The prevailing emotion that threatens my ambiguous relationship with equanimity as I read Malcolm Webber’s ‘Church-Integrated Leader Development’ is grief. I put things in just this way because there are other sentiments in play. An injured sense of justice, for example, and here and there a dollop of anger.
Yet grief is definitely the thing. I feel that sense of loss that comes when things might have turned out rather more profitably than they have, when well-intentioned human beings forfeit what might have been theirs, when complex but not insurmountable matters are sacrificed on the altar of simplicity and short-term rhetorical gain.
Mr. Webber means well. In fact, he wants precisely what I want. This is why I feel grief’s prick rather than the damp but otherwise forgettable discomfort of indifference.
Webber wants Christian leaders who create culture. He has dedicated considerable thought, ink, and energy to facilitating the formation of women and men who bend themselves to the task of fomenting life-giving culture, which he abbreviates as ‘shared beliefs, values, attitudes, and actions.’
I want this, too. In fact I experience the need for this kind of leader with a visceral, urgent, and even consuming passion.
Thus my grief, if that is not too large a word for it.
A further word of self-disclosure is in order. I want leaders of vision, integrity, and competence for myself, for the Christian communities I serve, and for my Creator’s wider world so desperately that I will take them from whatever corner they emerge, stumbling, muddied, scarred, but erect. I don’t much care whether they are educated by anyone’s standards or unlettered, though I want lots of both those categories and more from in between. I want multilingual, sophisticated, urbane, and politic leaders. I also want leaders who have never ventured twenty-five miles from where their mothers brought them into a world that they grew up to care about with a prophet’s passion. I want rich ones and poor ones. I desperately want some who ride horses and mules and who pull rickshaws. I’ll embrace those who show up in Bimmers. I want some who emerge suited-up from faculties of law and some who’ve come by their bent posture in rice paddies. I want seminarians and preachers and Thursday afternoon kids’ clubs leaders. I want biblically-informed businessmen, courageous public school teachers, and godly, talkative taxi drivers.
I want some who learned all they know in the same local church where they first fell at Jesus’ feet and cried out like the desperate sinners they were and are. I want some who learned their way with God’s book by bending over it under a seminary professor’s demanding tutelage. I want some who’ve been robed in the world’s great universities. I want some whose divinity school was the a.m. radio in their Los Angeles delivery van or who tune in to satellite television from their Damascus souk.
Unless I am badly mistaken about our world, my own soul’s desperate clamor for more and better leaders from all quarters of the leader-producing matrix underestimates the real need, for I am unable with this small heart to take in broad swaths of human need without finding myself reduced to cynicism, despair, or tears. I must settle for narrow, carefully selected bandwidths, hived off rather arbitrarily from the full spectrum of the human condition. These I can more or less manage.
Which brings me to the sadness that Mr. Webber’s words cause me.
Somebody in some institution that falls within that abstraction we call ‘seminary’ must have hurt Malcolm Webber, and badly. I do not know the man, though I’m sure it will be a pleasure if and when my ignorance of him runs its course and we can share coffee or break bread. No doubt my grief will evaporate then and we will find that my sadness—and perhaps even some of his—was unwarranted, that we simply have not understood each other.
Someday, perhaps, I will understand the source of the cunning venom with which he describes how leadership training is done badly by people who have not come to know the things he knows. Mr Webber, by appearances, has had theological education done to him. It would be helpful to have the luxury of visiting the scene with a due exercise of empathy for those who were wounded there.
But for now, I have only Mr. Webber’s written words to consider and so do most others who will be influenced by his view of the task. So I must respond to these. I find them troubling, indeed damaging.
Mr. Webber does not believe that seminaries produce Christian leaders. Indeed he seems to think they pollute—or at least dilute—the waters in which such men and women must swim as they do the culture-producing things that leaders so. He does not, in the pages that lie before me, actually refer to ‘seminaries’. Perhaps he cannot bring himself to say the word.
He does not lack for ciphers for the word, however. He deploys them with vigor.
We read, for example, that in the book of Acts ‘the churches did not send their emerging leaders off to be built somewhere else by someone else.’ To the contrary, ‘(b)efore the church was established, Jesus built leaders this way—in his learning commmunity of disciples. Paul did this in his team.’
We are asked to look away from the ugly spectacle of ‘traditional practices of disconnected biblical teaching in remote academic institutions’. We are invited to opt for a better way, for ‘(i)f our purpose was merely to get the right information into the heads of our emerging leaders, then lectures followed by papers and small group sessions to discuss the information (with degrees at the end to prove the information was mastered) would be sufficient.’ Clearly, Mr. Webber and his readers are thinking of institutions who actually do such a thing and who, apparently, do wish only to get the right information into the heads of merging leaders and then credential them so they’ll understand their own importance.
Mr. Webber trains his fire upon that misguided leadership training that consists of ‘a neat series of courses’, opting instead for ‘a fiery immersion in real-life, real-time experiences, reflecting the complicated and fundamentally difficult nature of Christian leadership.’ One shudders to think of those ivory towers, manned—so it would seem—by professors and administrators who imagine that Christian leadership is not ‘complicated and fundamentally difficult’. What is to be done with such people? Let us begin by reminding ourselves of how clueless or malevolent they are—I cannot think of a third alternative—and then get on with doing what really works.
The mind is not content with mere information, we are admonished between the lines, for ‘”theological education” [editors call those ‘sneer quotes’] of the mind is entirely insufficient … (t)he goal of New Testament leader development is not merely intellectual mastery of some biblical ideas, but rather transformation of life—the holistic building of the leader.’
Yet there is hope, we are exhorted near the end of such polarizing description of those who get it and those who do not: ‘If we can shift away from our Greek-rooted fixation on academic curriculum and instead learn how to create and sustain organic cultures of healthy people building within the life of our local churches, then, by God’s grace, we will be able to effectively address the current leadership crisis.’
As a student of early Greek literature and a long-time denizen of the academy, I am unsure what that means. But at least, in the end, there is good news!
Yet along the way to discovering it, we have had to question the motives or the intelligence of countless allies in the cause whose calling has been worked out in the context of a theological seminary or some variant of it with links to what we call the culture of the academy. This is a loss of tragic proportions and, I believe, justifies the momentary sense of grief with which I write these lines.
I have been in and out of seminaries for a quarter of a century. I have tasted both the delights and the curse that such institutions—like any—can introduce into the lives of emerging and advanced Christian leaders. I have known egregiously dim and unquestionably brilliant human beings there. I have encountered, both in my own life and that of peers, some of hell’s vices and all of the Christian virtues. I have known fundamentalism and fundamentalists of both the traditionalist and the progressive schools and seen, on balance, at least as much damage done by the doctrines of the latter as by the convictions of the former.
It would be pollyannaish and perhaps misleading for me to affirm that all models of Christian leadership training and all institutions dedicated to the task have something to offer. Some do not. Some are clearly past their sell-by date. Some ought to disappear, usually by going gently into the good night.
But I have no misgivings about making a short number of claims that are related:
(a) No theoretical or institutional model of Christian leadership training, no matter how propped up by biblical proof-texting and primitivistic assumptions about what ‘the early Church’ did, is adequate to the massive task we face in this and the next generations. To the contrary, we need a mixed economy of models and institutions and movements and experiments if we are to have any chance at overcoming the massive odds against us. In addition, we need to develop a hearty appetite for experimentation, patience in the face of the failure of many of our experiments, and a deep and counter-cultural appreciation for what accrued wisdom and practices might still have to teach us.
(b) Polarizing language—of the kind deployed by my brother Mr. Webber—comes far too easily to the lips, pens, and keyboards of good and gentle people. It misrepresents, marginalizes, and divides. It is wrong and must be questioned. It needs to stop. It is not idle sentimentalism to insist that all of us who believe that the Lord of all nations mediates his blessing more often than not through human leaders are in this task together. We are allies, not enemies.
Good people say dismissive and impatient things and discover too late for recovery that their words—almost as pure as dove’s cooings—have been used for diabolical ends.
(c) Seminarians around this wide world are engaged at this moment in the most critical and invigorating self-inspection and rethinking that I have yet to encounter in essentially conservative institutions of any kind in any place. This is not an easy conversation for men and women who have given life and energy to an existing model to undertake. They are to be encouraged and invited into the wider conversation about the ways and means by which disciples and disciple-leaders are being formed in our time and just over the horizon. To treat them as straw men by attributing to them claustrophobic convictions that most of them have never held gains nothing and—may I say it in terms just this theological?—offends against the Spirit of Jesus.
Let’s just stop doing it.
In its place, let’s focus on creating culture, as Mr. Webber himself has admirably set out to do. Let’s create a culture where men and women, boys and girls are encouraged by all available means to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength and neighbor as oneself. Some of them will emerge as leaders. A few of them will be polished and shaped by seminaries. Most will not. All who turn, day in and day out, to do the next thing with joy and grace will gladden the heart of God.
I do not much care where they learned how to do it.
Canter Bridge 
Amen!
Dear Dr Liebengood,
Thank you for your expansive and well-considered reflection.
David
Did I spell ‘amen’ correctly?
You’re good, Liebs. Tranquilo.
Mr. Baer,
I got hear through a link on Kelly’s blog. I’m a student at ESEPA where I’ve heard many very, very good things about you. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the pleasure of studying under you which no doubt would have been a blessing.
I enjoyed your post. I must admit that the current state of the Western Church depresses me. I often wonder if things will really improve in the absence of persecution. It seems, and perhaps I’m mistaken, that when the Church isn’t suffering persecution from without it’s destoying itself from within. I guess we should just focus on trying to make changes in the context where God has us. May God help us.
Blessings.
Friend
You said, “I do not know the man, though I’m sure it will be a pleasure if and when my ignorance of him runs its course and we can share coffee or break bread. No doubt my grief will evaporate then and we will find that my sadness–and perhaps even some of his–was unwarranted, that we simply have not understood each other.”
Perhaps if you seriously considered the aforementioned reality, you might have been enabled to better understand the passion of the brother you criticized.
Oh well, you wrote it, it is out there, and now all you can do is try to meet him and enjoy some fellowship around the word of God and some good baklava.
Floodnut
Dear Mr. Baer,
After reading your article and also reading the Leadership Letter that is referred to I have some misgivings. It seems that you have taken certain things that were in the Leadership Letter and made lengthy comments about them while ignoring other parts of it that more completely explain what the author is trying to convey.
I was also somewhat concerned when you said you had not actually met the man–yet it seems you have a lot of preconceived ideas about him. Might it not have been better to meet with him and find out a little more about his heart and passion before putting damaging words out for many to read?
I believe that your “ignorance of him” may be behind the whole problem that you seem to have with some of what he has written.
We all want the body of Christ to go forward with effective leadership in this hour; on that I think we all agree. I agree also with Stefan (above) that we should continue to try to make changes in the context where God has us (by His grace and His Spirit.)
Dear Deborah,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
I will attempt to contact Malcolm Webber and meet with him. It seems we both live in the state of Indiana, so perhaps this will prove possible. Your comment, along with a previous one posted here, prods me in that direction and I thank you for doing so.
At the same time, I am not sure that I recognize the ‘damaging words’ to which you refer in what I have posted in response to the Leadership Letter in question. I express grief at what I take to be unfair assumptions about what many of us who are involved in the formal side of Christian leadership training are attempting to accomplish. I have familiarized myself with Mr. Webber’s writings and am pretty certain we simply disagree about a number of matters that are important to us.
I think that a requirement to meet a person who steps into the public arena (whether via a ‘Leadership Letter’ or a blog like ‘canterbridge’) before one can express disagreement would be an unrealistically high bar. Those of us who express our views publicly, it seems to me, invite both affirmation and critique in doing so. We have used technology to reach beyond our immediate sphere of relationships and, so, we invite comment and conversation from people whom we cannot know personally.
I mean nothing mean-spirited in my post that refers to Malcolm Webber. Both of us influence others with our words (in my case, very *few* others!) and are to be held accountable for the accuracy of them. At least this seems reasonable to me. I disagree, honestly and transparently, with the general trend of Mr. Webber’s thinking and he, no doubt, with mine. That seems OK to me.
Nevertheless, I accept your post as a plea for personal relationship as a basis for this conversation. I’ll make an attempt to initiate that.
Thank you, Deborah, for weighing in.
Every blessing,
David
Mr. Baer,
Leadership. Until Christian leaders can agree that the heart of Christian living is Matthew 5. 6 and 7 they have no direction to lead in.
Until Christian leaders understand the minimum qualifications for leadership in Acts 1 and 2 they have little more that Matthew 15:9 to lead with.
Until they understand themselves, and teach the sheep the minimum requirements to be led in Acts 2:36-41 and Acts 19:1-7 they will rely on Matthew 15:9. The fruit of this lack in leadership has not been good. It is never legalism to do what Christ requires the way he said to do it. In fact, the Bible teaches the opposite.
I believe you have the integrity to peruse these scriptures.
Regards,
Leslie H. Flinn
Dear Mr/Ms Flinn,
Thank you for your post. I have indeed had a look at the Scriptures you cite. They are not unfamiliar and are, of course, ones that I treasure.
I am grateful for your vote of confidence in my integrity.
Still, I get the sense that you are arguing *against* something and *for* something else. Unfortunately, I am not able to establish just what those things are.
Please forgive my dullness and clarify if you wish.
All best,
David
David,
“Treasure” is quite vague.
Where to begin to clarify. Having read “Our Wordy Shipmates” I tried to be brief and clear. It would not be the first time I was not.
I believe the best way is to ask some questions. It usually worked quite well when I taught high school.
Is Jesus as willing and able to heal our bodies today by trusting Him alone as He is willing and able to forgive sins if we trust him alone? No exceptions, only conditions. I would like scripture please.
Is a Christian in Covenant relationship without water baptism (immersion) in Jesus name? I would add, and given the opportunity to be obedient in this. Notice the omission of father, son, and….
Does the Bible teach that the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, and a separate experience apart from salvation and the gift of tongues?
What single event changed the first apostles from having to be rebuked by Jesus for unbelief, and returning to fishing into Christian leaders teaching, preaching, and establishing the kingdom with power?
Does non-resistance taught in Matthew 5 mean there is no just war for a Christian?
Is there any such thing as a Christian nation?
Treasuring the scriptures I mentioned before might make the answers obvious with the possible exception of the first.
(Mr.) Leslie Flinn
Dear Leslie,
You ask a number of questions that have occupied godly, intelligent, probing minds for centuries. It’s not been my observation that studying and submitting to the Scriptures with humility and delight (this is what I meant by ‘treasuring’; I’m sorry if that seemed vague) makes the answers to any of such questions ‘obvious’. Often, such engagement with Scripture leads a person to the deep humility that comes from prayerfully and studiously forming an opinion when he or she realizes that other and even better people have arrived at a different one. I hope this has been your experience.
At any rate, my purpose on canterbridge is not publicly to attempt to answer the kinds of questions you’re asking here. That would be a full-time job (and I already have one of those).
Thanks for posting, though. Perhaps someone else who reads canterbridge (we are *not* many) will want to interact with you on one or more of your questions.
Thanks again.
David
David,
Godly, intelligent, probing minds? Centuries? Hebrews 6:1-2 calls these things elementary. If leaders do not have these things settled they lead by the doctrines and commandments of men, or by what is right in their own sight. The “led” follow in the same manner. The result is over 200 “denominations” which the Bible calls carnal. I think Jesus said it best: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
When Peter wanted to start 3 “denominations” in John 17:4 the Father’s voice was quite clear.
What is missing too often from leaders and “led” is best stated in Matthew 18:3: “…unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Thus “centuries”.
Leslie Flinn
Dear Leslie,
i wonder how you can be a child when you are so sure of yourself and you convey yourself a bit arogantly?
I Just watched the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. i think you, too, would have been impressed with his humility and sincerity as a brilliant theologian as well as his simple child-like love for Christ and faith in His word. Yet he did a 180 with respect to his Christian practice.
In the earlier days of WWII his stand was absolutely in opposition to Christians participating in the war (by virtue of Matthew 5-7). But his conscience changed mid-way and he, along with his brother-in-law, were prime participants in the attempts to assassinate Hitler.
Why the change? This was a development according the word mixed with faith in his life’s experience. Who can judge him? Only our Lord.
I pray that as you live out your life according to His word, it would be His fresh, living word, not any dead doctrine set in stone. Let Him move you in a living way, according to His desire. And He will get ALL the glory as you trust Him with that child-like trust! I’m sure of that!
Rosalind Daily
Rosalind,
You said, “In the earlier days of WWII his stand was absolutely in opposition to Christians participating in the war (by virtue of Matthew 5-7). But his conscience changed mid-way and he, along with his brother-in-law, were prime participants in the attempts to assassinate Hitler.”
What you are saying is that a Christian can change God’s word based on circumstances and experiences. This sounds like the neo-liberal philosophy that there are no absolute moral principles. I would like scripture for this view.
However you are correct in saying that judging him in the sense of saying he is going to hell for trying to kill Hitler should not be done. However it can be said that in violating Matthew 5:38-48 and Romans 13:1-5 by attempting murder, the Bible gives him no guarantee of salvation based on what Jesus says in Matthew 7:21-29.
Further there was NOTHING but bad fruit from this failed attempt on Hitler’s life which was based on the same expediency that the Jews gave for crucifying Jesus. Please see John 11:48-52. After the failed attempt there was a show trial and the plotters were hung from meat hooks by piano wire. Others committed suicide or were executed by conventional means. What you are saying is that Christians can use expediency to justify their actions. Please give chapter and verse.
Maybe you are suggesting that his actions were like the antifascist side in the Spanish Civil War: they won all the battles, but we had all the good songs!
John the Baptist lost his revelation of who Jesus was and his head when he used political expediency to groom Herod to be king of the Jews. Jesus would not even talk to Herod and called Him a fox!
I seem to recall that Mr. Bonhoeffer was hung which is the penalty the Bible prescribes for his crime. Do you not understand that God controls who is in power and no rulers gets his position without his approval? Please see Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Tim 2:1-3.
Mr. Bonhoeffer’s actions had nothing to do with Bible faith. In fact it was in direct contradiction to what the Bible says.
Do you advocate shooting abortion doctors to stop abortion and bring god’s justice because this is where your logic takes people?