“As demographics shift and populations continue to mix, it won’t be enough for us to master the leadership dynamics of our small community. We will need the skills to move between and among diverse groups and draw them together--often utilizing very different leadership values in the process.”
Inspired by a recent trip to Spain, Jethani is writing on both the population of young church leaders he encounters and the necessity for the rest of the church leadership culture to catch on.
The majority of effective young leaders Jethani encounters are kids with diverse cultural backgrounds who welcome cultural accommodation and are, he says, “better equipped for this task.” Most American churches, Jethani says, have been built on a homogeneous unit principle and will not bring forth effective (or possibly Biblical) leadership.
Modern church leadership principles, says Kethani, are actually “upper/middle-class Anglo-American leadership principles.” While he grants validity to these ideas, he also names them blind to the rapidly changing reality both overseas and in the U.S., an ever-evolving multi-cultural society.
For instance, most modern leadership advocates fighting to maintain clear purpose, vision, and values within an organization, which includes recruitment of like-minded leaders. However, this model is set with efficiency as the goal. In many cultures, the highest good is not efficiency.
In essence, Jethani sees most modern church leadership principles as being effective only in upper/middle class white churches. What happened to a unified church of every tribe, tongue and nation? Apparently, that’s just not efficient.
I got this...
ReplyDeleteVery interesting thoughts Lindsay. I would agree that much of what we see as “effective church leadership” is built primarily on the grounds of the upper-middle class, white, and dare I say male, value sets of our sub-culture, specifically integrating some of the more popular business techniques of our day as well.
ReplyDeletePerhaps where we can see these values coming in the most direct conflict with a more international and Biblical approach to church leadership is with the emphasis on task as opposed to relationship. Any professor of intercultural studies will say that the modern American modus operandi is the primacy of task to the severe detriment of all other social drivers. As you aptly pointed out in your post, our high emphasis on vision, values, and purpose indicate our personal ties to this same value set. Biblically, I see Jesus emphasizing values, vision, and purpose, but all within the context of relationships as opposed to means unto themselves. Other cultures, predominantly those of South American, African, and Asian orientation, find themselves driven by the preservation and promotion of integral social relationships, something we undervalue (do we value it at all?) in our cultural context.
Well written, and thanks for the reminder to be more interculturally competent in our leadership of the church that is decisively meant to be open and embracing of all peoples.