Open Letter to YWAMers in Canada

Dear Canadian YWAMers,

During the last GLT in Kona, Hawaii, there were several monumental decisions made as YWAM evolves in structure and governance for the next 50 years of our history. Pete Iliyn, sensing this shift in organizational energy entitled the last NALC, “Year One”, signifying a movement into the next fifty years with a new energy based on the values of the past.

So, some of this shift entails the Global Leadership Team reformatting to become the Global Leadership Forum (GLF); and the previous “Team 3 Plus” model of governance relinquishing their corporate titles to serve as an international eldering body. This further “flattening of the YWAM structure” and an embracing of more Biblical language to describe leadership in such a large international mission is unprecedented in scope and implications. If any of you are interested in studying organizations, YWAMs’ growth and continual restructuring is an example of an organization seeking to be Spirit-led and honouring to Jesus. I am sure there will be continual refinement to some of these governing decisions over the next several years.

The history of last December’s decisions actually evolved from a message that Loren gave in Nanning, China, called the “Tripod Message” which envisioned YWAM structure to be grounded on three legs of a tripod. The 3 legs are “Spiritual Eldership Oversight, Freedom in the Spirit for all YWAMers, and Relationship-based Leadership being the Glue that holds YWAM together”. We were very fortunate as the Canadian Leadership Team to have Frank Naea, as the then outgoing YWAM President, to meet with us in Ottawa immediately after the Nanning GLT . Frank helped us as the CLT to reformate our national leadership along the lines of the Tripod message. Frank is one of our leaders that is great on implicational thinking and strategizing in the Spirit. So in many respects we are grateful as YWAM Canada that we have had the past years to work through the implications of what is now becoming the norm in YWAM. Here are a few more implications presented in a bulleted format:

· The Global Eldership includes Loren and Darlene Cunningham, John Dawson, Lynn Green, Iain Muir, Jim Stier, and Tom Hallas. They will assemble for priestly intercession and relational, spiritual oversight to YWAM Internationally.

· Our YWAM Values are largely statements reflecting the “Word of the Lord” to us as a Mission Sodality and may be expanded upon by the International elders or the Global Leadership Forum.

· There may be other councils of elders recognized internationally, but none are at this point in time.

· The Global Leadership Forum will largely meet to continue the eldering ministry of priestly intercession and the inter-relatedness of the YWAM as a global ministry. There will be very few policy initiatives from this level, rather policies will need to be contextualized more locally and at grassroots levels.

· Every 2 years there will be a Global Leadership Gathering (GLG) much like the predecessor Global Leadership Congress, but at this point in time I do not know who in Canada or North America will be part of that structure, nor does Pete Iliyn.

· The CLT has functioned in Canada as a council of elders, and in the Western Canada District we have recognized “District Elders”.

· All YWAM directors are requested to drop the title of “director” and begin to use leader in its place. (In Canada “Director” is a legitimate title for a charitable society board member, so there are areas of legal and financial/fiduciary matters where the director title is appropriate, but in the context of YWAM ministries the use of leader is the new norm).

The Priesthood of All Believers

The doctrinal backdrop for the leadership changes in YWAM is the Reformation doctrine of the “Priesthood of all Believers”. Essentially, this doctrine is that all believers have direct access to God without the need of any earthly intermediary. Several New Testament texts teach this doctrine either explicitly or implicitly (Rom. 5:1-5; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:14-16). Believers’ direct access to God was also implied during the 400 years of the time of the Judges when the government of Israel was a theocracy.

In addition, the idea that each person as a believer is important to the whole body, being both gifted by the Spirit and all equally serving both one another and the Lord. ( 1Cor. 12 and Rom 12). The multiplicity of gifts suggests the broad-based inclusion of many in decision-making. Acts stresses group consensus for major decisions (Acts 4:32; 15:22). In addition the term fellowship in its original meaning has more to do with mutual accountability to one another in a relationally close context (brothers and sisters), than it does to Christian socializing as in our contemporary context.

At the same time that individual “freedom in the Spirit” was present in the early church, there is equally a need at times for leaders to provide some order in a representative way. Here is where the concept of servant leadership that Jesus emphasized shaped the conscience of the early church. Servant Leadership was not easily caught by the disciples. Jesus teaching over three and a half years did little to root out the human tendency to introduce monarchial/hierarchical leadership into organizational living. Note the background of Jesus last teaching in the upper room, the disciples vying to sit closest to the soon-to-be-king of Israel. Yet after Pentecost, there was little political posturing of the leaders, rather servanthood prevailed, not only in the apostles, but among the elders and other ministries as well. Apostolic servanthood was not the imposition of leadership over the whole body of believer’s in a hierarchical authoritative manner. Rather than emphasizing being-under-apostolic-authority, there was a definite empowerment of local assemblies to exercise their choice to be “submitted to authority”, the highest expression of this is to be submitted directly to Jesus. A curious example of this is the sectarian nature of the early Corinthian churches (1 Cor. 2), each separate house church recognizing “submission’ or identification to their favorite apostle/teacher/elder. Paul chides all of these groups to not look to an earthly apostle for identity and loyalty, rather to maintain a primary submission to Jesus. Jesus taught the very same “way” as a countercultural model of “His-Kingdom-Come” (Matt 23:8-12).

The central task then of leaders is to be in a relationship with Jesus and to model out an attempt to walk in the Spirit with integrity. At a recent gathering of the YWAM Americas’ Field in the Dominican Republic, Jim Stier said, “The principle job of a leader is to be so in love with Jesus, that his/her love for Jesus is what qualifies the leader for leadership!” Further, “Our worship of Jesus (as leaders) is our first love!”

Church polity (the doctrinal term to describe church government) has ranged in models from non-governmental forms (the Quakers or Plymouth Brethren) to hierarchical models (Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Salvation Army). YWAM as a mission sodality is attempting to both reduce a Western business model of corporate leadership and reinvigorate eldership as the form of servant leadership in our mission. Hence the flattening of structure, while maintaining an identity that involves a second-choice commitment to both a global mission vision, and an international mission identity.

As a priest, we can take responsibility for our own spiritual growth, and we can mutually gather together to serve one another. Jesus showed us the way to do this (Phil. 2) by emptying himself and laying down his life. What will it take for us to take on the same posture and serve both Jesus and YWAM here in Canada?

Pentecost 2011