Leadership Crisis

The Christian Affirmation that has received so much attention as of late on the blogosphere has generated some terrific conversations. There are some great conspiracy theories, some critiques, some affirmations of the affirmation and some newly constructed affirmations. I would link to all of them, but I am too lazy and I forgot where I read them all. But go here to search links to the affirmation.

I want to critique this kind of leadership in the Churches of Christ. There are several reasons why this kind of leadership is ineffective. I'm not saying immoral, mean-spirited, or evil - just ineffective. Here are my critiques.

1. Closed as opposed to open.
This is poor leadership because it closes the question. Yes, I know that they asked for comments and have opened (a little bit of) room for some discussion. When I say it is closed I meant that they have not invited us into the mystrey of discovery, but to the "truth" that they already know and we apparently do not, but should if we follow their lead. This is not really a conversation, but rather a gentle way to hand down an edict.

2. Controls the conversation.
This is bad leadership because they have prejudged who is allowed to be in the conversation. They actually believe that limiting the conversation will be in the best interest of the church. So, the more I don't say the better off I am and the better off the church is? Ah, ahem, is this thing on?

3. The path of proven failure.
This is bad leadership because they are traveling down a path that has been tried for two centuries now and has failed to accomplish its goal. Furthermore, the harder it has been tried, the further from the goal we have gotten. Unity cannot emerge from uniformity. It never has and it never will. Can we please stop gnawing away on this old bone?

4. Ivory Tower syndrome.
The all male theologians club just does not work today like it has in the past. Women are offended (and rightly so) as well as men (and rightly so) that only men originated, signed, and promoted this affirmation. The fact that a couple of women have signed on after does not really hold any water. Women had no initial voice in this thing at all. Furthermore, shleps like me were not involved. In fact, shleps like me cannot get involved. I am not an elder, teacher or preacher, so I do not get a voice. They won't even post my 5 questions in their comments section. Furthermore, the line between clergy and laity is clearly drawn by this kind of leadership. I though that we had erased that line. I thought that we were the priesthood of all believers, not just the priesthood of really smart guys with degrees and positions.

5. Paradigm stasis.
We are in the postmodern era, but this kind of leadership is from the modern era. What they see as courageous leadership by asserting themselves in this way is really like the old guy wearing colored socks with his shorts. They have yet to shift paradigms. This affirmation is a terrific rerun on the TVLand station for denominations, but is in no way an in touch leadership style relevant to the era in which we actually live.

6. Kingdom irrelevance.
Is this really what the leaders of this denomination are all about? It's not that it is evil, but rather it seems unusual. How can this be more important than serving the poor, feeding the hungry, living in peace, engaging the culture etc? If this is where the leaders are leading, to some sort of doctrinal correctness that can settle in someone's cognitions while service is neglected, then I am not following. This affirmation does nothing to help the Kingdom of God. It does, however, expose the lengths to which some will go to preserve their little corner of the Kingdom. The unbelieving world looks at the church and laughs because we can't even agree with each other on anything, so why should they?

7. It will succeed enough to call it a success.
I predict the result of this affirmation will be a success enough to get the signers excited about it, kind of like a Pat Buchanan run for the presidency. Pat can really solidify a certain part of the base, and man do they love him, but he will lose the run form president every time. So, no matter if he wins New Hampshire, his initial succcess will always result in big picture failure. It could be that this affirmation is a turning point in the history of this denomination. I hope it's not, but I fear it will be.

8. Insulting the internet.

The power of the internet is in its democratic leveling of the playing field. It is a way for massive communication to happen. It is not meant to be controlled. Leadership on the internet is probably the most democratic of all kinds of leadership since people will choose to whom they link and do not link. However, using a postmodern tool (the internet) with modern rules and hierarchies (closed forums for the elite few) is not a good mix. It's like hammering screws. Or perhaps what they are doing is like buying a Corvette and driving it 25 mph only on resdential streets. Come on, take that baby out for a ride. Open it up and see what she can do.

I'll stop there. I want to again express my respect for the men who signed the affirmation. I do believe their hearts are good. I hope that they listen as much as they would like to be listened to. That would really help their overall credibility.