My response to creating a polycentric leadership

So today I had the chance to speak at a conference in response to JR Woodward's presentation on Leadership. It was a very interesting and fun time and I wanted to put my response here for those of you who wanted to be there but couldn't. Please keep in mind that it is a response to a presentation. If you want to know more about what JR said you can pick up his book entitled Creating a Missional Culture: Equipping the Church for the Sake of the World.

My Response:


I would like to first thank JR, the Missio Alliance, and the Ecclesia network for allowing me to be here today. I take it as a great honor that I can stand before you all and share some of my thoughts. I found a lot of what JR said to be very interesting and also very encouraging. It is always good to see that we are able to continue to ask questions of ourselves and how we engage the gospel in church leadership, and I am glad to know that there are those of us who are not willing to settle for what has always been but will continue to ask questions and challenge us to be more than we could even think or imagine. What I hope to do in this short time is to bring out some of JR’s points that I appreciated and also to contribute my own “two cents” if you will in hopes to challenge us to further engage what it means to be leaders in the church.

There are two points that I wish to explore in relation to this topic today. The first is the connection between culture and the church, and the second is in relation to diversity within Polycentric leadership. In regards to the first point (culture), JR states that by engaging in “grace-filled spiritual practices” which he defines as a collection of thick, bodily practices that engage our senses, grab our hearts, form our identities and reshape our desires toward God and his kingdom (I like that by the way) we create environments that then lead to creating missional culture. He states “As coworkers with God, we create culture and culture recreates us.” Or in other words, the way in which we live and relate to one another in essence shapes our culture, and in turn our culture shapes the way we live and relate to one another.  This begs the question: In what ways have we allowed the culture to shape the church?  What lines have become blurred and which cultural customs have we simply claimed as our own religious rituals? JR gives an example of this in his presentation when he talks about how the American church has adopted a business mentality. American Capitalism has become so ingrained in our culture and our church that many Pastors run their churches like Fortune 500 companies, and will write books and back it up with proof texts to justify their methods. This method, however, is not biblical and no matter how much they try to convince you; stewardship and capitalism are not the same thing.  Thus, cultural customs have become religious rituals and we are left looking more like disciples of Donald Trump than Jesus.

JR goes on to say, “The language we live in, the artifacts that we make use of, the rituals we engage in and the narratives we inhabit have the power to shape our lives profoundly.” He also states, “For leaders of God’s people uniquely contribute to the cultivation of a culture distinct and different from the dominant culture.” I would ask; where does that leave those who are already not a part of the dominant culture? How is the church participating in other cultures that are not dominant? A good friend told me that we cannot have a conversation about culture without having a conversation about power. Hence the reason we refer to the dominant culture. Who chooses artifacts? Who determines which rituals we engage in or which narratives are formative or which language primary? It is those who are in power, those of the dominant culture. Thus it is imperative for us to understand the distinctions between that culture and what I call the Gospel communal culture. There is something about the Gospel that allows us to not be hindered by our culture in becoming a part of this communal culture. This is not to say that we deny our culture to do so, quite the contrary; the gospel allows us to engage our culture, our traditions, and our narratives for it has been shaped by the gospel story, as we have been claimed by Christ. The dominant culture does not allow this; there is no room for other expressions of culture other than its own. It is hierarchical. It would seem then, that the current state of church has done more adapting to culture than cultivating a different one. It is a good thing there are people in the room who are willing to change that.

In regards to my second point, I must say that I was blessed by the story of the church in Chicago. That picture of viewing a church with the table at the center and those who are giving the word on the margins really is beautiful. But one of the things that I wanted to know was what the preacher was actually teaching? I can only assume that the intention to show inclusion should bleed into the way we speak and live but unfortunately experience cannot let me be that naïve. So if nothing more than an example, I would like to use this church, this beautiful vision, as a way to advocate for the importance of diversity within polycentric leadership.

The basic point in sharing this vision is to show how the medium can be the message, how our actions can speak louder than our words, thus indicating how our leadership structure also sends a message. I agree with this, but only to the extent that the medium and the message are the same. Which is why I wanted to know what the preacher was teaching. Though medium is important as a vehicle to express the message; we cannot fall back on the medium if we are not willing to preach that message. We cannot only count for our actions if we are not willing to be held accountable for our words. This is why diversity within Polycentric leadership is important. If creating a polycentric leadership is the medium, than we must empower those diverse voices in the message. We must allow them to be those prophetic voices that hold our White, male-dominated Western theology accountable to the gospel it is called to preach.

See, we can practice this in demonstration of our services, but do we practice this in our engagement with theology? In other words, we can stand at the edge of the circle and preach, but are we giving those who LIVE on the margins a voice? We can give up our power and positions, become Francisican in our poverty but still preach ideals of a dominant culture. Our positions are not enough. We cannot be polycentric in our function and not in our theology and beliefs. We cannot allow our giving up of our positions justify our words; we must empower those who have no voice, not because they were ever without it, but because it was stolen from them by a top down structure. Creating polycentric leadership amongst those who share the same ideologies and context is not enough. I must challenge you to not become polycentric in your leadership and remain hierarchical in your ideals.

Not only is this not a mission impossible, but I actually have the privilege of being a part of a ministry that practices what they preach. I hope not to take too much of Pastor Kevin Haah’s thunder as I  boast about New City, but it seems like such a great example for what it means to hold both the medium and the message. New City Church of Los Angeles is a church that started about 5 years ago as a vision of Pastor Kevin to create an inclusive, Gospel-centered community in the heart of Los Angeles. But instead of simply gathering friends, or taking a team from his predominately Korean-American church, Kevin decided to create a leadership that reflected the community; both in ethnic diversity and socio-economic representation. And instead of creating a hierarchical leadership, Kevin, along with wise council, created a system of accountability; both for himself and his leaders, that refused hierarchical structures and made room for leaders to emerge that a system of hierarchy would only oppress. The result is a fast-growing, come as you are, gospel preaching, community loving church. And personally, coming from a background of service in churches with a history of glass ceilings for women in ministry, an environment that issued limitations for certain pigmentations and a student loan system that I swear has vowed to keep me in poverty; it is good to know that I can not only find community, but I can have a voice; a place at the table where power is not meant to be horded but shared.

Allow me to conclude by saying that I agree that Polycentric leadership is not only a more biblical model, but allows for those who would otherwise have no voice to speak up. I would encourage Pastors of churches to employ this model, but to be reminded that to be truly polycentric, true diversity is not optional. Thank you.