01.24.07

Fitch on “Vision”

Posted in ekklesia, formation, leadership at 8:57 am by len

“As old fashioned church planters we’re often taught to start out with a well-crafted mission statement… Can mission be put into a statement? How can you put the Kingdom of God into a mission statement? Well, some might say, any organization needs a direction. But does not such a well-crafted mission statement imply we know what the future will look like? To quote one my favorite passages from Yoder:

“If we claim to justify the actions we take by the effects they promise, we shall be led to pride in the abuse of power in those cases when it seems that we can reach our goals by the means of our own disposal. â»??»? We are drawn into the twofold pride of thinking that we, more than others, see things as they really are and of claiming the duty and the power to coerce others in order to move history aright. If our faithfulness is to be guided by the kind of man Jesus was it must cease to be guided by the quest to have dominion over the course of events. We cannot sight down the line of our obedience to the attainment of the ends we seek.” (Royal Priesthood p.203).

The other recent and nearly classic statement questioning vision and “leadership as vision” was penned by Leonard Sweet in Summoned to Lead.

“The definition of leadership as “vision” trips a variety of cliches. Leadership as “vision” has become another way about exercising dominance and pushing other people around your ideas. Governor Gray Davis of California–subsequently recalled–was toast the minute he said, early in his term, that the state legislature’s job was to “implement my vision.” Vision has become a way of declaring dominance, of achieving alpha status and stats.
“Furthermore, “vision casting” is most often nothing more than “strategic planning” board games. “Visionary” endows shopworn ideas with new roadworthiness and respectability. Even worse, when leadership development is disfigured as “the vision thing,” we are teaching a dysfunctional system to leaders whose success will hinge on their ability to dismantle the very thing they’ve been taught.”

Which also brings to mind Gordon Cosby’s words recorded in a live seminar: “vision is the destroyer of essence.” What’s a body to do? Does this mean vision is no longer important to the body? And how does vision relate to mission? It is equally (almost) conclusive that God does birth vision in His people, and that a community that lacks vision (mission?) is soon moving in tight Christian circles.

Fitch also questions that classic values statement. “Thanks David (I hear some say), You have now thrown out the best wisdom of years of church growth and leadership seminars.” He’s not alone, of course, and Alan Hirsch has recently told a similar story. As they began to shift the culture of South Melbourne Restoration Community, they decided that mission and not ministry would be their center. This resulted in three steps: 1. the basic ekklesial unit became much smaller. Cells became the fundamental churching unit. 2.They did not develop a philosophy of ministry, but rather a covenant and core practices.

“Behind this thinking was the belief that when we talk about core values, the appeal is to the head. I have yet to see a set of core values in any church’s philosophy that I cannot agree with.. they are motherhood statements in confessional communities.” (The Forgotten Ways, 46)

The wisdom that Hirsch and others recognized was that in a pluralistic, fragmented, individualistic and consumer oriented culture, apart from a covenant and communal practices, we remain separate stones and are never built into a living temple. We pick and choose our practices, our commitments, and what we allow to shape our world. Moreoever, “values” remain merely someone else’s ideas, opinion or interpretation of Christian living.

David’s own conclusion about these matters? Read More from David Fitch

Permalink