Canadian Mennonite
Volume 11, No. 02
January 22, 2007
Answering the call to church leadership formation
 |
Both at Charlotte, N.C., in 2005, and at Edmonton in 2006, delegates of Mennonite Church Canada affirmed leadership development—understood largely as pastoral leadership—as one of the key priorities for the national church. A commonly voiced motivation for this is the perception that there is an inadequate supply of pastors in the church, a situation that is likely to get worse in the years to come as pastors retire.
But at the same time, the concern is surely also influenced by the mood of our times. There seems to be a general consensus in our culture that we lack strong, visionary leadership—in our society, local communities and the church. It is easy to look back, somewhat nostalgically, to earlier times when it was possible to name impressive leaders. Where are they now?
Against this backdrop, making leadership formation a top priority appears an appropriate response. But what does this mean practically? How are we going to work at ensuring that a new generation of effective, faithful leaders rises to the challenge?
In this task our church schools have a critical role. Mennonite Church Canada is fortunate to have a range of schools, each committed to the task of leadership formation, each having a distinct task in the mix, each making a valuable contribution (see “Mennonite Church Canada schools and leadership formation,” below). The combination of schools, with their experiences and commitment, is really quite impressive for a small denomination. And yet the concern remains. To some extent at least, the call for increased emphasis on leadership formation is an indictment of this network of church schools. Despite our commitment to the task, the results have been perceived as inadequate.
Unfortunately, there is no easy formula for changing this. To achieve success in this area will require close cooperation and teamwork among our church schools, and between them and the rest of the national church, both its formal structures and its congregations. And it will require a better understanding of how leadership develops and works in the church, and what is needed to develop it.
May I suggest that making leadership formation a priority will therefore require giving careful attention to at least the following:
• First, leadership formation is a complex, multifaceted undertaking. It may be possible to conceive of effective church leaders as combining strong personal character and faith, general leadership and people skills, and a range of job-specific skills.
Historically, pastoral training has tended to focus largely on the last, namely job-specific skills (biblical and theological knowledge, preaching and counselling skills). Increased emphasis on general leadership skills (human resources, organizational behaviour, finance) is needed. Further, the significant place of “character” for effective leadership must be recognized, with greater stress on fostering positive habits or virtues in all church school programs.
• Second, formal church leadership training programs only work with those who choose to participate, in most cases those who previously have experienced some call or encouragement to consider pastoral leadership.
An insufficient number of pastors, therefore, cannot really be blamed on the seminaries. Meeting the leadership challenge will require that our congregations, homes, area and national church programs, and our church schools all find ways of encouraging people to open themselves to this calling. And at the same time we will need to work to change the way our pastors are understood and treated by congregations, so that pastoral leadership is perceived as a possible calling by the next generation.
 |
• Third, too often thinking about pastoral leadership assumes an established urban or semi-urban congregation of 100-plus members with a pastoral team of one to three full-time staff.
Although many such congregations exist, they are not the norm. What about pastors for church plants, small rural congregations, ethnic congregations or even possibly a mega-church? Such settings call for additional or distinct skills, and may require an openness to bi-vocational ministry.
It is possible that our present reality is one not of a pastor shortage, but of the lack of a match between congregations and the kind of congregations for which we have prepared pastors.
• Fourth, although effective leadership will move a congregation beyond where it might otherwise be, at the same time an informed, committed congregation does wonders for leadership. In other words, our “crisis in leadership,” as some consider our present situation, may really be a “crisis in membership,” and as much an indictment of the life of our congregations as anything else.
As we Mennonites have become more a part of Canadian society, we also have been seduced by the secular vision of our time, a liberal democratic vision with little place for a God who calls us to be a light to the nations, to love our enemies, to live in an upside-down kingdom. As we work at leadership formation, we also need to work at forming the church—the body of Christ.
In this task, our church schools have a critical role to play as they work not only at formal leadership formation, but at preparing a people who are the church both when gathered together as well as when scattered during the week.
Agents of transformation for a global church
 |
God calls us to be followers of Jesus Christ and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to grow as communities of grace, joy and peace, so that God’s healing and hope flow through us to the world.—MC Canada Vision
So what does it take to become a global church? I suggest it takes knowledge, values, skills and relationships. While these are not the sole domain of education, church schools are powerful shapers in these areas. Here is how.
To be a global church, we need knowledge about the people and life of the church around the globe. We need people and places which research, analyze and make information available.
Church schools do this in the following ways:
• Instructors study to stay current in the knowledge of their field and communicate this effectively to students, publish, and speak in the wider community.
• Students expand their knowledge and learn about the way the world works.
• School libraries and websites become resource centres for the wider church and community.
We need people who know what they believe, how Christians in other countries and cultures understand their faith, and what the major religious groups of the world believe. It is for such an opportunity that we devote the resources to operate schools, colleges, and universities.
To be a global church, we need people with a commitment to live interdependently and share generously. While knowledge is a wonderful asset, by itself it does not lead to a global church. It also matters that we live out our values through our resources.
Values are forged in a number of ways: we imitate people we admire, we formulate our values through debates, and we are shaped by transformational experiences like mission trips.
Teachers are powerful models and church schools bring together an amazing group of people. Church schools also deliberately set up dialogues that prompt the integration of faith and their subjects of study.
To be a global church, we need people with skills in spiritual matters. Many schools provide fine training in various careers—medicine, arts, engineering, counselling and business—but in order to form people to be global Christians it is also important that they learn skills in the areas of spiritual work, whether that be prayer, discernment, teaching or other ministries.
To be a global church, we need relationships around the globe. The challenges of connecting with “other groups,” whether around the block or around the globe, are made easier when we have a relationship with someone from that group. Church schools are amazing places to meet such people; it is surprising how many of these we encounter later and who can help us reach out beyond our local church to connect globally.
Liberal or conservative?
 |
“Are you a conservative or a liberal?” This appears to be a simple, straightforward question, yet my answer is never simple. It is: “I don’t know. I am both and I am neither. It depends on the issue. It depends on the person or group to which I’m being compared.”
I’m a pacifist because that’s how I understand the meaning of following Jesus, but that is a very liberal position to some of my friends. I support certain lifestyles and am disheartened by other lifestyles—ones that I believe EMU should actively discourage—so some call me (and EMU) conservative. If you really want to know what I believe, you’d be safe to read the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. Not that I agree with every last detail, but I do trust the discernment process of my church body. When I was baptized I committed myself to follow Jesus and to “give and receive counsel.”
I was surprised when EMU was lauded in a 2006 college guide book, All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith. Many, though not all, of the other 49 colleges in the guide book are “conservative” in that they have a direct connection to orthodox conservative causes, such as educating and preparing students to serve in the U.S. military. Yet the profile on EMU is largely accurate.
The title of the guide underscores the dilemma that an institution like EMU faces in explaining itself to prospective students, donors, church people and community members. How do we define ourselves within a cultural context that wants to reduce complex realities to simplistic clichés? Sometimes I receive calls from community folks who seem to know exactly how a Mennonite institution should conduct itself. These calls bemuse me since those of us committed to this expression of the church rarely possess such certainty, despite our heartfelt prayers for guidance.
Since my ordination in 1975, I have preached in more than 230 congregations, mostly Mennonite, but some from other traditions. Frequently I have engaged folks in Christian education conversations and interacted with members and leaders over a meal. Although I am optimistic by nature, I have detected a trend that concerns me: I am troubled by the loss of identity among many who call themselves Anabaptist.
I am not referring to such simplistic identity labels as “conservative” and “liberal.” Do these really matter?
I meet church members who eagerly embrace one in opposition to the other, as though it is actually possible to be consistent across the spectrum, whether theologically or politically. As one of my Anabaptist mentors used to say rather frequently, “On some social issues I am rather liberal…because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position.”
I have a deep concern that Anabaptist Mennonites have been derailed theologically by the influence of so-called Christian radio and TV. I grieve that we are increasingly unable to stand up for the Jesus of the New Testament, who called us to another way. We are also subject to derailment from liberal theology that downplays the significance of Jesus’ invitation to salvation.
The problem with drinking from other theological wells is that we are subtly lulled into thinking that all Christians share similar perspectives. Yet all do not read the Bible the same way. Many believers have a “flat book” view of Scripture. The logical result is that Old Testament perspectives are put on the same level as those in the New Testament. Jesus himself demonstrated a different approach: “You have heard it has been said…, but I say….”
My Anabaptist theological ancestors interpreted the Old Testament through the eyes of Jesus and through the lens of the unfolding revelation in the New Testament. Unfortunately, that’s a perspective not heard from most speakers in the popular Christian media. Either my Anabaptist forebears were deluded—or they were right. I’m throwing my lot in with them. They believed the example and words of Jesus must be our guide, and so do I.
What practical difference does this make? Some years ago I was guest preacher for several days just prior to a U.S. presidential election. One individual told me, in all seriousness, that she would not vote for a particular candidate because “he would take away all of our Bibles.” Never mind that I doubt any U.S. political leader would denigrate the Bible, I have to ask the obvious question from a New Testament perspective: What difference would that make? I’ve always understood that the strength of the church—and the faith-based stances of its believers—is not subject to the “state.”
What kind of faith is demonstrated if we insist on being legitimized by government? Our friends in Ethiopia saw people flock to the church during a time of prolonged persecution. They didn’t need governmental support for the church to flourish, even as they would certainly appreciate, as we do, the freedom to worship in peace.
My observation is that many of us who grew up Mennonite have struggled to come to peace with our past experiences. We remember the days when we were, in fact, very different culturally. It was embarrassing to stand out in the crowd. It is so much easier psychologically to “fit in” with the multitude. And, now, particularly in the North American context, we fear the possibility of being ostracized by our neighbours if we dare to challenge prevailing assumptions.
What does this have to do with EMU and Mennonite education? I’ve devoted most of my adult life to this mission for one simple reason: I believe Mennonite Anabaptists have had, and still have, a unique theological perspective and practice that are needed in our world. I am disappointed with the headlong rush to “be like everyone else,” as though our theological forebears were badly mistaken.
Frankly, I think the burden of proof is on those who have embraced the majority culture. Again, the New Testament hardly promises that the followers of Jesus will enjoy majority status.
I’ve frequently said that I am “proud” to be a Mennonite, although I always add with a smile, “I’m proud in a humble sort of way.” That’s not because I value being Mennonite above being a follower of Christ. I do believe, however, that it is not possible to be a generic Christian. We are all part of theological streams with historical wellsprings, whether we are charismatic, Pentecostal, Lutheran or Anabaptist—and whether we realize it or not.
If EMU and our sister Mennonite schools and colleges are not unique and thoroughly committed to being Anabaptists as followers of Jesus, there is little reason for us to exist. There are hundreds of good, academically strong institutions that do a great job of educating young adults.
I am astounded at the number of parents around the church who aren’t aware of this simple fact: We’re different from other colleges. Even other educational and denominational leaders recognize we represent something unique. One university president from South Dakota, himself a Baptist, told me recently, “You Mennonites are among the few in the whole country who are making any sense right now.”
Jennifer Jag Jivan, a member of the Church of Pakistan (a merger of four Protestant denominations) and a recent EMU master of arts graduate, described the difference this way in a recent letter: “I feel richly blessed that my life crossed the Mennonites. Like all people, of course, they experience their ups and downs, church conflicts and others, but they are a people whose commitment to walk in the love of God in humility renews one’s spirit in the goodness of humanity. My deep appreciation for all the Mennonites, whether meeting them in the cafeteria, bookstore or classroom—their culture of helping others and meeting others where they are, and spreading this culture of love and peace—is breathtaking indeed! But what is more, this environment is so catching that it enables others to embrace this spirit and be the miracle of this love-sharing life.”
These statements are not reasons to become proud, but they do show that others see something distinctive, a difference worth preserving.
It may seem strange for a university president to say that he doesn’t really care if his institution exists in the year 2026. And I don’t, not for the sake of the university itself. But I do care, with all my heart and soul, that the church’s witness is strong in the year 2026. I’m convinced it will only be so if a substantial number of our youths receive a Mennonite education.
To those who have stuck with me to this point in my “sermon,” and who are surprised at my audacity and passion, I made a similar speech to the EMU Parents’ Council one morning last spring. I made it totally off the cuff, after I had forgotten I was to join them, and then I apologized for my passion. I reflected that perhaps I’m getting old, and that I no longer feel as if I have much to lose. They were slightly stunned, I think, and then said, “Put it in writing. You’re preaching to the choir.”
My life would be blessed if the “choir” would carry the message and deliver their young adults in large numbers to EMU and all of our Mennonite schools—and most blessed when those graduates have become the faithful members and leaders of the church tomorrow.