To often leadership is exchanged for management. We need managers, but we need leaders more.

Other times leadership seems to be exchanged for bullying. Stop pushing me to adopt 'your agenda' (regardless of how you couch that agenda). Leaders don't push, they encourage, build trust, and invite.

Are there any leaders left?

See answers to Questions 1 and 2.

I don't have any problem with the leadership within the structure. I just don't think everyone is on board with everyone else. From where I sit, it appears that people are working as a team. There are divisions within the denominational office levels. Again, this is what I perceive from my office.

I believe if everyone in the denominational leadership -- Executive Director, Ministry leaders, agency leaders, board chairs -- were actually working as a cohesive team, with no competition or politicizing, then the environment at the upper levels would be healthy. People in the pews would be excited because pastors, classis officials, councils would be engaged in the work that we have covenanted to do.

I don't think we need to "stream line" the agency or the denom office leadership matrix. We don't need to "fire" people in order to clean the budget issues or the team list. People just need to understand the game plan... or better come up with a united game plan.

I hope that the current leadership continues to invite comment via the internet. This way a number of ideas and responses can be included in the deliberations.

Unfortunately I am seeing more professional marketing methods being used without due regard to the content of the messages.

Try to provide information in an economic and stewardly manner. When something exciting happens within the CRC community, churches can get the same information from CRC news, CRWRC news, DRM, Social Justice office etc etc.  

Since each department has the very same e-mail list for all the churches, would it not be more beneficial to discuss WHO will be distributing a particular news item so that the rest don't have to? That way each news distribution chanel will have unique items to report.

The CRC should try and implement a distribution system whereby e-mail or snailmail can be chosen. That way authors don't have to generate their own private e-mail system to save postage.

In other words, I see a need for more interdepartmental cooperation and coordination when it comes to connecting with the churches.

I agree with Keith Knight's suggestion about shared leadership.  Several congregations including our own have experimented with co-pastors and shared leadership in other key areas of church life.  In fact, our church polity sets us up for this messy but biblical form of government where several entities share the authority and responsibility for governing and managing the church.  The leadership gurus say it shouldn't work.  "You need someone at the top," they say.  I think that this upside-down kingdom of God that we are living in requires an upside-down kind of thinking on the topic of organizational structure.

Shared leadership requires the parties to practice humility and mutual submission.  And at the end of the day, when people share the challenge and privilege of leadership, they are constantly reminded that it's not about them as an individual.  It is not their gifts or talents or even their hard work or good character that builds the church.   It is the Spirit of God who lives and works not only in individuals, but even more spectacularly through the diversity and unity of the people of God.

As has been stated in my responses to earlier questions, the problem lies squarely at the feet of the structure.

In what way is the CRCNA different from Amway? How does the way our church is structured differ from the way most corporations are structured? Therein lies the problem.

How should the Body of Christ organize itself in such a way that it can effectively carry out its tasks as reflected in Acts? What kind of support system is required so that we as that Body of Christ can effectively carry out the work of World Missions, Home Missions, leadership development, congregational life?

Our structure has become ineffective because it has come to be viewed as an organization that OVERSEES the mission and ministry of the church instead of a streamlined body that undergirds, supports and encourages the mission and ministry of the church.

I wonder if it’s even possible to say what kind of leadership is needed at this time.   Could any set of leadership gifts be productive in this situation?  How can leadership be held accountable in this highly transitional and unclear situation?  Should we err on the side of stability?  Or on the side of innovation?  Should we strengthen structures for security and predictability, or should we see this as the time to really rethink where we are going and what kind of structures we need to get there?