I wrote this for CRC Voices responding to a comment that the CRC hasn’t had the position for most of its life, and in fact the years it has had it have been years of numerical decline.
The church in 1963 was vastly different than it was in 1983 as it is vastly different from 2013. David Snapper could run through the demographic changes that only touch on the much broader changes in make-up, theology, culture, etc. Even the Amish have changed since 1963, you can watch them on the reality shows.
Whether the ED position is a good thing for the church is a very fair debate. The position as currently construed as actually never been tried by the CRC how it will actually be implemented especially given the process proceeding on culture and structure is equally up in the air. Add to this the fact that there are groups within the church while embracing a position on paper have varying expectations as to how someone would actually function within the position. In my experience when you look at transitioning a job one of the most important question is “what will the ED stop doing in comparison to what they’ve done before.”
http://www.crcna.org/resources/other-resources/executive-director-search/executive-director-profile
The idea-de-jour is that the ED will be a “visionary” leader who will help the CRC solidify its identity by casting a vision of a preferred future complete with some direction given to CRC agencies and resources in fleshing that out.
The ED will be a leader who will lead the denomination through adaptive change, a big buzzword right now in our circles.
The ED will be a collaborative leader who will help found partnerships that will bless thing kingdom through collaboration.
There isn’t a lot in that profile about management but everyone expects the ED to manage the agencies, the specialized ministries, ecumenical matters, etc. And BTW he/she should be writing, preaching, and giving important speeches regularly beyond managing the Synodical duties.
Peter Borgdorff in many ways shaped the role initially but the new job description doesn’t really fit who he is or what he did. I think people were looking across the aisle and thinking about Wes Granberg Michaelson but how well would he have done in CRC culture? Lots of questions.
If you read CRC history from what chairs did CRC leaders exert leadership? Banner editors were powerful figures, as were seminary professors and college professors. The Banner because of cultural and technological change does not hold the same position it did. College and seminary professors are often just trying not to get shot at if they make noise about some debate where some heat is being generated.
The CRC clearly needs leadership to move forward in terms of shaping its identity. Some of Jim Schaap’s comments at the 150th still ring true for me today. https://paulvanderklay.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/quotes-from-schaaps-150th-crc-anniversary-piece/ .
Identity in the RCA for example is a larger question than the CRC. Many CRC pastors and churches still have a distinct identity although diminished. What would it mean for that identity to be strengthened? Towards what? Does it even make sense to do so in this world where fracture in order to align with city center churches or dunamis movements or the Willow Creek Association or LGBT rights groups or fractured evangelicalisms, etc.
Leadership is more attractive than coercive. If the CRC is to strengthen an identity it won’t be because someone forced agencies to use a particular health care provider. It will be because people were able to find there voices in a broader communal song and with that voice be able to say “this is who I am and this is what I can contribute to the kingdom of God coming from my place, my time, my tribe and my story.”
My understanding of the hope of the ED position is that the denomination can create such a platform so that we can take a shot at this and that by finding our song and a place to stand we may like Abraham’s children bless the world.
Will this come to be? None of us knows, but it seems at least a strong group of leaders in church would like to give it a shot. pvk
Leadingchurch.com 
I go back to 1955. There can be no doubt that the church needs structure to function. I doubt whether that it needs management,
I remember my father telling me, more than 30 years ago, that most people no longer accept leadership (even inspirational, visionary) like they used too. He attributed this to cultural changes such as the fact that far more people were well-educated (and thus less likely to follow others lock/step) and the preference for celebrity-power over heart/head wisdom.
Pingback: CRCNA Executive Director Search 2013 Links | Leadingchurch.com
Pingback: The Executive Director Position and Adaptive Change | Leadingchurch.com
The CRC is, no doubt, different now than 50 years ago. Many of those differences are, I think, precisely what mitigate against the kind of centralized, solitary “leader” figure that seems to be envisioned in the ED position as described. We are not, as far as I can see, prepared to be so united as that – as Suk says, “most people no longer accept leadership” – at least, not consciously.
The temptation of such a leader is to impose some order on the chaos, but chaos is in a fashion already ordered and highly resistant to the alternative order a single leader expects – and the people who hire him/her expect – to impose.