It’s a bit of a (rare) lazy Saturday afternoon and I am catching up on my blog reading from the past week.  I just read this fantastic post about a Biblically inspired alternative to the typical, Modern “mission statement/vision statement” approach to church leadership.  It basically proposes a model based on Abraham, who was given a promise from God and sent forward without knowing where or even fully why he was going.  It’s not that visions and planning are bad, but this ambiguity of perception and trust in God’s leadership despite its inherent mystery (or perhaps because of it!) seems to resonate with postmodernity to me.

Of course there are other schools of thought…  I have come to the point where I cringe every time I hear the word “effectiveness” used in a United Methodist setting these days.  It’s not that I’m against pastoral/church effectiveness, of course, it’s that those who use such terms generally have a very narrow range of what they consider “effective.”  Have we really fallen so far that one of our most respected Bishops can talk so freely about numbers without even giving the standard, half-hearted, United Methodist disclaimer that, “Oh yeah, of course God can work in ways that aren’t numbers, too”?

With statements like the second link forming the very fabric of who we are as a system these days, is there any hope of minority voices like the first link dong any good at all beyond a localized setting (that might then be declared “ineffective” and duly punished)?

I love my tradition, not just the Wesley part, but specifically the United Methodist part.  But there are days I weap for it.  It’s a darn good thing church leadership isn’t up to us in the end.  Praise God from whom ALL blessings flow.