Print This Post
BOA ACTION: Forwarded to 2011 General Conference for consideration.
GCRCC Status: forwarded for July 2011 General Conference action
GC11 ACTION: Rejected
Introduced by: Mike Hopper, North Central Conference
Written by: Mike Hopper
Related to Paragraph(s) #: 4200
Whereas:A movement within the Free Methodist Church exists to advocate for a single bishop assuming “Forward moving and effective organizations are led by a single leader,” yet many denominations led by a single leader are not in fact particularly forward moving or effective organizations.
And, in the secular world, a business partnership has four times the chance of surviving and flourishing than a sole proprietorship.
And church planting and effective church leadership is more often found in a team approach;
And while some organizations led by a single leader are effective, this model by no means guarantees effectiveness or forward movement;
And while a very good leader may well advance the church quickly and well, a very bad leader may also very quickly lead the church astray;
Further, the single leader movement assumes “Multiple leaders make it less likely that any one individual takes overall responsibility for the big picture” yet in the current Free Methodist structure three bishops are leading as very responsible individuals and demonstrate tremendous responsibility for the big picture and especially for the areas which they oversee;
And at our last General Conference, the vote was made to have one bishop be the “Lead Bishop” (currently Bishop Kendall), which currently provides for stronger leadership by a single bishop working in a collegial relationship with his/her peers.
Theologically, we understand that the early church was led by the 12 apostles. All twelve apostles were proclaiming the good news of Christ – as they spoke for the Lord and for the Church. When a theological question arose about Gentile believers, “the apostles and elders met to consider this question.” (Acts 15:6) There was not one individual who made decisions or determined direction for the early church in this early council meeting, but rather the apostles. As Paul and Barnabas traveled on their missionary journey, they appointed multiple leaders in each church, and not just one individual. “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” (Acts 14:23).
While it is easy for one leader to have his / her priorities for ministry, a group of leaders can provide greater balance in the exercise of distinctive spiritual gifts and ministry strengths and passions.
A group of leaders has more wisdom than just one individual. “There is wisdom in the counsel of many.” The Bible tells us: “For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure.” (Proverbs 11:14) “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” (Proverbs 15:22) Multiple bishops bring a multitude of experience together in leadership. And while a leader can draw wisdom from those he / she leads, sometimes those followers may be uncomfortable offering wisdom to superiors if it points in a different direction than that leader is heading.
Team leadership also provides special support when facing the challenges of leading a denomination. While there are many delights in serving as a bishop, there also can be many challenges which – at times – may seem overwhelming. In his wisdom, King Solomon wrote: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12) Having several bishops can spread out the burdens and can provide a very understanding support network. The team leadership of Bishops Kendall, Roller, and Thomas over the past 3 years has been visionary and inspiring;
Therefore, be it resolved:
That the leadership structure of the FMCNA retain a plurality of bishops as fundamental to its leadership structure, retaining the requirement of ¶4200 of a Board of Bishops rather than a single leader model.
Does the resolution have a direct relationship to the vision and mission of the Free Methodist Church?
Yes.
How will the proposed change help us accomplish our vision and mission?
Healthy leadership through the Board of Bishops will be preserved.
The Resolutions Committee rates this resolution as:
(A) Support – recommend adoption
Related posts:
I was wondering what evidence there is that the role of lead bishop was implemented following the last General Conference. How has the BOB implemented that and what does it look like day to day?
Thank you.
Dear Sue,
Thanks for your inquiry. Yes, the lead-bishop was implemented, per 2007 General Conference Action. Bishop David Kendall has served these past 3.5 years as the lead bishop.
David Roller
The Lead Bishop role has been implemented primarily but not exclusively in the following ways with very positive results. The Lead Bishop:
Sets the agendas and gives assignments to the team of bishops Chairs all Board of Bishops meetings Serves as the accountability arm for the Board of Bishops Acts (or delegates) as the primary liaison between the Board of Bishops and the BOA and its chair
The salient rationale to have a lead bishop was to insure that leadership was not confusingly revolving and that the church knew who would be the first among equals for the sake of clarity in leadership among the bishops themselves and to the church.
Matthew A. Thomas, Bishop
Thank you Mike, for your well-articulated response to the call for one bishop. I fear too many churches take the Moses-leader model (one prophet on a mountain gets instructions from God and delivers them from on high (but even he had Aaron and Miriam and got advice from his father-in-law)) as a model for the whole church rather than the multiple New Testament examples of team leadership.
Especially like this statement and think as a church we ought to continually remember:
“And while a leader can draw wisdom from those he / she leads, sometimes those followers may be uncomfortable offering wisdom to superiors if it points in a different direction than that leader is heading”
I think sometimes we are so eager for ‘success’ and for a strong leader to save us, that we forget the dangers/temptations not to hear from fellow brothers and sisters who are silenced by the power imbalance…
I enjoyed your comments, Julie. Mike, you have so many good points, and one that can be illustrated is the idea of collective wisdom. This archived video of the three bishops responding to a variety of topics on the fly is a perfect example: http://www.gc11.org/town-hall-meeting-archive-4132011.
I hope that the FMC continues to move in the direction we are going. Having worked with many different denominations in the past, my experience is that when the leadership (Bishops) become simply person who was voted in by the laity, then the position becomes no more than a puppet. All clear leading from an individual ordained by God and called by God to lead and serve His people become a congregational directed movement. I don’t believe that is our history or the biblical process. Democracy is great for a country but God’s church is a Theocracy. Blessings
I am surprised when folks think that multiple bishops assure that there will be full airing of opinions, and that there is not a stronger voice on the BOB to which other appointed bishops defer for the sake of apparent unity. I am sure there are memories of Boards of Bishops where there was only apparent unity, and even where lack of unity was evident. We seem to perceive and remember boards of multiple bishops romantically rather than realistically.
A well-chosen single servant leader (aka bishop) is capable of assembling a group of godly persons to lead the work, a team from whom he or she can learn and benefit from their counsel, and entrust to them a portion of the work. Probably more capable than we can elect a working team from the floor of the GC. How is this different from what we do at the local church level? We have senior pastors who hire their own team of leaders (with accountability to a local church leadership team or board.) When that senior pastor leaves, we require that the associates step down so that the new pastor may hire his own team to complement his gifts and complete the work. I don’t think godly effective senior pastors dictate or operate as lone rangers. Yet we fear this at the denominational level, why?
The single leader will be accountable to a strengthened BOA, composed of laity and clergy as well as to the General Conference instead of to a Board of Bishops, their peers. Our current structure seems more like the papacy we fear. And, studying our history finds that the FM movement was strong under only one General Supt. Did not BT Roberts later rue the decision to add another?
And as for Moses, are we criticizing God for calling only one man to the mountain to give him the commandments for the people? Does not scripture relate that God specifically forbade others to come? God called Moses, and conceded to Moses his desire for Aaron to join him. And we read how effective Aaron and Miriam were while Moses was gone. . .
It is my prayer that we can open our minds and hearts to consider God may be calling the FM Church in the USA to a new structure so that we can return to a Kingdom movement, and that we carefully interpret scripture in this process.