Leadership in transition
|
How do leaders and leadership need to be shaped or contoured in order to meet the unique demands and challenges of 21st century ministry? Papers presented in the Hague, Netherlands, 7th - 10th May, 2005. The way "spiritual leadership" is viewed, conducted and evaluated is undergoing a major shift today that demands our attention and response. What needs to change touches upon critical questions related to the theory and practice of leadership; but of equal importance is another question: What is actually needed in the person of the leader today to be faithful and fruitful over the long haul? In this upcoming Thinklings gathering we want to move into addressing these complex leadership issues. See also Len Hjalmarson’s article ‘Kingdom Leadership in the Postmodern Era’ and an older discussion of leadership and authority here. |
Comments
There are pitfalls to that too
Well, of course, you are still assuming that the church needs pastors. My experience is that every church leader claims to be a servant leader. Your language leads me to think that you are in the US where things may be different, but here in the UK, I would characterise church leaders as the church’s "pet saint". There are plenty of negative aspects to that co-dependent relationship, believe me.
I agree with you that the word "leader" is an inappropriate one to label a small subset of the church with. However, I would argue that every functioning Christian should "lead" in those areas that they have gifting for. For me, the only model that lives out Jesus’ principles to the full is one where whatever leadership is required to start a church work to do themselves out of a job and that the church is able to relate and function without formal leadership.
Managers in the organization vs. spiritual leaders
In the US, the term "leader" in the church has really become perverted. We have a bunch of guys (like John Maxwell) travelling around doing seminars on "leadership". They basically tell you how to recruit other people and train them - but only "good" people. Don’t waste your time on people who can’t further your mission. Conventions pop into town with the "leaders" of the day who will tell you how to run your organization better. They cost about $350 per week.
I think my disdain at the term leader stems fro this "church as multi-level-marketing" mentality that pervades much of the American Church. Many church-y people here see the "organization" as the "Church". We equate leadership to being a good organizer, an exciting public speaker or a talented musician. We put preachers on pedestals and refer to the lay-ministers as "middle-level managers" for lack of a better term.
What’s even more disappointing is that many of the more conservative, evangelical churches here spend all their management time and energy on furthing the organization. They’ve forgotten about our mandate to care for the poor and protect the weak. Instead of taking their resources and helping widows and orphans, they build bigger and bigger buildings. There are churches with full-blown health clubs in them. And many of the leaders seem to have lost the vision of the Church as a whole and our mission. They’re caught up trying to build bigger and better programs for their members. In doing so, they become more like Zig Zigler style self-help gurus instead of bond-slaves of Christ. They teach what is popular and well accepted instead of the Gospel - which is a stumbling block and a sword that divides flesh from bone.
I guess the organization needs managers. But I think more important is the need in the Church for spiritual leaders - people who live their faith. It’s really leading by example more than telling everyone else what the believe or how to live.
I think that the basic building block of the Church is not congregational groups, but families. If you have a wife and children, you are a spiritual leader whether you want to be or not. As priest within our family, we have to struggle with scripture and figure out what is right and wrong and then teach that to our kids. I think fathers have been passing the buck to "church leaders" for many years. That’s another reason I’m not thrilled with the terminology.
I was part of lay-leadership in a church for about 10 years. Looking back, I think I probably did a lot more harm than good. I had my priorities all out of whack. I thought I was "all that" as they say. I had great relationships with other "leaders", and no relationships with anyone else.We built a great organization together. Now, I look at a building full of people who won’t even cross the street to give a starving person a piece of bread. It’s very discouraging.
So, many of my hang-ups may just be a result of my own stinky, sinful, carnal experience in "leadership". My goal now is to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with my God". When I see someone in need, I try to meet the need if I can. If I see the weak being attacked by the poor, I try to come to their defense. I look for ways to connect with the Church (capital C) regardless of what their denomination.
They're not mutually exclusive
While I sympathize with some of the points you are making, I feel I must speak up in defense of some of the things you oppose. I think you’re right about what you’re saying is often right as far as it goes, but that you sometimes imply things that won’t bear scrutiny.
In the US, the term "leader" in the church has really become perverted. We have a bunch of guys (like John Maxwell) travelling around doing seminars on "leadership". They basically tell you how to recruit other people and train them - but only "good" people. Don’t waste your time on people who can’t further your mission.
In principle, how is this different from Paul instructing Timothy or Titus on how to recruit and train church leaders? Surely you don’t recommend we recruit and train church leaders who love money, abuse their children, and exploit the weak?
I think my disdain at the term leader stems fro this "church as multi-level-marketing" mentality that pervades much of the American Church.
It could be that this is simply a case of the church adopting the leadership models of her culture. Again, how is this different from in the New Testament, where the church adopted the leadership models of the synagogue and Jewish culture? I think you may be confusing a leadership model with the character of a leader.
What’s even more disappointing is that many of the more conservative, evangelical churches here spend all their management time and energy on furthing the organization. They’ve forgotten about our mandate to care for the poor and protect the weak. Instead of taking their resources and helping widows and orphans, they build bigger and bigger buildings.
To the extent that the church’s mission is to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19-20), "present every man mature in Christ" (Col. 1:28), or "build up the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:12), it actually seems more appropriate to make the church bigger and better if one has to choose between that or caring for the poor and weak. But in fact, there is no reason why a church shouldn’t do both. Nearly every church that I know of tries to both, though some do better at one or the other.
And if it is true that one hears more of the former from the pulpit, I’d argue that it is just as true that one sees more of the latter in the every-day lives of the church members.
I guess the organization needs managers. But I think more important is the need in the Church for spiritual leaders - people who live their faith. It’s really leading by example more than telling everyone else what the believe or how to live.
I like this better—a recognition that the church has room for more than one kind of leader. I like Robert Clinton’s work on leadership. He recognizes different kinds of Christian leaders, filling different roles, and working in different ways. The church needs people who can teach from books, and also people who can lead by example. The church needs institution-builders, and also encouragers. The church needs confronters and also healers.
I was part of lay-leadership in a church for about 10 years. Looking back, I think I probably did a lot more harm than good.
Somehow I don’t think your point is meant to be, "I should have left leadership to the professionals," nor "We all should have resigned and let the poor and weak take over our organization." Try as we might, we all find ourselves at times doing harm rather than good. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to be better at recognizing those who might do more good than others, or considering what we mean by "good" and "harm," or by trying to help one another do more good.
My goal now is to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with my God". When I see someone in need, I try to meet the need if I can. If I see the weak being attacked by the poor, I try to come to their defense.
Consider that you’re taking your goal from the old covenant rather than from the orders given by our new covenant Lord. I recognize that justice, mercy, and humility are rooted in God’s character, but so is forgiveness of sin and fellowship in his body.
I guess I agree with you that it’s not great when people care more about authority than service, and when churches put so little thought into the implications of their structures, budgets, and actions. It’s not great when people seek the name of Christ but shrink from the heart and mind of Christ. It’s just that I’ll bet John Maxwell—using your example—is quite a decent Christian, who believes the church is God’s instrument for caring for the oppressed, and that is why he thinks she needs to be bigger, better, and well-led. Like you and me, he’s probably done some stupid things, but he’s probably also followed the Spirit’s guiding.
It's about the heart
I acknowledge that there is a need for good organization within the Church. But that organization is supposed to be for the intent of our mission - sharing the Gospel with the world (the great commission), caring for widows and orphans (true religion and undefiled…) etc.I think sometimes we get caught up in the organzational aspect to the point where our mission changes to building our church (lower-case "c"). We want to make sure we have programs for everyone and that our church has more bells and whistles than the one down the street. We audition for praise and worship bands - often paying professional musicians - regardless of their spiritual maturity.
As for "doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with my God" idea, isn’t that what Christ did? I think that’s a pretty good goal.
I know I come off a little rough on John Maxwell. I’m sure he’s a decent guy and probably believes in what he teaches. I just know the results I’ve seen. It’s not that I want to turn church leadership over to immature believers. But you have to have them in the loop somewhere. What I’ve experienced is church leadership focusing on raising up the next generation of leaders. They work with "good" candidates - charismatic people who seem somewhat sincere. Then, those people are taught to do the same. As a result, many churches seem filled with "good" people - they are moral and intelligent and look a lot like the leaders that train them.
But at what point in this loop does anyone from the church reach out to those who aren’t going to be the next leaders? I think the danger is that we begin to put value on people - not because they are precious to God - but because we think they can further our organization.
Re: They're not mutually exclusive
With regard to your comments: ‘To the extent that the church’s mission is to "make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19-20), "present every man mature in Christ" (Col. 1:28), or "build up the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:12), it actually seems more appropriate to make the church bigger and better if one has to choose between that or caring for the poor and weak. But in fact, there is no reason why a church shouldn’t do both. Nearly every church that I know of tries to both, though some do better at one or the other’.
Have you considered that caring for the poor and weak is a characteristic of a better church? Perhaps even a measure of how ‘good’ a church is? (whatever you meant by ‘better’). Or that (as if it were possible to do so!) choosing "to make the church bigger and better" may be missing the point?
How about we try to make ourselves (because we Lead By Example) deeper, more loving (as demonstrated by our actions: faith and praxis going hand in hand of course) and more humble?
A child dies every three seconds because of preventable poverty.
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Mother Teresa
Leader is not a dirty word
As I read through the comments and thoughts, one thing is clear; the open disdain for all things American. Your views on the US are not wrong but that is not the whole story. God is raising up a core of no name people who are committed to new church. This church is not only radical but extremely war torn and gun shy from all the religious attacks. What we need here is the prayers of our family across the pond. Years ago i sat with Martin Scott and discussed the need for a bridge between the US and the UK. I believe that we need each other and ask for you to join hearts with those who seek to only do what God is doing and say what God is saying.
So much of our paridigms are shaped by our experiences (many of them bad). The abuses of leadership are nor geographical. In many cases the backlash of attempting culturally relevance has produced a people indistinguishable from the world.
If we are not to lead then Pauls’ instruction throughout two thirds of the NT would be intrusive at best. Our goal as leaders must be to work ourselves out of a job. Until Elisha crossed the Jordan with Elijah he was bound to follow his mentors instructions. At that point, Elisha heard from God for himself, no longer having to follow and trust the prophets judgement of the direction of God. Paul said "follow me as I follow Christ". Whether we lead by example or by instruction the result must be the same. We only speak as God gives us instuction.
My favorite example of leadership comes from History. Joan of Arc lead the armies of France to a castle that was a prison for many of there countryman. She boldly announced that they were to take the prison. The generals declared it to be suicidal and proclaimed that if she were to take on this impossible task that no one would be following her. Joan of Arc replied " I won’t be looking back to see".
Leadership is not synonymous with exclusivity and elitism. Jesus washed feet and also allowed His feet to be washed with tears. No man is meant to lord over another but that does not negate authority structure. It is possible and also inevitable that the new leaders of new church will do great exploits and humble themselves to serve and prefer others before themselves. The bottom line; God will not share His glory with another! The days of man’s secret agenda is over. God has drawn the line. Humilty and forgiveness are the traits of the new leader. Whether we are "preaching" or "giving a talk", whether we are "pastors" or "(your favorite title here)". The results go far beyond symantics. We must turn from our cultural and geographical prejudices and remember that the gospel is still "good news". No boundaries… no limitations… just Jesus and Him crucified.
My bottom line
Hi Rohn
Don’t mistake my distinguishing between the US church scene and the UK one as "disdain for all things American". It isn’t. It was simply me pointing out that the UK generally has a different problem.
Joan of Arc may have been a good war leader, but she would have been a disasterous church leader. The idea that someone just forges ahead, not caring who follows falls down from almost every angle when you look at church leadership. Not even I would accuse any sane church leader of doing this.
After 24 years of trying to square Jesus Christ with what purports to be the Church, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t.
One factor in a theological understanding of Church is the work of the Holy Spirit in distributing charisms to every member. The operation of these charisms designed to mature and unite the members of the church as an effective body for Christ. It is here that the leadership-obsession of humans completely undermines the will of God. As far as I understand it you could characterise most Christian leadership as disrespect for the body of Christ, the gifts of God and the Holy Spirit. Those churches I know that claim to be about "releasing" gifts, rarely allow more than a few people to exercise their gifting, though they are (by their language) admitting that they have imprisoned most charisms.
Speaking as one who has been thoroughly mauled by a number of genuinely honest spiritual leaders, I now have a very clear bottom line for a church.
There must be a genuine statement about the internal polititics of the group. Pious statements like ‘we are members of each other’ do not cut it.There has to be an open feedback loop.The majority of meetings must be genuinely open meetings allowing all gifts to be operated and subjects raised.The person who has the gift exercises the gift: No more private gift-gathering by leaders to centralise power.All leader-worship must be discouraged.The church as a whole must make major decisions.If there are any major capital investments, the members of the church must become shareholders.
I recently read JH Yoders ‘Body Politics’ and was struck very hard by the fact that I had come to most of the same conclusions as him, having come from a very different part of the Church.
Re: Managers in the organization vs. spiritual leaders
I happened across this site as I was researching commentaries from people regarding John Maxwell. Having read several of his books, and learning much more then I expected, I had already formulated my opinions. But still I wanted to read what others had to say. Nearly everyone was positive but there were a few that had the feel of being "potshots from the sideline" type comments. That is so easy to do! Isn’t it! So to find out more I went to the Catalyst 2005 convention in Atlanta. Yes, it was a $350.00 seminar put on by Injoy, John Maxwell’s company. Now I have been in ministry for nearly 20 years and I will have to say that this was probably the best $350.00 I have spent in a long time. The speakers were excellent and none gave any glory to anyone other then to the Lord. And I picked up insight I never even thought of before. I have come to appreciate John Maxwell’s teaching on leadership. After all, Jesus did do more then just footwash, He was also the perfect leader. And still is for those who put their lives in His hands! John Maxwell, even in all his failings, has helped literally thousands of people, both in the church and in the secular business sector, to realize that and make that application. It is sad that many do pervert the examples that Jesus gave us and leadership is just one of them. No, I am not a Maxwell groupie, I just appreciate his teaching on leadership. Just as I appreciate so many others who can step out of a pharisaical way of thinking and reach out to a lost and hurting world. Even if that lost or hurting one is a tax collector or a corporate head. Didn’t Jesus do that too? I suppose all this just makes me an idiot from the US. A loving, joyful, at peace idot who is leading others to serve the King of Glory! It is too bad some of you misled others in your tenure as a lay pastor. You must have had some poor leadership. I think I know of a book you should read …
The medium is the message
Group organisation is one of the key issues in the emerging church. The organisation of our groups needs to be based on God’s pattern; it can not be simply a pragmatic choice. If we are doing God’s work (establishing his pattern in the world) but organise ourselves with patterns that are antithetical to God’s pattern, are we really helping?
I can’t help thinking that when it comes to church, the medium is the message. The way we organise ourselves will often have a deeper impact in the world than our official ‘mission statement’. Before we organise ourselves in the manner of a secular multinational like McDonalds, shouldn’t we first ask ourselves whether this structure could ever deliver something glorifying to God.
I understood alot of what grifgraf said. I was a lay leader and we bought into the Willow Creek thing. Everything was about developing the leaders. We even got an official representative from Willow Creek (tm) to do a day seminar while he was passing though. From my estimates he netted at least $20,000 from just seminar fees, not including book sales (if you go to the concert, you need the T-Shirt to proove it). This in a town where many churches could not support full-time pastors. Multi-level church at its best. I can’t remember much of what he said, but I can remember how the whole thing worked. The medium is the message.
It was not very long before I noticed wonderful Christians who were unfortunate enough to be leaders treat people in a manipulative and mechanistic way, incompatible with the image of God in each of us. I knew I had to get out. It took me several years of home church to detox. My theology wasn’t too messed up, it was simply that the nature of the organisation I was in overshadowed any good from my theology. The medium is the message.
Understand that I am not saying all Willow Creek outlets suffer from the same problems or that Willow Creek is selling a defective product. Its theology is not toooo bad, and it is attracting lots of people that may not otherwise be in church. Some outlets may have people that can integrate Willow Creek style leadership with Christianity without loosing too much. Of course, if people have already bought into the model, it is better that they do it the best that they can, so going to their seminars can be a good thing. We are yet to see the long term effects of this movement.
My point is that although fast food is better than beer and chips, and not all mail order products are junk, would you rely on either type of organisation for your fresh fruit and vegetables? In food, we can see that the medium often dictates the quality of what you get. Why would we rely on similar organisations for our spiritual nutrition.
Maybe if we developed seers and prophets (De Bono’s green and red hats) rather than ‘leaders’, then the prophets can do their thing, the the organisers can do their blue hat thing, and we can wear any hats that are useful to our community according to our giftings. Ooops… who gets paid! How we decide this will go far in defining the emergent church. The medium is the message.
A new definition of leader
I have grown to hate the word "leader". It carries a lot of baggage. It says that there is a group of people within the church "doing it right" and others should follow those people. It says that people have the answers.
I don’t see Christ talking about leadership. I see Him talk about servanthood. I see Him with a wash basin and towel washing the feet of the disciples. "As I have served you, serve others".
Hopefully, the post-modern Church will move away from the corporate model. Hopefully, pastors will again become spiritual men instead of CEOs. Hopefully "spiritual leadership" in the post-modern era will more about loving and less about leading.