Metanoia

A Brief Overview of YWAM Canada’s Understanding of Leadership and Eldership

Originally presented as a 6-part series to the North American Elders

I am taking the time to write a very brief historical view of YWAM Canada’s journey/evolution in leadership and how we view eldership.  I will try to make a very brief story with each point to illustrate the story more personally.  I would suspect that all the current elders and many of the ministry leaders would have a somewhat different perspective for the events I am recounting. I welcome their stories, even if they see it differently than I do. My purpose in sharing this is three-fold.  First to summarize a 30-year history in stages of growth.  Secondly, to track the Lord’s teaching on how to be a kingdom people in YWAM, in Canada, and in localized ministry.  Thirdly, to help other YWAMers to see how the Lord has led us in Canada, without saying this is the way it should be in other circles of YWAM in other localities or identities. 

From about 1976-1991 we had a traditional Canadian Director, Uli Kortsch.  The Canada Council was 5-7 leaders from Canadian bases in The Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia.  Uli was part of international leadership gatherings since the 1976 Montreal Olympic outreach.  It was also the time Leland Paris and Denny Gunderson were Americas Field Director and North American Regional Director.  There was a YWAM Canada staff working with Uli that theoretically were called to serve across the country, but time and resources often restricted how this worked.  YWAM owned a plane in this process and even had one of Keith Green’s pilots to fly it. Uli flew many trips across the country, praying for the money along the way to fuel the plane up at the next stop.  We also had a train car as the visionary forerunner for a complete evangelism train and mission recruitment ministry.

Most leaders of bases in Canada at that time followed Uli’s highly visionary and enthusiastic optimism, especially in the financial realm.  In 1991 Uli went on a sabbatical, a thinly veiled transition out of YWAM.  It took about 2 years for Uli to leave.  As the Canada Council we were “in the loop” on his change of direction, but when it happened, we all looked at each other to see who the next Director would be.  None of us felt called to a Canadian Directorship.  Under the influence of Earl Pitts we decided that we would form an across-Canada Leadership team.  Little did we know at the time the course we were starting down.  

Events along our team leadership path conspired to shape our direction/experimentation in being an across-Canada team.  First were the multiple challenges of the YWAM Ontario, Cambridge base, struggling to survive a rocky financial crisis and eventually being forced to close.  Really this was a process of bankruptcy which is very difficult for a charitable society to manage.  As a team called into a crisis we were out of our depth, despite the fact we had some members very well qualified and knowledgeable in the realm of kingdom financial matters.  

Uli was still with us during portions of this journey, but financial woes at Cambridge and in Richmond, BC marked the early 1990s.  We were positively influenced by Renewal at the Toronto Airport Vineyard, journeying to Pataya, Thailand for an International YWAM Leaders’Conference, and a shift in our minds to becoming the Canadian Liaison Team, CLT.  All of us thought we needed to make team work as this was the general sense of the Lord’s calling for us as Canadian leaders.    Our team was a decentralized team across the breadth of Canada. We were definitely pioneering something new.  While we may have sensed the Lord leading us, we were experimenting continuously for anything that did work.  Our practice involved learning to really listen to each other and to listen to the Lord simultaneously.  Practicing dialogue until consensus arose shifted our meeting to more processing of fewer points and less time spent on solving other people’s problems.  

During this time Peter Iliyn became the North American director.  He called some of us into his room in Thailand and asked how he could relate to YWAM Canada? I believe we politely told him to not bother us in Canada, since we were working out how to function as a team.  We were told by many at the time that since we did not have a director over Canada, that the rest of YWAM did not know how to relate to us.  No director meant no invitation to the ILT or the GLT.  However, Pete Iliyn invited us to send representatives to the newly being-formed North American Council.

Parallel to this team process was a movement by 6 ministries in western Canada to begin to meet for mutual support and encouragement.  We eventually became a North American District, Western Canada District, which happened to include a couple of Alaskan ministries.  Our practice of consensus decision making, and everyone’s voice being heard was put to the test as the ministry locations reached 40+ and often we had too many people for effective conciliar, larger circle gatherings.  While there were a few larger bases in this mix of locations, by and large, the Western Canada District functioned more like a network of Frontier Missions teams focused on specific ministry in their localities.

At the CLT team meetings in Ottawa, Frank Naea, outgoing YWAM president, challenged us to drop the concept of being a Liaison team and become a leadership team.  Our call was to embrace the recent Nanning covenant and become a leadership team that exhibited freedom in the Spirit and spiritual eldership.  In Ottawa in 2004 we shifted our focus in becoming what we were convinced was a call by the Holy Spirit to learn to lead in a new way, while a new emphasis, we had some preliminary practice in team leadership. This was before we started to use the concept of circles in YWAM, but in essence we were a Canadian circle.  We were using the terms leader/director interchangeably and we were not quite sure how to integrate the concept of eldership into our leadership style, roles, or responsibilities. 

There was quite a bit of international buzz on this term of elder, some of it helpful, much of the discussion vague and overly generalized.  Over time we felt the term suited us best, if it was not used as a role title, but instead the verb form, “eldering”, became more prominent in our deliberations.  Therefore, to elder depended on influence authority not governmental authority, it was not something restricted to age, gender, position in YWAM, or education, and it did not involve hierarchy or any form of over/under power positions to function.  “Eldership” became to us a relationally rich model of leading-in-the-moment and is more recognized by others than it is a position in an organization.

It is telling that Frank Naea was the international leader that nudged us into this season.  The relationship between Pacific Islanders, First Nations in Canada and YWAM Canadian leadership had a 20-year history of interaction and partnership.  What was created had a more tribal vibe to it.  What was happening in the YWAM Canada gatherings was also happening in the Western Canada District.  This created a practice field of 3-4 meetings a year and a biennial all-Canada staff gathering in Manitoba that modeled eldering leadership on behalf of our national identity as YWAM Canada.  Slowly, there evolved an understanding of eldership unique to us, especially when used in the verb form, eldering.   In other parts of YWAM the term elder is also used, but it might be defined in a different way.  Hence, definitions are important. 

It was during this period that we first tackled the issue of homosexuality, trying to have a national understanding that went beyond the Code of Conduct that each operating location were urged to have and review yearly.  This was one of the governance issues that came up at our CLT meeting for the first time in Montreal.   The specifics for our Montreal meeting was a same-sex married gay man seeking to take a DTS as a single and then returning home to his partner.  What ensued in ‘governing” this agenda item was a full-on debate, discussion, and dialogue that did not resolve nicely into any clear conclusion.  Consensus, one of our key Canadian values, was never reached.  To this day while homosexuality and Christianity as a social topic escalates in Canada, we do not have a nationally agreed upon “policy”.  This has forced us to recognize that agape love covers a multitude of issues despite our doctrinal (dis) agreement. We also recognize that not everyone can live with the ambiguity that exists when there are polar opposite positions on a major moral topic.   In some ways not having a Canada-wide decision forced the Quebec Charitable Society to take a position, which was clear and definitive.  Perhaps this is an example of how in a decentralized structure, grassroots governance might be an acceptable solution in areas where there are positions that are opposed to each other.

By the summer of 2014 it seemed we had integrated the Word of the Lord from the Nanning Covenant into how the CLT was leading in Canada.  On the CLT there were some of us who had geographic leadership roles while others were serving in various ways in YWAM Canada.  We began to hear encouraging words from international leaders that we were on the right track in respect to how the Lord was leading YWAM internationally.  Of course, the kudos were appreciated, but it is funny that no one from outside of Canada asked any of the Canadian leaders what we were doing that was different.  The main points of the Nanning Covenant were being lived out in team leadership, eldership, and freedom in the spirit to live in our corporate apostolic anointing.  

We had a staff conference at our traditional Rendezvous site in Manitoba in August of 2014.  By September 2014 at the Singapore gathering everything involving our corporate and international leadership structure changed.  All geographic leadership positions were terminated and a new way to see ourselves in new geographic Areas was rolled out.  Before any of this had been well processed I received the news, “You’re fired!  Ha Ha!”  Humorously true, but in one fell swoop all middle management of YWAM wiped out and replaced with more questions than answers. Then to top off this shake-up we found out someone drew a line down the middle of Canada separating Canada as a nation to East and West Areas.  After a season of reaction and some international damage control I/we concluded that I/we can live with this decision.  The irony of course here was a centralized decision to decentralize.  After all, YWAM in my experience is largely ungovernable in any sort of hierarchical way and seems to work well when we follow our values of influence and relationship as leadership virtues, something we espouse as values.

Movements in their very nature are not controllable from the top-down.  To try to run a movement is impossible.  The very ethos of YWAM requires room for the Holy Spirit to direct, to influence, to move along the relational networks not hierarchy.  What I soon discovered is that I could be “fired” from being a North American District Director/Team-member, from being a Canadian CLT Chairman, and from being a member of the North American Council, BUT I could not be fired from being an elder.  Because with eldership there is an inherent responsibility to the YWAMers I had taught, nurtured, and led to continue to be present in the verbal form of eldering.  Responsibility without organizational power will only work if there is a mutual recognition and submission to the Holy Spirit, the very early church being the best model.

Here is our Canadian understanding of elders and eldering:

 Elders relate to the community in diverse ways always seeking the best for both the individuals that compose it, and the collective/common good. Eldership is not a title. It is born of the fidelity of connection and committed relationships that is discerned and eventually recognized by the YWAM Canada community.  There is mutual affirmation- elders affirm individuals and the wider community and these individuals and the community at large. affirm the elder for his/her care. It’s a natural and never forced reality. 

After Singapore the CLT met one more time to determine our next steps.  We determined to resign from the CLT in mass, but only after we convened one more meeting to ask about the future of forming a YWAM Canada Circle. After all, in a decentralized structure, if top down does not work, bottom-up decisions might be something more in keeping to who we are and Spirit-led from the grassroots. This All Canada circle would be in addition to the 2 Area Circle gatherings (East and West North American Area Circles).  In addition, there are other YWAM circles, i.e. Cities, Frontier Missions, DTS, U of N, etc. 

We did gather again with 40+ YWAM Canada Leaders with one question on the agenda, “Is there across-Canada support for us to gather as Canadian circle?   After 3 days of meetings we were convinced to move ahead with a “it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit” type decision to meet as Canadian leaders and Canadian staff.  To facilitate this process, we appointed conveners for a leader’s gathering one year and the next year a staff gathering.  In this process the former CLT was recognized and honored and asked to serve as elders in Canada.  The eldering role was recognized like the above definition, but it was the team of conveners who had the authority to convene the next cycle of leaders and staff meetings.  The elders were honoured for their service, but not commissioned to be a behind-the-scene’s leader/director faction.

One of the current pop-wisdom insights that is applicable across multiple disciplines is the statement, “It takes 10,000 hours of practice to reach a master’s level of proficiency!”  If we add up the hours we have put in to coming to our Canadian understanding of eldering we likely have double to triple the hours invested collectively over 30 years.   So, a few simple statements of what I have learned.  (it would take quite a bit more processing for us to make a collective statement of what we have learned):

v  The conciliar model of leader’s meetings works well.  It takes time, non-judgmental listening, and dialogue linked with all the spiritual gifts-however it is not necessarily efficient time-wise but makes up for it with good relationships.  The conversations in and out of meetings had the same depth and focus.

v  Leadership positions can get in the way of effective leading.  Eldership not being a position, but a calling/gifting means when leadership is needed it can be a just-in-time leadership model – the assumption that elders are de-facto leaders disempowers the charism of Holy Spirit anointing

v  Not coming to a consensus in a polarizing issue requires exploring third options stronger than compromise.  These third-way solutions take spiritual disciplines, and time together to sense the Holy Spirit’s leading.

v  A decentralized international missions/discipleship movement has not really worked well since the very earliest era of the Church-Our current YWAM decentralization is an experiment in healthy deconstruction of centuries of hierarchical control

v  Eldership as ones who do eldering are not restricted to just the older members-currently we have at least 3 generations of YWAMers serving as elders

v  Modeling eldering is by influence and relationship which tends to be more heart-level.  I could teach on this, but it would not likely be easy to grasp at the heart-level without lots of practice, mentoring, healthy self-reflection, and being practically visionary

Currently, the Conveners of the Canadian circles (Canadian oploc leaders circle one year/all Canadian staff circle biennially) are influencing YWAM Canada with respect to First Nations issues.   While only a handful of ministries are working with First Nations directly, all ministries in Canada are situated on territorial lands of First Nation tribes.  So, we have participated in the blanket exercise; and we’ve had education on the Truth and Reconciliations Commission’s challenges to Canadian faith institutions; and generally raised awareness of Native needs and how we might interface in a more responsible manner.   With a 2-3 year mandate the conveners are in charge on behalf of all.  The Elders are involved by being participants along with everyone else.  It could be that the next set of conveners have an entirely different focus and agenda.  All leaders in Canadian oplocs have a voice in who will serve us in the future as conveners.

At our national Rendezvous in 2017 the conveners set the direction for our 4 days together.  On the morning of the last day, just as the worship time started, a portable partition fell over.  A 2-year-old girl, Beatrix, was knocked over and crushed by the weight of the wall.  In the ensuing chaos of attending to Beatrix, calling for the first responders, and attending to the 100 people who witnessed the accident, the conveners asked some of us elders for help.  What followed was a traumatic day of lament, grief, and ministry to one another.  All the Canadian elders, plus Jim Stier, served in a variety of ways throughout that mind/heart-numbing day.  When we received word that Beatrix had died en-route to the local hospital the communal grief was staggering. None of us were prepared to handle a crisis like this, but we were able to survive the day with a tangible sense that God was there helping us.  This is a tragic example, and I hope never to be repeated, but as I have reflected on that dark day the heart of who we are as YWAM Canada held.  Mostly, this is a testimony to the Holy Spirit, but there were so many YWAMers working together under the Spirit’s guidance that made Spirit presence real.

In the evening we had a short meeting in the outdoor courtyard.  Jim Stier offered International support to us and a strong exhortation, “To oppose death on every front!”  We celebrated the Lord’s Supper together.  Mike and Amanda, Beatrix’s parents, were not present with us for this event at Pinawa, but when we recently gathered in Calgary (almost one year later) they led us all in a communion event.  It was similar in so many ways to that fateful day, but also strongly celebratory and honoring to all who had grieved for the past year.

We do not have much experience functioning in this new role of decentralized, non-governing, non-hierarchical structures, but I do know this is much more kingdom than the polar opposite. 

May the Lord guide us as we learn and grow into some semblance of maturity.

Paul Martinson

October 2018