I know a few “tall steeple” pastors. Some are good pastors and others aren’t. But one thing is true, they have the organizational skills and depth of denominational experience that I don’t have (and don’t want, for that matter). They’re good at leading large groups of people. They tend to be smart, too, which means that they know that not all churches can and should operate like the ones they serve. On the other hand, there is sometimes an arrogance that comes from “success” (numerically, at least) and a disdain for whatever is small or inefficient.

One of the things about the biggies is they get it and don’t get it at the same time. They read all the same books that we do and talk about the same concerns. They get it. But then they try to solve every problem with a program. They don’t get it.

I’m glad the idea was voiced. I think we’ll gladly reject it. But the fact that it has been verbalized means that there’s a conversation going on that will hopefully lead to something that will serve future generations in a way that the current order of things certainly can’t do.

“If a new church is emerging, the question is, Where and How are you going to mine the talent that will help nurture these impulses long enough so that they can truly bear fruit? Weston’s answer is, The talent is right under our nose, but our bureaucratic structures don’t allow for that talent to be tapped.

That’s the argument. It’s not an argument about going back to the past. Now support it or refute it, but don’t freak out over the word “Establishment” and knock down a strong man.”

My argument is not about who is the best pastor or elder for your congregation, but how can be best lead the whole national denomination. We need to diversify the base from which our natural leaders emerge. We will not get there by pretending that we do not need national leaders, or that anyone could run the denomination just as well as anyone else.

A couple of specific reactions to some comments upstream:

No, Weston is not a neo-con. He’s a Democrat. A Google search can turn up that information pretty quick.

And, I happen to like hierarchy, and so do you, I imagine. In my home, we don’t take a vote about whether or not the kids get to run with scissors. We would do well not to conspire in a sham agreement that hierarchy is awful, but have a genuine conversation about the merits of various forms of hierarchy.

More generally, I’ll just copy and paste my reactions from my blog on this subject:

“Look, Emergent people. Lighting candles and constructing prayer stations does not a movement make. Or a church. Or a denomination. Movements needs institutions to sustain them for the long haul, and institutions need good leaders (An Establishment?!) as well as periodic, fresh injections of movement energy to prevent them from ossifying. It is a symbiotic relationship.

If a new church is emerging, the question is, Where and How are you going to mine the talent that will help nurture these impulses long enough so that they can truly bear fruit? Weston’s answer is, The talent is right under our nose, but our bureaucratic structures don’t allow for that talent to be tapped.

That’s the argument. It’s not an argument about going back to the past. Now support it or refute it, but don’t freak out over the word “Establishment” and knock down a strong man.

Or at least lighten up, and learn to crack a wry smile at contrarian arguments.”

Wow. If this a strong view from Louisville on how to halt the decline of the denomionation, we are worse off than I could have imagined.