What a Quaker, Jersey Shore, and Lord of the Rings have in common

The other day I heard a quote from a Quaker, last name Trueblood, that was shared in a sermon by Bishop Lowey on June 7th.  I cannot recall the quote directly but it went something like this:

The nature of the Church is fellowship, that we can agree upon.  It is the nature of that fellowship that is vital and up for discussion.

This is a great way to talk about what I have been talking about in my local setting for years now.  It is not that I am not against having church so that we can have a "church family" for whom will bring us meals when we are sick or have social time with on the weekends.  I am not against that sort of fellowship at all, I just wonder if that is the fellowship of the Church that we ought to be working toward?

I hear many people talk about their church fellowship like one might think of the Brady Bunch, the Odd Couple or even the Jersey Shore.  That is a group of people from different backgrounds coming together to try to live together.  They have their disagreements and their good times, but ultimately they are just trying to survive and navigate life's ups and downs.

Frankly, I am not that interested in a Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship.  From my perspective, these fellowships serve a function that is very inwardly focused.  That is these fellowships are interested in what makes them feel good and what makes them happy.  I am not knocking this fellowship type at all, I just am not interested in it. I have areas in my life where I am self centered and seek to fulfill my own happiness as well, but I do not think the Church should be that place.

The Brady/Odd/Jersey fellowship seems to stand in contrast to the fellowship that I feel the Church is called to do and be.  One might think of this form of fellowship of The Lord of the Ring.  This "fellowship" had a mission and a greater purpose they all worked toward.  Some were not so great at it.  They were diverse (an elf AND a dwarf!) and they got along as best as they could.  There are some relationships there were tighter than others (Sam and Frodo seemed close but not as close as Pip and Merry).  Some died.  Some lived.  Some did not see each other for long stretches of time.  There was happy times and not happy times, but they all moved in one accord.  They had purpose and meaning greater than themselves.

And while I do not agree that the myth of redemptive violence that is found in the LotR is in line with the nature of the Church, I do believe that LotR better understands the fellowship of the Church that Trueblood was talking about.

Leadership in the Church

In a recent post on the Ablan Institute site, there was a lengthy post that was fantastic.  I will not go into details about the content, you can read the article here.

Rather I was very interested in one section of the article:

During the era of Christendom, clergy tended to have three roles: chaplain, scholar, and part of the authority structure of the town or community. Note that neither “leader” nor “congregational leader” is on the list. Today, however, clergy must be leaders. That is, they must be capable of helping their congregations identify and make progress on their own most pressing problems and deepest challenges. Moreover, clergy must be teachers of the faith and ministry mentors. Both of these roles mean that the ministry is not done primarily by clergy (as in Christendom) but by the people of the church, the members of the congregation. 



What captured my attention was the role of the minister is shifting and it seems like lay members get it but the clergy do not.  


Much of my time in clergy circles places emphasis on things revolving around a ministry paradigm which is fading away.  That is to say, many clergy circles I am in talk a lot about how to "do" hospital visits or what was preached last Sunday or different gossip around the conference about who is being appointed where and attempting to 'out know' others in the room in order to be the most "connected".  


This is not all that clergy talk about, but I have not been in many clergy circles in which leadership styles are deeply discussed.  I do not hear of many of my peers reading leadership books or taking note of some of the leadership trends or conferences around us.  There is a lot of leadership language, but not much leadership conversation.  

We use words like authenticity and transparency but we are not sure we know what these words mean.  We strive to be liked as we sacrifice the ability to lead.  Both Moses and Jesus were not liked all the time by all the people, yet they are the most pivotal leaders in our faith.  


How do clergy reclaim leadership?  


MLK said the church was once a thermostat to society setting the tone, but now has become a thermometer that reflects back the status quo.  How do we clergy help lead the church to become a thermostat again?


Perhaps it begins by taking leadership as seriously as we take theology.

The beauty of Latin

Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit - "Called or uncalled, God is present"

Pax Vobiscum - "Peace be with you."