatically leaders (and both I and the person I was talking to believe that the CMA takes this position as a rule), any more so than leaders are automatically administrators. You can be both, but you aren't necessarily. And for the record let me state, I think your husband is a fine example of being both :-)
This conversation leaves me no choice but to jump into the warm, jacuzzied waters you bloggers have so long enjoyed. So here is my very own first contribution.
I believe, Dr D, that I may have been the one at BFA who mentioned the ecclesio- vs. Christo-centric models our organisation ought to reconsider. Let me add to that comment something along the lines that I shared with you the next night.
For more than a millennium both the Eastern and Western churches acknowledged the formula 'extra ecclesium nulla salus' (outside the church there is no salvation), and thereby assumed an ecclesio-centric understanding for Christendom. With the abuses of the papacy (nepotism, indulgences, immorality, lavish lifestyle, massive building programmes such as St Peter's basilica, etc.) during the 15th-16th centuries, one might get the impression that the reformers would have rather adopted a more Christo-centric model, and indeed, they did move in this direction. Hence, Solus Christus, Christ alone. And one might have expected that they would have changed the formula to 'extra Christus nulla salus' ie, 'outside of Christ (substituted for 'the church')there is no salvation'. But they didn't. Both Luther and Calvin affirmed the dogma 'outside of the church there is no salvation'. How was this possible? They could do this because they redefined and reinvigorated the idea that the church is not the hierarchy, but the priesthood of all believers, as per Paul and especially Peter.
So, must we choose between ecclesio- or christo-centric models? You suggest we don't, and I agree. I guess it all depends on what we mean by 'Church'. Be assured, however, that it will indeed impact how we operate.
BTW, I wonder what St Pete would think of a tour of the basilica named in his honour, given what he wrote about the nature of the church in his first epistle.
Sorry for the length. My first blog, you know.
Shirley, you said this all so much better than I did! Thanks for clarifying the important points of this critical discussion. I really enjoyed our talks, your insights almost always encourage me. You definitely need to post more often, because we need your critical assessments of current reality, and what impact that has on our actions.
Post a Comment