a new kind of leadership

Prompted by Big Mike Lewis' latest blogs (Shepherding the Emergent Flock Part I & Part II), and consequently some of my own thoughts that had been backburnered for quite some time, I decided now was a rather appropriate time to answer what I presume were rhetorical questions meant to generate new thinking.

1. What place does an eldership have in these [emergent/postmodern] churches?
   Eldership I think should play a large role in churches, but I think the name and role will be much different. First, eldership is a horrible name - as Mike stated, there is an enormous stigma attached to it. More appropriately, these groups would be recognized by what they truly are, leaders, shepherds, guides, caretakers, counselors, etc. They won't be quite so formulaic though, as to properly shepherd a church these days, you have to have a diverse pool of talent to pull from when it comes to planning.
   
2. Do we need them in the same way we have used them in the past (even in the present)?
   No, we no longer need managers or executives (be honest, that's what many practically are). What we need now are people willing to think outside the box, people who are willing to admit when they don't have all the answers (but willing to journey for new answers), and people who are approachable with any question, comment or concern because it is known they are not judgmental. We don't need a board of execs who primarily ensure that the status quo (i.e. doctrine, interpretation, etc) is maintained and no one disturbs the peace.
   
3. Are elderships necessary to a vision that may be over their heads (and beyond their comprehension)?
   Yes, but that means that a new group of shepherds are needed, or the shepherds need to be learning and growing right along with everyone else. If you can't understand it and never will or never intend to, how can you be effective at guiding and counseling other people?
   
4. Can you have a modern person shepherd a postmodern flock?
   Yes and no. You cannot have a modern person shepherd a postmodern group if the modern person is not open to new ideas and differing opinions. If they are perfectly comfortable with other people being on different journeys and not forcing their own perspectives or agendas on people, then they could certainly shepherd just about anyone.
   
5. If you assemble a postmodern eldership, what would be the requirements because we know that the biblical elder qualifications were different for different churches (Timothy's and Titus' letters were different and those two were different than the ones in Acts, Ephesus, Philippi, etc.)?
   Different strokes for different folks. I don't know where I first heard that phrase, but I think it applies well to much of what emergent recognizes. Communities are not homogeneous around the world, so why would the church (which is a spiritual community)? The qualities for postmodern shepherds could be very different depending on where you are, but I think the following types of criteria would be used in drafting the qualities for an ideal group of candidates.
   
   • Does this person believe that Jesus is the Son of God and profess the basic teachings of Christ: faith, love, and hope?
     
   • What are the problems facing our local/regional community and can this person understand, cope, and relate to the issues?
   • Does this person agree with and grasp the vision/mission of our church?
   • Is this person willing to use their talents, whatever they may be, for furthering the work of God's kingdom?
   • Can this person give and receive both praise and criticism with a humble, loving heart?
   • Is this person a good communicator (verbal, written, or otherwise)?
   • Is this person a good listener?
   I honestly think a present day, emergent/postmodern leadership would look a lot more like a successful project team - project manager, architect, handful of techies with different focus areas, lawyer, accountant, human resources manager. Each person has a role, but each person also has a voice in the process of keeping the work of furthering God's kingdom running like a well-oiled machine. I know it's cliche, but you know how preachers like to talk about the church being like a human body with Christ as the head - some people are hands, feet, fingers, legs, etc - well its the same concept. Everyone is different and has something to add to the church, and the same should apply to those leading the church.
   
6. What implication would this have on elderships' roles in our current modern church bodies...would they need to change the way they do some things?
   The implications are rather huge, if I do say so myself. For one, I think it would turn a lot of "elderships" on their heads, primarily because of the 2nd, 4th, and 5th bullets. Most elderships that I have seen are well, elderly, as well as detached from the local community, not very open to criticism, sparse with praise, and locked in to certain kinds of talents. I'm not saying older Christians can't be shepherds, but I am saying there are plenty of younger people that are well-suited to being a shepherd but are blocked from eldership due to strict requirements of age and familial status. It's kind of like saying, we want you to use your talents in our church, but we don't want to recognize you formally as a leader - just keep digging that ditch while we sip lemonade and nod approvingly. I think if the role changes were taken to heart and implemented, you would suddenly find that leadership groups would become much more effective at attaining the goals they set forth because there would be a lot more buy-in since different talents are not only recognized but utilized.
   

I think the dictionary definition of a shepherd best describes the core of what an elder should be: "One who cares for and guides a group of people." And with that, I will go ahead and tackle Mike's un-tackled thought:
<controversy>
Yes, I do believe that a woman could be a shepherd and be a part of a church leadership group.
</controversy>