denominations need to change
The last bit of the tour had all the students come together and 3 denominational execs, Peter Borgdorff, Jerry Dykstra and John Bolt gave presentations. I have alot of respect for these men, they carry huge responsibility.
Throughout their presentations came the theme, "we have to change." Which is a good start. Some stats prompted the need to change. Jerry Dykstra said that if we don't change as a denomination, we'll cease to exist in 25 years. Peter Borgdorff talked about how he was helping the denomination function more efficiently and also said we were growing by a mere 1% a year, which, to his own admission, wasn't enough to continue to be viable. John Bolt talked about the improving picture of the denomination's finance systems, but you were left with the feeling there was a long way to go before the denom was financially strong.
John Kotter, in his book, "Leading Change" speaks about the need for urgency or crisis to exist prior to change in order to fuel the desire for change and for the change to stick long term. Perhaps some of the crises being talked today is the first few drops of fuel needed to being the process of revitalizing the denomination.
Questions of long term viability, the relevancy of denominations today, are denominations needed are all on the floor for discussion. It's easy to deconstruct a denomination, but I don't think anyone knows what the church will look like in 25 years. We are all trying to just figure out the next hour, let alone tomorrow or next year. The swift change in today's society makes anything the slow moving denominations cook up seem irrelevant.
The thing I notice that was disturbing for me was the language the presenters used. Top down language. CEO language of corporations 10 years ago. Stuff like, this is what we are doing. Join us. We'll prepare you for the ministry. We are making a plan. Be a part of something big and impactful. Then there was the self congratulatory remarks - we are really good at this, other denominations would kill for a system like ours, we are having a big impact etc.
In other words, we'll figure it out, lead the charge and you fall in behind. Because we know and if we don't yet, we'll figure it out and when we do, we'll tell you.
Most change happens in organic churches from listening to people and sensing what God is doing here and now in people's lives. Not from the boardrooms, especially in the church. If you want to know how to help the church be viable in Chilliwack, go there and ask questions and listen. If you want to know how to change the denomination or the churches ask the churches. Don't let suits in a Herman Miller chair three time zones away tell the people of God who are praying for their meth addicted friend and is on his 3rd marriage what type youth ministry should his church buy into for his 15 year old on the west coast. Or how to plant a church in Surrey, BC or how to structure a 10 year old church's administration teams.
It still sounded and felt like top down, centralized power. Still. Centralization and the holding of power is all part of human nature. But for us to be alive we need to let it go. Trust, serve and bless.
It's about serving the churches, the pastors and most importantly the people, not the otherway around. They would have best used their time by asking the students questions and learning from their responses.
If the denomination realizes they need to change but continue with centralized power and follow me approach, nothing will change. A few herman miller chairs will be on ebay.
Go listen, be broken, say and believe you don't know. Weep from the pain in the world. Start reading more of Nouwen less of Hybles and Kotter.
From my own experience, changing structure, creating strategic planning processes, making goals and achieving them are all much easier than changing the heart.
But this is what the CRC denomination must do.
Throughout their presentations came the theme, "we have to change." Which is a good start. Some stats prompted the need to change. Jerry Dykstra said that if we don't change as a denomination, we'll cease to exist in 25 years. Peter Borgdorff talked about how he was helping the denomination function more efficiently and also said we were growing by a mere 1% a year, which, to his own admission, wasn't enough to continue to be viable. John Bolt talked about the improving picture of the denomination's finance systems, but you were left with the feeling there was a long way to go before the denom was financially strong.
John Kotter, in his book, "Leading Change" speaks about the need for urgency or crisis to exist prior to change in order to fuel the desire for change and for the change to stick long term. Perhaps some of the crises being talked today is the first few drops of fuel needed to being the process of revitalizing the denomination.
Questions of long term viability, the relevancy of denominations today, are denominations needed are all on the floor for discussion. It's easy to deconstruct a denomination, but I don't think anyone knows what the church will look like in 25 years. We are all trying to just figure out the next hour, let alone tomorrow or next year. The swift change in today's society makes anything the slow moving denominations cook up seem irrelevant.
The thing I notice that was disturbing for me was the language the presenters used. Top down language. CEO language of corporations 10 years ago. Stuff like, this is what we are doing. Join us. We'll prepare you for the ministry. We are making a plan. Be a part of something big and impactful. Then there was the self congratulatory remarks - we are really good at this, other denominations would kill for a system like ours, we are having a big impact etc.
In other words, we'll figure it out, lead the charge and you fall in behind. Because we know and if we don't yet, we'll figure it out and when we do, we'll tell you.
Most change happens in organic churches from listening to people and sensing what God is doing here and now in people's lives. Not from the boardrooms, especially in the church. If you want to know how to help the church be viable in Chilliwack, go there and ask questions and listen. If you want to know how to change the denomination or the churches ask the churches. Don't let suits in a Herman Miller chair three time zones away tell the people of God who are praying for their meth addicted friend and is on his 3rd marriage what type youth ministry should his church buy into for his 15 year old on the west coast. Or how to plant a church in Surrey, BC or how to structure a 10 year old church's administration teams.
It still sounded and felt like top down, centralized power. Still. Centralization and the holding of power is all part of human nature. But for us to be alive we need to let it go. Trust, serve and bless.
It's about serving the churches, the pastors and most importantly the people, not the otherway around. They would have best used their time by asking the students questions and learning from their responses.
If the denomination realizes they need to change but continue with centralized power and follow me approach, nothing will change. A few herman miller chairs will be on ebay.
Go listen, be broken, say and believe you don't know. Weep from the pain in the world. Start reading more of Nouwen less of Hybles and Kotter.
From my own experience, changing structure, creating strategic planning processes, making goals and achieving them are all much easier than changing the heart.
But this is what the CRC denomination must do.
posted by mike vanderkwaak at
4:10 PM
3 Comments:
It sounds exactly like what the CRC speaker at the 'Sea to Sea' rally in Guelph Ontario was saying a few weeks ago - the CRC needs to change or it will cease to exist. There was talk of change and some ideas of what needs to change. The problem around here is that the people who most push for change, mostly young and vibrant and have ideas and try to change, get very discouraged while trying to instigate change and then leave to find a church that is more organic and more involved in the community. That's why we left and joined a church that doesn't focus on the denomination, doctrine, or the leadership but instead on reaching out to the community and being a demonstration of Christ's love.
It's not hard to feel uneasy in today's church. It's even more difficult to consider what is needed to bring change. I hope your pursuit of following Jesus brings you progress in your new community. Bottom line ... that's what it's about anyways. It's not everyone's job to change institutions, but those that choose to know the tempation to major on the change process and minor in the following Jesus journey.
I agree with Heidi ... I too have left the CRC for a local church that is autonomous ... no denominational baggage .. the low-profile elders are responsible for keeping Jesus central and church on a Biblical path .. in this church all those who are in God's Family are "ministers" (stated in the program). The Sunday teaching is almost always prophetic, teaching, preaching and evangelistic ... with an emphasis on celebration (even though we do have our quiet/silent times).
The CRC's identity (IMHO) is too caught up into traditions that it hangs onto that came well after the New Testament ... so that tradition has equal weight as the Bible. This caused me to really reflect on my "ministry trajectory" after I completed my BS-Min&Ldrshp degree from Reformed Bible College. (and I was going to be a CRC church planter)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home