dissertation

174
Again, there is some overlap here, for example, between a cultivator and a gardener.
The point to notice for now is that within the EMC, metaphors and marks denoting leadership
draw especially on images connected to creativity and the arts, the natural
world and organic thinking, computers and the internet, and recent postmodern organization
studies. In addition, ‘missional’, or apostolic, and ‘spiritual’ leadership are
deemed essential.
7.3 Church Structures
In the EMC, it is acknowledged that there is no best way of organizing and structuring
that will work equally well for all Christian communities, because “an organism is unique,
growing out of one-of-a-kind symbiosis of its parts.” 29 Also, since organisms live in
different environments, they will face different demands and will consequently be forced
to respond in varying ways. 30
That being said, it is also stated that, in order to fit within the emerging postmodern
context – which is conceived of as a fluid, shifting environment – church structures “will
need to have the characteristics of a self-organizing system, open to change and centered
on a clear purpose in order to survive.” 31 Ideally, these structures are conducive to
dialogue, 32 decentralized, dynamic, flat, flexible, fluid, highly relational 33 and networkthe
business world and that, broadly speaking, evangelical pastors are professional ministry CEOs and not
specifically spiritual leaders.” Scott Michael Davis, “A Comparative Analysis of Younger and Older Pastors’
Perceptions of Leadership,” (EdD thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006), 13. Davis’ thesis is
about leadership metaphors.
28
It is worth noting that the leadership metaphors proposed in recent secular scholarship come very close to
those within the EMC. Fahri Karakas, for example, discusses the emergence of seven new creative roles for
organization development professionals in the 21 st century: social artist, ethical pioneer, spiritual visionary,
creative catalyst, cultural innovator, holistic thinker, and community builder. Fahri Karakas, “New Paradigms
in Organization Development: Positivity, Spirituality, and Complexity,” Organizational Development
Journal 27, no. 1 (Spring 2009), 11-26.
29
Bob Whitesel, Inside the Organic Church: Learning from Emerging Congregations (Nashville, TN: Abingdon,
2006), 134.
30
Mary Jo Hatch, Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997), 53, as quoted in Whitesel, Inside the Organic Church, 124 and 133.
31
Terri Elton, “Corps of Discovery: A Twenty-First Century Contextual Missiology for the Denominational
Church in the United States,” in Craig Van Gelder, ed., The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations
Develop Contextual Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 155.
32
Cf. David Boshart, “If, in postmodernity, organizational structures are not to be controlled, it would
seem that fostering productive dialogue that leads to generative learning will provide the best hope for organizational
transformation.” David W. Boshart, Becoming Missional: Denominations and New Church Development
in Complex Social Contexts (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 119.
33
Being relational is not just an abstract ideal but can be observed in reality, for example in Solomon’s
Porch, Minneapolis. Researcher Karyn Wiseman writes as follows of her experiences: “I believe this is one of
the most approachable and engaging congregations that I have ever encountered. They are people-centered
in their mission and ministry. They use the creative talents of their members in worship, music development,
missional outreach, and small group ministries. They are definitely more concerned with ‘being the
church’ than they are with ‘going to church’.” Karyn L. Wiseman, “Grace Space: The Creation of Worship
Space for the Postmodern/Emerging Church,” (PhD diss., Drew University, 2006), 189.