Freedom and Leadership

A few months ago I read an old article (interview actually) from Rick Warren. For the first time he said something that really rubbed me wrong (as for me, I am happy to have Warren as the new protestant pope – he is winsome in many categories – gotta love it). What he said was:

I think a fourth trend that you might be interested in as journalists is the move – the shift in power – in evangelicalism from what's called para-church organizations to local churches. In the last 50 years, most of what was new and innovative that's been done in Christianity was done by para-church organizations, not actual congregations. Things like World Vision, World Relief, Campus Crusade for Christ, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Billy Graham Organization and on and on. And America in its entrepreneurship has started thousands of these para-church organizations since the 1950s. And in the '70s and the '80s particularly, all of the bright minds were not going into local churches. They were all going into these para-church organizations.

But all the smart people I know are now working in local churches. They're moving there and the power is moving back to the local congregations. Regardless of size, they just happen to be there.

When I first saw that, it rubbed me wrong (for I myself work with a para . . . .which most of us ‘para’ people never liked that distinction in the first place – it almost sounds like choosing to play JV). But ner the less, it rubbed me wrong.

But as I began to think about it, I totally agree – and here is why. Freedom.

In the 40s & 50s the para was so new and young that a ton of white space existed. Bill Bright, Billy Graham and their contemporaries were doing something that had not really been done and leaders gravitated to the vacuum. At the same time, the church was ruttted –deeply. You had a handful of major denominations that were mostly declining. In 1950, if you, me and someone’s brother-in-law got together to start a church . . . . .well, we would have been considered a bit strange and possibly even apostate. You just did not do that kind of stuff. If Bill headed over to UCLA to start a campus church (and him with no degree and the church with no building) it would have looked a bit scandalous. Even Henrietta Mears may have frowned. The timing was not right – thus para was a good option.

But now, the freedom is in the church. No one would bat an eye if me and two guys from some bar started a church - people would scarcely pay any attention. “Good luck and if you invent something cool, put it on your website.” Since 1950, the church has lurched back toward spontaneity (a bit). There are other factors, but big time thanks to Chuck Smith (I should say Lonnie Frisbee) and the Jesus people of the 70s – the reformation mentality has continued a slow expansion. The priesthood of all believers careening toward some very natural conclusions.

So now, the para has become stiff and the church has become an open world of chaos of all kinds (and I mean this as a good thing – a really really good thing). So, if I am local pastor I can preach like a want, hire who I want, go where I want, minister to whom I am called and generally create a future out of the freedom I have.

At the same time, most directors within the context of para-church are much more constrained. These groups who initially organized around a mission have become large corporate structures. To move quickly is not an option.

In some ways I see this as the natural melding of the para and the church. Bag the para! We are all the church is various forms and functions. The kingdom expands as godly men and women wage war in the battle for souls. For our part (the para), we must get back to freedom at a very high level. It is this freedom that built us and it is the by the lack of freedom that we will cease to serve our purpose before God. Freedom!! (a little William Wallace comes to mind here) - this is where we need to be.