I was going to write a few posts on GC09. I have several things to say, but I have decided that this post will be it. Mainly because, well, to be quite honest I was going to rant about a couple of things and there is no value in that.
That said, I am going to attempt to process one area of concern I have and let you in on that process here. As I said before, overall I am encouraged about the future of the church and of the Assemblies of God. We have some great leaders and there were some significant steps taken in the right direction two weeks ago.
However, there is something that I am struggling with. From the discussions held in the business meetings and on Twitter and in the blogs, I am not the only one struggling here.
The AG and the leadership of the church in America is not getting any younger. In fact, it seems there is a generation or two that is clinging to positions and power with a near death grip. At GC09 more resolutions were presented in an attempt to bring in some younger leaders to the bodies of influence within our fellowship. There were even a couple of people elected into these groups; token at best, but elected in nonetheless. Truth is, nothing changed among any of the highest levels. The resolutions were discussed and tabled for another two years. My concern is two-fold: first, we just keep putting off actually doing something; second, the solutions that are being offered are quotas and don't change anything really.
Adding more people to a body that at times is already too big and bureaucratic isn't going to be effective. Plus, it doesn't really change the complexion of that body. Trying to change things with mandates and resolutions from the top down often just centralizes things more and can have the reverse of the intended effect. It seems that the real answer is for those currently holding the positions to mentor and raise up the next leaders and then step aside gracefully instead of holding on for decades. Term limits definitely seem like a better step in the right direction than age, gender, and ethnic quotas. Why is it so hard to look across a room at the District level and find those with energy, vision, and anointing and give them the opportunity to lead? Why do we allow ourselves to become comfortable and complacent to the point of hanging on too long and allowing others to do so as well?
I honor and appreciate the generations that have gone before. Those men and women that have paved the way are a tremendous source of wisdom and guidance. I frequently seek out the counsel of those with more experience than me. That doesn't mean, however, that the roles of leadership should be held solely or mostly by only those with so many decades of experience. I would contend, that the ones who willfully and intentionally step aside and let the generations after them step up and even encourage that will have more influence and a greater legacy than the ones who hold on to position and titles.
I don't have a program oriented solution or one that can be easily "RESOLVED" after a few "Whereas" statements. I do believe that we must each examine our hearts and ask if serving is our real motivation or is power and political position? If it is serving, then we will do so wholeheartedly and understand that seasons change and come and go. If it is power, title, and position then we will strive and claw to get there and then hold on for as long as we can get away with it.
Maybe the best, most effective, and influential leaders are those who give it all away and raise up the next generations.
Feel free to weigh in... what are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I like this, Shane, good stuff. For anyone in ministry, working yourself out of a job should be essentially your goal. Raise up leaders and laborers, delegate to them, and then move on.
ReplyDeleteThough, I think there is wisdom in the older generation shepherding the younger. This can only be good, though, if (the caveat you pointed out) the older generation is as zealous and passionate about the mission as the younger. If not, it's time for them to move on.
Though I do have a hard time deciphering what you really mean ;) Care to share specific issues?
Pastor, it does seem as if you have a specific issue that you are referring to only in an oblique manner. If we are speaking about elected positions, people will do what people will do. Young folks need to step up if they are to be considered. Complex issue. Now that I have a few whiskers myself, my thoughts have changed, and I suspect that your thoughts on the matter will evolve as you get some whiskers too!
ReplyDeleteAndy Eippert
My thoughts are evolving. One is that I hope I am ready to let the next generation step up and lead and do not hold on to position longer than I should. I think it is a struggle every leader does and will face. I am taking steps now to raise up younger leaders with the goal of providing opportunities for the following generations to fulfill all God has for them.
ReplyDeleteI in no way mean to suggest that a leader becomes useless with age, the contrary actually. I am speaking to holding onto position for so long that one loses touch and won't allow subsequent generations the opportunity to step until there is no choice.
What we see a lot of in leadership is transitions happening due to attrition instead of by intention. When done intentionally, health and growth are the results. When done through attrition, the status quo is maintained.
I'm suggesting more of a partnering and unity among generations versus competition or pecking orders as it were.
Holding a position of authority can undoubtedly be a source of pride and greed. Power corrupts, even church power. The lust of power and a position of authority is equally as debase. Let neither be true of us.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite things about George Washington was that he was the first guy in the history of the world (well, except Jesus) to give up his power. He chose to limit his reign because he saw the wisdom behind what you're saying. He could've easily (with his popularity and prestige and power) crowned himself emperor or king ala Napolean.
But Shane I'm sensing the point of contention with these older leaders is in the way you say they're "losing touch." In what ways? If they've lost touch with God's mission of winning the world to himself, or they've lost intimacy or joy in Christ then by all means fire them. If they've stopped running the race they're definitely in no position to coach others on how to run.
It's not contention as much as it is concern for what seems to be protecting the status quo. They speak of change and the need to do things differently, yet nothing significant changes. They throw gestures toward bringing in younger influences, yet do little of substance to merge the generations or bridge the gaps.
ReplyDeleteThe "losing touch" I refer to is in regards to practical and daily ministry in the trenches as it were. Everyone of us to be careful not to become so immersed in a subculture that we become clueless to the culture at large. This happens even easier when one sits in a position within an organization and spends the bulk of their time overseeing the machinery of said organization.
Not all of our current leaders are years or decades removed from "trench ministry" as some are currently serving as pastors. I must be fair in acknowledging that. However, when the age of our highest decision making bodies is averaging around 60, there is much missing when it comes to insight and perspective.
I don't believe those groups should be completely men and women in their 20s and 30s either. It should be a good mix of the generations in order to bring the strengths of all.
It really is about the question: do we do things as they have been done, or find a new way to approach it?