Often in churches we use the language of family to describe our relationships with each other. And that description can be helpful in some ways. However in other ways a group of churches that is really moving forward is functioning more as a team than as a family. Each member counts the cost before joining, and participation is voluntary. Team members then commit to encouraging each other and spurring one another on toward our common goal. If someone isn’t fulfilling their commitments, they can resign or be asked to leave. The vision and the goals are what is holding that team together. With no shared goal, they no longer have a reason to exist and the team disbands.
By using family language in some contexts and team language in others, we can both keep the peace and keep the family together, while still creating some additional environments that aren’t pre-committed, but opt-in. These environments are where we’ll begin to see results, causing more and more buy-in from others over time. Gideon didn’t need a large army for victory in battle, just a few who believed in the mission and were willing. The others were sent home.
Agree? Disagree? Give me your thoughts.
I think team conveys the image of movement toward a goal while family is a state of being. One is in a family regardless of what does or doesn’t happen (I think it was Frost who said home is where when you have to go there, they have to take you in).
My difficulty with what you say is in the area of voluntary and commitment. It seems to me that one of the great problems with the church is that we see it as absolutely voluntary. If I don’t like what is happening, I just move on to the next one. My commitment is itself voluntary. I don’t think that is a helpful image for the Christian community.
In someways, it seems to me this is the dangerous legacy of the Reformation. Once we broke the bond of the magisterium, we gave license for the bond to be broken at any point and for any reason. While there are surely reasons for us to separate from one another, haven’t we made it all together too easy?
A bit of a danger replacing a Biblical concept with a convenient concept, no matter how worthy the cause.
The Apostle Paul borrowed secular metaphors to clarify Christian concepts. What I am doing here is similar—like using an illustration in a sermon.
In response to Tom’s comment: Your point is well-taken– allow me to clarify. The challenge I’ve often been faced with is that unless churches can get everyone to move forward, then no one gets to move forward. (See my post “Convoy mentality” for more.) http://www.loganleadership.com/2010/10/convoy-mentality.html
In so doing, we empower the weakest person in the church with veto power; they are allowed to hold back the entire group. Instead what I am suggesting is that we create opt-in environments that allow those who want to move forward to do so. Rather than trying to make community easy-in, easy-out, I’m actually arguing for raising the bar of commitment. I think I may blog a bit more on this topic in the future, as it probably bears more discussion. The danger of writing concisely is that you don’t always write completely. Thanks for your response.