How do defeat the object of an organic, natural church...

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Participants will hear in the 10 one-hour coaching calls comprehensive strategies to start and developing small groups, by prominent speakers such as Brett Eastman, the Purpose Driven coaching staff and other successful pastors and small group directors. The program also includes one year of Purpose Coaching Handbook, the latest web coaching resources such as documents to downloads for church bulletins and flyers, video clips, newsletters for leaders, coaches and pastors and email access to other small group leaders and pastors to keep one another updated with the progress and developments of the small groups program

source: http://www.christianpost.com/article/americas/164/section/small.groups.coaching.program.begins.second.session.at.saddleback/1.htm

I just thought that this could be one of th most horrible things I've ever come across.
Comments anyone?

[New_Wineskin]

[/font]

source: http://www.christianpost.com/article/americas/164/section/small.groups.coaching.program.begins.second.session.at.saddleback/1.htm

I just thought that this could be one of th most horrible things I've ever come across.
Comments anyone?

I say that it is par for the course . It is the institutionalizing of the house church . It is also a packaging idea to mass produce - not to mention that there are those involved to make money through the purchase of *their* merchandice and the bringing in specific named speakers . There is also a control structure through which these "leaders" communicate . Pretty nonhuman stuff .

[Witness Of His Love]

I went to CCN's website which is offering this service. It seems this is no different then actual physical churches sending their people to conferences for special training. This is just an old dog with a new face. The cost for speakers, materials and personal advice offered seem about the same as actually going to a conference without the cost of food, lodging and transportation to get there.

I've always had a problem with these conferences in the first place, making church members and church leaders feel obligated to go, as they are quite expensive. I've also question the benefits of these programs - just seems like busywork to me.

Here are the prices (http://www.ccn.tv/about/greatvalue.htm) CCN is charging for its program. Ouch!

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I suspect that the "teaching ministries" are responding to a more organic church structure, and finding out how to bend with it... rather than letting it get on, or quitting their "ministry" and go join in!!!

How is this "professionally organsied ministry" approach to church, teaching and leadership differ from, say, the Catholic Church - except, of course, that Catholicism includes and even welcomes more liberal worldviews and lifestyles!

[Wisdom's Child]

Just more profiteering at the expense of God.

They are just trying to find new ways to keep their jobs and incomes.
Clearly they are more concerned with keeping the buisness going, than where God is leading His people.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Just more profiteering at the expense of God.

They are just trying to find new ways to keep their jobs and incomes.
Clearly they are more concerned with keeping the buisness going, than where God is leading His people.

So it seems. We return full circle to Jesus over-throwing tax-tables in temples.

[Honibee]

Just more profiteering at the expense of God.

They are just trying to find new ways to keep their jobs and incomes.
Clearly they are more concerned with keeping the buisness going, than where God is leading His people.

Being new to the thread, AND in a home church situation myself, I completely agree with the conclusions made. I pray for discernment and a holy BOLDNESS to withstand the schemes of 'hirelings'.

Stuff like this really angers me :mad: (holy anger, of course :angel: )

[discernomatic]

I say that it is par for the course . It is the institutionalizing of the house church . It is also a packaging idea to mass produce - not to mention that there are those involved to make money through the purchase of *their* merchandice and the bringing in specific named speakers . There is also a control structure through which these "leaders" communicate . Pretty nonhuman stuff .

I agree with all statements, and think that this one hits the nail on the head.

I also think that this is a way for the "unchurched" to eventually be brought into a system of control, seeing that many prefer small groups if any. These small groups can be started practically anywhere, not just as an addition to an already established church. Sure seems like a nightmare.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Wow a come-back thread!!!
Welcome, Honibee, haven't seen u b4!!!
So..... hows people feel about BOTTOM-UP as opposed to TOP-DOWN leadrship/church, and how are people living this or hope to?

[New_Wineskin]

I agree with all statements, and think that this one hits the nail on the head.

I also think that this is a way for the "unchurched" to eventually be brought into a system of control, seeing that many prefer small groups if any. These small groups can be started practically anywhere, not just as an addition to an already established church. Sure seems like a nightmare.

Yeah . I know of denoms who see that people are leaving for home groups and so have their own midweek cells . However , many of these have authorized people in charge of these groups . They may be more free to express themselves in the cells but , anything that could be construed as outside of the group's main teachings will be reported or shut down . They also usually are *required* in some way or another to report to the main meetings of the group .

[New_Wineskin]

Wow a come-back thread!!!
Welcome, Honibee, haven't seen u b4!!!


Yay !! :)


So..... hows people feel about BOTTOM-UP as opposed to TOP-DOWN leadrship/church, and how are people living this or hope to?

I don't like either bottom-up or top-down - only the Lord as leader and all of us as equals . I don't like levels .

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Good point,Wino. Although I use the termfiguratively. Fore example,it is something I promotein my classrooms, that the pupils can teach me new things as well as one another!

In terms of church, I believe that unless we give up the whole structure and allow cross-communication that does not have to be mediated by a "leader" - a self-organising church - we will continually fall into a leader and member mentatlity. The problem of active and passive members! I aprreciate that we all have unique gifts and so allcan leadin someaspects,but even the act oif following in this context is not a passive one! For many of us we are preprogrammed to respond passively to another persons "leadership" or "gift" rather than truly engange and discipleone another.

So,what I am saying is: there is no such thing as a passive follower. I amnot a follower of Christ,I am a disciple! We all shouldbe.The change in wordsjust drags the wordfollower back to what it is in the Bible,an active and proactive learner/teacher,ie.disciple!!!

ASIDE: Jesus wasn'ta leader. Have you ever noticed that? Other wise he wouldn'thave buggered off right after he'dproven himself to be all-powerfuland defeatedsin and death,nor would he have left us "followers" the exact same freedomfromsin and powerof HolySpirit that he has!!!

But how do we church it without leaders?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

PS one of my kids broke my space bar. get usedto it!

[New_Wineskin]

Ok . I pretty much agree . :)

But how do we church it without leaders?

I llok at it as the same as a bunch of people getting together for a visit . People just start socializing and discussing amongst each other . Do they need "leaders" during visits at a friends or at a barbeque ? Any leadership that is performed is usually very mild ( unless the host has a detailed agenda on the gathering ) . Do they need only one person speaking while everyone else is quiet and listening ? Or , can they break into subgroups and intermingle ? In a day to day family , are the parents always "leading" or do they only get involved when certain events occur that require their expertise . Again , there are parents that are overcontrolling .

My point is ... if people can function without constant leadership ( especially adults ) outside of a "church" atmosphere , why do they need such constant oversight *in* that atmosphere ? Something is really wrong here . If people ( including unbelievers) can behave civilly and intelligently in a secular environment , why is there such fear of utter chaos when a group of believers gather together ?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I never knew we had so much in common, Wino.

[New_Wineskin]

I never knew we had so much in common, Wino.

LOL!! Yep . Two peas in a pod . ;)

I am sure that we differ on a few points that we consider as "major" . Until then ... it will be nice . :)

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Jesus was an alien, right?

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

So,to all other littleWino'sout there,u may be interested in this...


Leadership and Ethics [...] 2

To summarize the previous post:


It's my theological contention that the Church needs to become a 'self organizing' system if it is to properly model the holy freedom God has given us post-Incarnation.


In Griffin's 'The Emergence of Leadership - Linking Self-Organization and Ethics' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/026-1435313-9212409) - he posits that there is an apparent paradox in much of our thinking about groups: while they are actually made up of individuals, we attribute them status 'as if' they were single entities.


The attempt to resolve this paradox usually leads to us neglecting the 'as if' and seeing groups or organizations as single entities responsible ethically, led by a few key individuals. These leaders are then projected as heroes or villains.


Griffin proposes that we need to think differently about ethics, and this will mean we will think differently about leadership. I have taken this, in our situation, to mean that we must avoid projecting heroes or villains - which is still happening too often in ECs.
I want to think a little further about what leadership in a self-organizing context might mean.


'The Courage to Create' ("][/url]Firstly, some thoughts on self-organizing systems. Griffin is keen to argue a position of 'participative self organization'. What he means by this is a breaking down of the barriers between observers (leaders) and participants (followers), subjects and objects. A participative self-organizing system 'causes itself in moving toward the purpose which is intrinsic to the process' - phrase I would interpret as an immersed-incarnational approach. This is in contrast to what he terms 'systemic self organization', which posits both an autonomous individual as external observer and a self-organizing system of which the subject is a part... and is viewed as 'moving toward purpose which has originated externally by a leader' - a phrase I would interpret as the 'programme-driven' approach.

In other words, Griffin sees that to model this emerging leadership in a self-organizing, self-renewing group, we need to actually fully take on board the significance of what Paul is saying in 1 Cor 12:14-27, that we are all part of the body of Christ. No one is external observer. Everyone is tied in to everyone else. We are connected. There are no subject/object divisions. This thinking can be developed to bring an understanding of ourselves as 'human becomings'. Griffin argues that we need an understanding of selves as emergent persons in social interaction. In other words, we become self-aware not through introspection, but through interaction.

It is less 'cogito ergo sum' than ' (excuse my rather poor latin) 'concero ergo sum': I am, because I am connected.

Leaders then, cannot be seen as people external to the system. They are an integral part of it, and must participate fully in it. And, as is perhaps more of the problem in churches, they must invite others to be fully participative too.

So, secondly, what we can also take from Paul in his subsequent writing on gifts is that, as different gifts are exercised, different people take leadership; Griffin concurs with this. More interestingly though, he identifies the dangers that come with the multitude of leadership opportunities that are presented to us:

We, as groups of persons, in the on-going sustaining of our identity, together create a great variety of leadership roles [...] at the same time. A great number of leadership themes of identity are available to us in all situations we find ourselves in. Because of the anxiety of the unknown and the uncertain, we often choose themes that protect us and provide escape from the anxiety. What this amounts to in everyday life is a defaulting to the leader who seems to provide us comfort. Who cries 'peace, peace'. When there is no peace. As Aldous Huxley proclaimed: "So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly rise and make them miserable." This seems to connect with the series of posts I did on Rollo May's book [url="http://thecomplexchrist.typepad.com/the_complex_christ/2005/08/rebellion_godli.html):

"those we call saints rebelled against an outmoded and inadequate form of God on the basis of their new insights into divinity. The teachings that led to their deaths raised the ethical and spiritual levels of their societies."



The opposite of those pioneering saints are those leaders who claim to be drawing us out of our anxiety, but are really emasculating us from our universal potentiality to lead in the situation where we are gifted.

To summarize then:


We need to be heading for participative self-organization


In such an organization, people are recognized as equal, and all as 'becoming'.


As interconnected equals on a journey together to newness - rather than back into tradition - we will need to be interdependent. This will call for distributed leadership in which different people take a lead as their gifting requires. "The eye cannot say to the hand, I don't need you."
By Kester, a diamond geezer.

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

So, we don't need no heroic leaders. We got Jesus!

PS. Euthenise the Church, spread the healthcare!

[New_Wineskin]

Jesus was an alien, right?

LOL!! Depending on the definition , it could be agrued either way . :)