Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
March 28, 2024, 11:09:06 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Black Box Leadership  (Read 12703 times)
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« on: April 15, 2008, 04:45:18 am »

Once in a while I come up with a concept to describe something I have observed, hence the name of this thread.

A little background. The Black box I refer to  is not the thing in an airplane that records all the information about the airplane and protects it from destruction. I am instead using the Black Box from Engineering.... that mysterious place where information is understood before it enters the black box and not understood when it comes back out. It is like a magical place where unknown things happen to change the results.

Black Box leadership is what you get when there is a group of people with widely known information and everyone is on the same page. But suddenly some impetus arises, something happens that requires a change. The leaders convene  behind a closed door and suddenly there comes new direction  that makes no sense.   In spite of the fact that everyone had the same information the result is that no one knows how this new direction could have been arrived at.

How could this be?   Maybe there was new information inside the black box that changed the result. Maybe there are different priorities attached to the same information inside the black box that skew the results. Maybe some information was disregarded inside the box that resulted in a faulty result.

But no one knows,,,,, because the black box is not a place where just anyone can go. You are told that it's best not to ask, that it is confidential, that it is for your own good, that you do not have the same experience
as the leaders inside the black box.

We see this black box at work in the smoke filled back rooms of politics, in the secret budget of the Pentagon, in the insider trading of Wall Street, in the faulty accounting at Enron, and also in the leadership of many churches.

As it applies to GC, the original leaders (McCotter and his fellows)  were influenced by events and the prevailing thoughts of their formative years. Some of these were the Jesus movement with its emphasis on individual feeling and finding your own way, the rejection of the political leadership during the Vietnam war,and the conflicting values of suspicion of authority vs. the rise of the Rugged Individual and need for a Strong leadership to set things right.

Now we come to the present. GCM, GCC, and a WHOLE LOT OF OTHER CHURCHES.... rely on black box leadership to maintain their control.
With GC, although they have repudiated McCotter publicly, his influence is still there. Simply put it is not a direct influence. Rather, he recognized the  fellow leaders of his day, who recognized the next set of leaders, who recognized the present leaders.  They now have an institutionalized system of leadership. Also a traditional system of leadership.

It can currently be said.  "we've always done it this way",  or "Look where it has gotten us",  or  "God has blessed us under these ways of doing things" . For anyone who finds tradition,success,and order appealing, these words will tickle their ears.

The black box is there. The original cogs in the machinery may be gone, but the results keep coming out skewed and puzzling.

That was one thing I liked about the GC church I attended, Everyone knew everything about everyone else. We knew the dirty laundry, we confessed our sins to one another, there were no secrets. That was accountability.

 But the thing that drove me away was the illogical inconsistent leadership by individuals that I knew to be flawed, but whom I could not contradict. I could not point out that their flaws were influencing their decisions. I could not look outside the church for two reasons.... no one outside knew me like my "friends", and I didn't know outsiders like I knew my "friends".

 I believed that inside the church I was safe, that in spite of my secrets no one would reject me.
I believed that outside the church I was naive, a babe in the woods, a lost sheep ready to be fleeced.

It took a long time to overcome those incorrect assessments of myself. The Black Box leadership that I experienced didn't help. By the grace of God , after I started to figure it out, it took years to be able to express myself as I can now.

I am still a work in progress.
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2008, 05:33:09 am »

Information Technology practitioners called this "the magic box."  When sketching out a new process, and coming to a particular problem for which no one had any idea how to resolve it (usually political), we would put up a process symbol (the magic box), say "a miracle happens here", and show the output we wanted all along.

In GCI we were taught that the elders had a special pipeline to God that we did not have.  When they needed answers, we thought they prayed, got a "magic box" answer (audibly???), and off we went.  None of the sheep could do that, or so we were led to believe.

As I have aged, I have come to realize the biblical truth that nobody has that pipeline in a manner that differs from any other man.  Sure, some of the OT and NT men were prophets, and that is different.  But in this age, I have not seen these super saints, for the ones who think they are special are the ones I no longer want as my leadership.  The men who think the flock have spiritual gifts in abundance and want them nurtured, that is the leader for me.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2008, 06:56:14 am »

Quote
The men who think the flock have spiritual gifts in abundance and want them nurtured, that is the leader for me.
Amen!

When we were beginning to see that the pastors made all the decisions in executive session, my husband brought up the point of spiritual gifts. He asked one pastor point blank whether or not the pastoral team claimed to have all the spiritual gifts. The answer was no. The next thing he asked was how can the pastors make decisions without the input of the people God might have gifted. Doesn't Romans 12 imply that some in the congregation might have prophetic gifts, others teaching gifts, others exhortation. Don't the leaders need to hear from the members who have those spiritual gifts?

It seems to me that GC acts as though Pentecost never happened. They talk about "obedience" to leaders and mention OT leaders. (How many times have we heard about Korah's rebellion, or Barak and Deborah!) Shouldn't every Christian know that there is a difference between leaders in the OT and NT leaders? Maybe that's something that you learn in seminary. I view it as basic Christianity.
Quote
From Romans 12: For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,  so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

and Hebrews 1:1,2
Quote
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
DrSam
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 273



« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2008, 03:29:16 pm »

Longgone...

I wish I would have had you in my churches. I constantly pushed for leadership transparency, sharing one's flaws together with the grace of God. I pushed this with my fellow elders, who bought it in "belief" but not in practice. Eventually this was my demise. Though I was getting healthier and healthier and changing the co-dependent discipleship paradigm, my fellow leaders (and National Leaders) did not buy into this scary new way of seeing life. It was too costly.

Let me also add for the other posters to be careful in not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This can happen by an over-reaction. How? Depending on the spiritual-emotional age of a congregation, there might be need for greater structure/direction or less as in the stages of:

Childhood (dependence) => Adolescence (independence) => Adulthood (interdependence)

Not all local churches are at the same level of corporate maturity. In light of this, some churches may need strong leaders and other churches leaders that are invisible and work through more empowered and mature believers.

Just my two cents.
Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2008, 04:13:41 am »

I agree with Sam and add this... the strong leadership model is hard to let go of. A congregation may  need mature guidance at first but the leaders can resist letting go after it is no longer needed.

I'd also caution about thinking that the exercise of spiritual gifts is equivalent to maturity and contributing to leadership. What Paul wrote in I Cor. 13 as a reaction to people using their Spiritual gifts in immature ways.

One additional point I can make is this.  Leaders should hold fast to sound doctrine. That means they have to have the doctrine before they are leaders, not gain it after they are recognized. Doctrinal drift is a slow
thing.... error doesn't appear to be error at first. Even multiple leaders can go astray together. Church history shows us that.

I'd be very scared to be a leader after what I have been through in this life. In the years following the Apostles  lived, many church leaders were elevated in spite of their expressed reluctance to lead.
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2008, 10:16:08 am »

Fascinating posts above!

Am I out of line to suggest, however, that the discussion about “strong” leaders and “mature” and “immature” congregations betrays a mentality about the church oversight that is not endorsed by Christ?  Jesus taught us that “leaders” were not to act as “bosses” (i.e. giving orders to others, demanding obedience) or to act as “priests” (i.e. acting as intermediaries between God and the congregation).  

No, church elders are to be those who can, and do, teach the Word.  And teach with this purpose:  
for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:12-16)

The congregation, the spiritually gifted congregation, builds itself up in love through their works of service.  Elders teach the Word and teach others how to understand the Word and in turn to teach it to others.

This mentality that elders are generals who (exclusive of their congregations) put together global war plans and other church strategies, who then deliver them to the congregation to carry out, often ordering them to do so, falls far outside the teachings of Christ and even the model of the early church.  Congregations are not the soldiers of the elders/leaders, nor do they take their pay or marching orders from them.  When the church scattered from Jerusalem, the leadership stayed behind while the congregation spread the gospel as they traveled.  When Paul was converted, only Barnabas went to bring him into the community, and that against the counsel of the church leaders.

Congregations are taught the Word, then they go out and work out their salvation, planning their own ministries to the body, executing their own evangelism activities, discipling others, and leading Bible studies as the Holy Spirit directs.   Often this initially happens with the guidance of older congregation members (“elders” in the maturity sense, not necessarily the professional sense).  

Certainly I do not favor chaos and uninformed anarchy.  We need to guide and counsel one another, seeking input for our plans from those who teach us the Word.  But this Kingdom of God prospers as each member of Christ’s body does “as the Lord wills” and not necessarily “as the elder wills.”

I fear we forget that all of us are to be subject to one another, elders to congregations, and congregations to elders (Ephesians 5:21), and the church to Christ (Ephesians 5:24).  It seems we forget that elders are to be examples of doing good and not bosses who give commands (“nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” -- 1 Peter 5:3).  Congregations are to be “convinced by” the pastor’s teaching--which is the meaning of the word for “obey” used in Hebrews 13:17--and to submit to that teaching, for those teachings are supposed to be the unadulterated Word of God.

No, I do not favor putting young men in pastoral positions (formal elderships) because they have not yet learned enough of the Word to adequately teach.  Rather, give me a gifted older layman who can train the young men how to study the Word and teach, and after they have proven that ability, only then should they become pastors.  I have far less fear of immature congregations than immature elders.  

“Strong” leadership over recently saved congregations, especially by young “strong” leaders who have yet to apply their lessons in the Word to their own lives, will likely lead to abuse and “lording it over the flock.”  I would rather establish a mature teacher as the pastor of such a congregation instead of a young go-getter.  Forget “strong” as a quality of eldership, and just find me a good, older, wiser, teacher of the Word.
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2008, 10:43:34 am »

How can an entire congregation be judged "immature" or "mature"? It's a congregation, made up of a people in varying places in their walks.
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2008, 11:11:57 am »

To Puff:  Amen!  

Too often we see young men--recently saved and barely out of college whose claim to fame is their emotional passion--being named “elders” even though the congregation is filled with older individuals in the Lord who are wiser and more skilled in the Word.  Rather than these young men taking Bible instruction from these older men, the younger ones rule as “strong leaders.”
Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2008, 01:16:07 pm »

Puff,

If you can answer that question, then answer this one,

How can an entire group of churches be judged in error or not in error? It's an entire group, made up of people in varying places in their walks.

If feel the answer is this...

Doctrine.

If you have immature or erroneous doctrine, the no matter what you do, how you behave, what you motives are, what fruit you produce, you are still immature or in error.

If a person starts a ministry, attracts a group of believers, organizes a church and leads this church.... the group will advance no further than the level that the leader is at.  Remember the teaching of Christ about masters and disciples?

If an established church is looking for a leader, they are careful whom they choose, looking for someone that they feel will teach and guide them in their doctrine. Remember what Paul says about itching ears?

 If a believer is looking for a group, then the believer chooses according to their own inclination. Often times a new believer, or an immature believer doesn't have the skills to discern truth from error and chooses based on something else, like how this group makes them "feel".

It's like the wild west out there.... let the buyer, and the Christian, beware.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2008, 05:26:36 pm »

Quote
How can an entire group of churches be judged in error or not in error? It's an entire group, made up of people in varying places in their walks.


The dilemma with GC is that the elders ARE the church.

The congregation is left outside while they meet in executive session and make decisions.

Your doctrine point is a good one and in a GC church it's pretty easy to judge sound teaching because there are only a handful of men who make the decisions. I believe they are operating under faulty core beliefs.

Of course, since only a handful make decisions, it would take only a handful to correct that bad teaching and turn things around. It would be quite an amazing work of the Holy Spirit...not impossible...

Let's pray that God will open the eyes of these men to the truth that we have one Great Shepherd and any man who asks us to give the controls of our life to a pastor is deceived.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2008, 03:55:30 am »

The dilemma with GC is that the elders ARE the church.


I don't understand what you are saying there.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2008, 04:52:39 am »

What I mean by that statement is that if the gifts of the congregation are not used in a meaningful way, they are not really a meaningful part of the church.

When elders make ALL the decisions (from who is on the finance board, whether or not to hire another pastor and who it should be, to buying a building, to excommunicating people and other church discipline issues that Matthew 18 says should be handled by the congregation, to where you should live and work, to who you should marry) and ignore the voice of gifted (by the Holy Spirit) church members, the church is in essence made up of only the elders.

In my experience, the leaders valued the input of GC national members and hired consultants more than the congregation.

One example, at our church, they hired (at great expense) a "consulting firm"  to help with the decision as to whether or not to go forward with pursuing the purchase of a building based on the verse about there being wisdom in a multitude of counselors. What no one seemed to notice was that they hired and asked the opinion of the consulting firm BEFORE they asked the church members if they thought it was a good idea. Seems to me if you are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars of donated funds on a consulting firm, you should have a general sense that this is the direction you want to go.

Also, when you hire a consulting firm to decide whether or not you should purchase a building and then if you should they will for a fee come up with some rough sketches of what that building should look like, don't they have an interest in telling you the building is the way to go? Wouldn't you at least ask the people who are going to be paying for it if they thought it was a good idea first?

What it spoke to me was that the congregation is not a meaningful part of the church. I then realized that this was true on paper. The members of the church are, in effect, worker bees for the pastors which is why I don't think it is a church at all. I think it is a parachurch evangelistic organization. Just like Billy Graham. He might be doing some great work, and I can get on board and volunteer to work a phone bank for his organization, but it would be ridiculous for me to think that I should expect to have a vote when it comes to decision making for the organization.

So, the elders ARE the church is what I have decided. They meet together regularly, they use their gifts in their little group, they "have each other's backs", the sheep are the enemy ("the sheep will kill you" one pastor once said at a leader's meeting we attended).

What the pastors at GC seem to forget is, THEY ARE SHEEP TOO!
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1