Change is Good
“Change is good.”
This is a phrase that can be quite contrary.
Change is neither good nor bad; it depends on the direction of the change, in my humble opinion.
It has been observed by many in the ministry that the role and actions of the Church must change in order to survive. Given today’s culture this is more than just a theory. Gone are the days when the All Mighty Church leaders would sit back, preach, and expect the laity to nod in agreement and follow the party line. Gone are the days when evangelizing and proselytizing by quoting scripture and preaching AT the masses would spread the WORD.
In today’s world, the Church must take an active role in the community; it must be community centric, not centralized on its internal hierarchy. What is being forgotten, or ignored is that the Church is not a building, not the ministers, priests, and Bishops, but the people, the community. And YES, the WORD is important, but it is only half of what the mission should be, the ACTIONS and DEEDS are of equal importance. (and in the public eye, of more importance).
The role of minister and Bishop should be that of “brother’ of “friend”, of “compassionate advisor” not as the voice from on high. The vocation is one of, yes, leading the group in prayer, but also of being there for support. The ministers should be there to support their community, their family. The Bishops should be there to support the ministers, support, not oppress. The mister should be in touch with his/her community and assist with those matters in which he can assist, and refer on those which he/she cannot, and realize the difference. The ministers must also be active in the communities, even in matters of daily life, actively assisting in those activities that affect his community, supporting it as a big brother would support his family.
The Bishops should give guidance to the minister, but leave the ultimate decisions to the Minster (in most cases). Thoughtful discussion are what is required, not commandments from on high. Additionally, proper training should be provided and be encouraged through both secular and non-secular sources. The job of the Bishop is to provide the tools to the Ministers to allow them to do their vocation, refer issues they cannot properly address, and the knowledge to know the difference.
These are some of the key points of my discussion at our last Bishop’s conclave. The discussion appeared to have been well received, but as we all know, appearance’s can be deceptive.
There has been a shift in direction from an advisory role to a more authoritarian role, and change from the change if you will. What I had proposed (and may others have pointed out before me) requires more independence of the local churches, more spending of funds on education for ministerial training and education, and more referral to qualified outside agencies. Perhaps the increase of expenditure and lessening of control were too much of a change to accept at one time, or it was perceived as financially irresponsible for the “organization” and irresponsible for the leadership to step back and let those in the front lines take responsibility and true leadership. And it may have been a combination of these and other reasons. My philosophy is that a good leader makes himself/herself dispensable by empowering and educating others to make the right decisions.
Several months ago I was asked to retire as an active Bishop as my ideas and actions did not fit with the direction that the “organization” wished to go. After much considered thought and prayer, I saw the light in the situation and came to terms with it. My first response was confusion, then a bit of anger. It took a little while to realize that it was personal pride and ego that was affecting my acceptance of the other Bishops’ decision. In my eagerness to push towards a 21st Century Church, I was guilty of many of the situations I was arguing against, pushing my ideas and concepts on those who were not receptive, much like preaching at the crowd instead of talking with them.
“Change is good.” In this case, it is. I’ve seen something of myself that I was blind to, and in revealing this I can move forward more enlightened. My hopes are that the “organization” is correct in their direction and that it fulfills its purpose of serving God by serving the people.
This is a phrase that can be quite contrary.
Change is neither good nor bad; it depends on the direction of the change, in my humble opinion.
It has been observed by many in the ministry that the role and actions of the Church must change in order to survive. Given today’s culture this is more than just a theory. Gone are the days when the All Mighty Church leaders would sit back, preach, and expect the laity to nod in agreement and follow the party line. Gone are the days when evangelizing and proselytizing by quoting scripture and preaching AT the masses would spread the WORD.
In today’s world, the Church must take an active role in the community; it must be community centric, not centralized on its internal hierarchy. What is being forgotten, or ignored is that the Church is not a building, not the ministers, priests, and Bishops, but the people, the community. And YES, the WORD is important, but it is only half of what the mission should be, the ACTIONS and DEEDS are of equal importance. (and in the public eye, of more importance).
The role of minister and Bishop should be that of “brother’ of “friend”, of “compassionate advisor” not as the voice from on high. The vocation is one of, yes, leading the group in prayer, but also of being there for support. The ministers should be there to support their community, their family. The Bishops should be there to support the ministers, support, not oppress. The mister should be in touch with his/her community and assist with those matters in which he can assist, and refer on those which he/she cannot, and realize the difference. The ministers must also be active in the communities, even in matters of daily life, actively assisting in those activities that affect his community, supporting it as a big brother would support his family.
The Bishops should give guidance to the minister, but leave the ultimate decisions to the Minster (in most cases). Thoughtful discussion are what is required, not commandments from on high. Additionally, proper training should be provided and be encouraged through both secular and non-secular sources. The job of the Bishop is to provide the tools to the Ministers to allow them to do their vocation, refer issues they cannot properly address, and the knowledge to know the difference.
These are some of the key points of my discussion at our last Bishop’s conclave. The discussion appeared to have been well received, but as we all know, appearance’s can be deceptive.
There has been a shift in direction from an advisory role to a more authoritarian role, and change from the change if you will. What I had proposed (and may others have pointed out before me) requires more independence of the local churches, more spending of funds on education for ministerial training and education, and more referral to qualified outside agencies. Perhaps the increase of expenditure and lessening of control were too much of a change to accept at one time, or it was perceived as financially irresponsible for the “organization” and irresponsible for the leadership to step back and let those in the front lines take responsibility and true leadership. And it may have been a combination of these and other reasons. My philosophy is that a good leader makes himself/herself dispensable by empowering and educating others to make the right decisions.
Several months ago I was asked to retire as an active Bishop as my ideas and actions did not fit with the direction that the “organization” wished to go. After much considered thought and prayer, I saw the light in the situation and came to terms with it. My first response was confusion, then a bit of anger. It took a little while to realize that it was personal pride and ego that was affecting my acceptance of the other Bishops’ decision. In my eagerness to push towards a 21st Century Church, I was guilty of many of the situations I was arguing against, pushing my ideas and concepts on those who were not receptive, much like preaching at the crowd instead of talking with them.
“Change is good.” In this case, it is. I’ve seen something of myself that I was blind to, and in revealing this I can move forward more enlightened. My hopes are that the “organization” is correct in their direction and that it fulfills its purpose of serving God by serving the people.
posted by Tony Eye @ 12:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home