One of the key issues we’ve struggled with as a new emergent church is the tension between leadership and, well, lack of leadership. Initiative as leadership is fine, but we haven’t really gotten into the idea of one person being in charge of the direction of our community. However, the limitation of this is that we all tend to do our own thing and there is really no one to set a standard for us. We’re left to live our lives and talk about them on Sunday, but it is very awkward to challenge each other’s comfort levels with various aspects of our missional activity.
Perhaps there is a way forward. Perhaps we are called to transcend the dichotomy of leader-in-charge vs. no one in charge. From Missional Church:
Discerning communities are not hierarchical in structure, but neither are they egalitarian. Because all receive gifts to contribute to the common good, everyone enjoys the right and the obligation of participating authoritatively in decisions of faith and practice. Yet because the Spirit distributes different gifts, responsibilities, and functions, there is also an element of differentiation. Spiritual gifts are not distributed in monotonous uniformity but in rich diversity. The focus here is not on the prerogatives of designated leaders or on the equal privileges of members, but on corporate responsibility for discerning the wisdom and prompting of the Holy Spirit. Thus communities of giftedness are neither autocratic (the rule of one) or democratic (the rule [of] the people) but pneumocratic (the rule of the Holy Spirit). Authority within missional communities is found neither in particular status nor in majority opinion. It is dispersed throughout the whole body through the illumination and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. The image is of a participatory community earnestly expecting and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in its midst, utilizing the diverse gifts of all participants, and willing to be bound by what is mutually decided. p173-174, emphasis mine
If this is to be reality, it will require us to recognize that God may speak to us through each other, that He may use us to push each other in His direction.
There is certainly ample biblical justification for this approach, but I don’t think many churches would be comfortable with it. Sure, we believe in the Holy Spirit, but only in an abstract sense (or in a concrete, visible signs-and-wonders sense if you’re more charismatic). Making the leap to a form of communal life that actually assumes and depends on the guidance of the Holy Spirit is something else entirely. Where would that take us?
