In my context–a vital but old school Church of Scotland congregation–the congregation views my job description very much the same as an assistant minister 50 years ago. In practice, however, I’m trying to broaden the conversation from the pulpit, use different forms of teaching and learning, and network, network, network.

I’m struggling, however, to find clear ways to communicate this emerging role in such a traditional context. I plan to start the conversation with my supervisory committee, and go from there.

I’m in a pretty traditional setting in a lot of ways. But, on staff we’re both called “pastors” (vs. Pastor and Associate). John’s in charge. He’s been there for 22 years, and has the trust and relationships that come with that sort of tenure.

Another way leadership is flat at Western: when I got there, I wasn’t handed a job description. We decided to wait a year, see where my skills/gifts were in that context, and then put something together. That’s how everyone on staff works–we’re all motivated self starters.

We have a young, smart, social-justice oriented congregation. They’re also self ambitious and most of our mission work gets done without pastoral oversight.

As far as transition, my style is much different–my preaching and leadership definitely comes from a postmodern context. But I haven’t been able to navigate much change in my churches (I was a solo pastor before). I often wonder if emerging church models work best with church plants.

I actually wrote Tribal Church (the book) in the hope that traditional churches wouldn’t give up on reaching out to a new generation. Also, I hoped that young mainline pastors might be encouraged in that context.

Gheez…if this comment goes on much longer, it’s going to be a book….

One last thing, I definitely understand the top-down Baptist model. I’m a Moody grad.