May 09, 2006
Who's Vision?
It seems a current trend today is having a ‘vision’ for the church or having leaders who are visionary. A good concept, unless you’re getting a different vision every time a new staff person is hired or new elders take office. Not that a leader shouldn’t have plans and goals, but the way many leaders use of the word ‘vision’ implies that it’s God’s idea or is God endorsed. When the churches’ vision changes with the leadership I’ve got to ask, ‘Who’s vision are we talking about here?’ I’m hesitant in accepting a new direction for a church if it requires dismantling the character of a healthy God-grown congregation. Rather than remodeling an established congregation, wouldn’t it be just easier to plant a new church?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Gail;
-----While there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and while we have been called into unity of spirit in one body there are many different visions - actually valid visions. And it should not cause one to wonder why there are so many different visions with different leaders.
-----Speaking of having vision validly linked to the moving of the Spirit, each person is given a measure of faith and gifts as the Spirit determines. Each person is going to see those around him relative to the spirtual understanding that is involved with his faith and gift. Therefore, many perspectives of the same gathering of His people will be seen by the leaders having gifts of the Spirit, and from that comes many "visions".
-----Also, over the course of years, situations change in the lives of people, so needs change as well. The needs of the church can also change if the flux in the lives of its members is great enough. Those needs generate "visions" in His children to whom He has given particular gifts for the meeting of particular needs.
-----I find it perfectly valid to encounter many "visions" in a body of His believers. But those "visions" are always for the objectives and goals of the ones having the visions. They have to do with individual service, not corporate leadership. And if a number of like gifted children come together with common "vision" and pool their efforts into teamwork, all the better.
-----But men who find opportunity in their positions of authority to engage the whole church in their own visions, whether they be valid visions of the Holy Spirit or puffed up imaginings, are conceited and arrogant. They have assessed their spiritual understanding to be above that of their brothers and sisters. They have held their contection with the Holy Spirit to be so direct that by the authority of their office they can overrule the connections with the Holy Spirit that those arround them have.
-----That is what Paul was refering to in I Cor 4:6-7. The crippling effect that this kind of puffed up arrogance has on the body is the destruction of the temple of I Cor 3:16.
-----God gives each of us subtle little visions by which we each should strive to build up the church from our own efforts. He expects His economy of love to work freely without the clumping, clogging effect caused by little masters of little visions among the servants.
One would expect a "vision" to be unique, or new, or fashioned in a special way to fit needs, but not necessarily revolutionary, and not containing the requirement that previous accepted traditions be abandoned whether or not they are useful or revered. The overall "vision" seems to be much the same for most comtemporary churches, following a set standard or framework, with some variatons depending on staff, regardless of the particular needs or desires of a congregation. Reading from the same book? Taught the same "visions" in Bible schools?
Planting a new church would certainly seem to be more desirable, but entails a lot of work, and why go to the trouble if the elders and membership are compliant, accepting,and continue to provide resources in an apparent show of support?
05-10-06
Gail;
-----The character of a congregation is something that belongs to that congregation. Not by any right, or law, or Scripture, but it belongs to the congregation simply by the fact that the character of a congregation is nothing more than the collective characters of everyone who make up that congregation. To think that a contemporary leader has a right to change the character of the individuals who comprise the congreagation runs afoul of Romans 14 and 15 and Philippians 2. To think that a contemporary leader has the right to change the character of the church by withholding the cultural elements he does not like and substituting the cultural elements he does like until enough new people with the desired character arrive and drown out the old character runs afoul of James 2. The only Scriptural action that a leader has relative to the character of the church is to serve those who are the church. And that, unfortunately for the contemporary leader, will tend to support the existing character of the church. Change comes from the heart, and hearts that belong to Jesus can not be starved or bannished without grieving the Spirit.
Post a Comment