In preparation for my talks at the SUEU Leadership conference I have been thinking about when Christian leadership goes wrong. That's pretty much all the time, given human limitations and sinfulness, I guess. But I guess we can't help thinking it could all be so much better. In this list I haven't included the nakedly corrupt, abusive and immoral - in one sense, they don't need describing. However those forms of leadership will flourish where Christians forget that Christian leaders are certainly to be held accountable and are as frail and temptable as anyone else. I should say upfront that I certainly recognise aspects of some of these in my own ministry.
1. The Narcissist The easiest way to spot a narcissist is when they are confronted by criticism. The narcissist usually goes a long to shield themselves from any criticism, and will usually employ or work with those who don't dare to contradict them. But when criticism does come through, the narcissist deflects it by saying that the person who gives it is either bad, or mad. The criticism itself may be described as persecution, and evidence that the true gospel is being preached.
Theological solution The narcissist has an insufficient doctrine of sin in the life of the believer and, in practical terms at least, is too positive about the progress of their own sanctification. A mature leader develops a healthy attitude to criticism which enables one to discern which criticism is valid and which is unwarranted.
2. The Control Freak The control freak will always want to live in a world in which they are able to be omniscient and omnipotent - hence, control freaks find it hard to grow churches beyond a certain size. They can't trust anyone. They tend to be inflexible about rules, and closed to ideas that they didn't think of. They find it hard to descriminate between issues that really matter, and issues that don't. They want to know what their congregation is doing.
Theological solution The control freak needs to really know and practice in real life the Sovereignty of God. Strangely, leaders who are controlling will very often preach this doctrine as a means to bolster their own sovereignty... which shows that they haven't understood it at all. It's a stressful existence.
3. The Wimp The weak and indecisive leader is often imprisoned by the awareness of their own weakness and so becomes the opposite: authoritarian. An authoritarian leader is very often a weak leader trying to overcompensate. He or she is so befuddled by advice that he/she just has to ignore it, or chose one advisor and make them infallible. Sometimes they theologise their weakness as Christlikeness...., or make it seem spiritual.
Theological solution The weak leader can take great heart from the number of biblical weak and fearful leaders there are and that God has used! Moses, or Gideon, for example. But the weak leader needs a doctrine of the Holy Spirit - to know and realise that they are empowered and authorised by the power and authority of God himself. And they need to develop a courage based on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead in the power of the Spirit, a Spirit which gives us grounds for confidence.
4. The 'I don't do windows' leader This leader has isolated their leadership role to one particular gift and doesn't stray much from it. Usually this means the preparation and delivery of sermons. On the one hand, this can come from a belief in the giftedness of the body of Christ in all its diversity. But this belief is take out of all proportion: the church and the world have needs that need serving. They have bought the contemporary notion of giftedness as a kind of internal and ontological property belonging to each believer - and not the equipping of God's people by the Holy Spirit to do what needs doing for the sake of his people.
Theological solution See above - a proper understanding of the nature of those gifts for the edification of the church is needed.
5. The Macho This leader has a reading of complementarianism that anchors it in a particular reading of maleness and femaleness, and is unaware how culturally bound it is. Leadership is male; therefore, maleness must be emphasised. You hear them using lots of military metaphors and talking about extreme sports as an analogy for the Christian life. Jesus is spoken of as the epitome of this kind of masculinity.
Theological solution A proper Christology - which means a proper reading of the gospels - will see that the picture of Jesus' masculinity is far less like a kind of 1st century Rambo than the Macho thinks.... he got beat up and killed, after all!
6. The Member of the Guild The aim of this Christian leader is to match it with his or her peers from college (or wherever). Their frustration (or smug satisfaction) with their church is because if it won't perform as expected, then they will look dumb at their next reunion. They minister and pastor, but as a means to an end. Their ministry is all technique and no heart. They ensure that they are seen as a 'player' in denominational politics.
Theological solution Whose church is it after all?
7. The Self-legislator The self-legislator is a child of the revolution. Rules and institutions get in the way of the gospel, as far as they see it. They are happy to take the denominational badge, but show contempt for denominational distinctives and denominational officials. 'It is easier to ask forgiveness than permission' is their mantra.
Theological solution Again, the doctrine of sin in the Christian life reminds us that making oneself accountable to others is imperative. There is an overconfidence in one's own ability to determine Scriptural truth without reference to others - thus a misunderstanding of the clarity of Scripture as it was developed in the Reformation. There is also a failure to see the work of the Holy Spirit as active in the life of the church over the course of history.
8. The Change-averter The change-averter is deeply conservative and will put the brakes on any change whatsoever as a point of principle. They can't quite explain why change is bad or why the status quo is better, but they are able to kybosh almost any new thought by throwing dust in the air. For them, seniority alone is the best qualification for leadership in the church.
Theological solution Once again, a proper view of sin ought to help us have a critical reception of traditions. Some are good and worthy; others are the result of human imperfections and limitations. Discernment is needed in these matters.
9. The Pragmatist Whatever works is the bottom line here. The pragmatist hasn't bought a theological book since leaving college and his or her shelves are covered with secular leadership books. Or, if they are a lay person you will most likely hear them complaining about the lack of application in the sermons.
Theological solution Pragmatism is not bad, but the church is not a company and the ministers are not the CEO. The gospel is not a programme or advertising slogan.
24 comments:
Good thoughts Michael. I enjoyed reading them, and agree with your analysis of the problems if not entirely with your theological solutions. One thought came to mind as I was reading- each of the problematic forms of leadership may exist along a spectrum of healthy to unhealthy, eg, a healthy sense of self instead of narcissism, or the highly organized leader instead of the control freak. Good luck with the presentation.
Thanks Ian (Ian Lawton I presume?)
I like the 'healthly/unhealthy' notion. You could (well I would!) say that a healthy sense of self comes from a deeper knowledge of God.
"Suck it up, princess!" FTW!
Because msogynist humour is the best way to rally all-male clergy.
While I'm not by any means inclined to go (being congenitally allergic to "Leadership" conferences), from what I gather I don't think his intended audience is all-male.
My goodness, Karl, your PC meter is turned up to maximum, isn't it?
A 'princess' in the example may be male or female.
Thanks Michael, this is really helpful for a process of self-reflection, and I particularly appreciate that the diagnoses penetrate to theological root causes (pretty accurately too, I think).
Haha, if you knew me better, you would know I am very un-PC in many contexts. I just hate misogyny, and so I point it out when I see it. And I actually can't think of anything more misogynistic than using female-ness as an insult.
But since I am always intrigued by oxymorons, please tell me more about these "male princesses." Do you think your readers would have known you were talking about male princesses?
I can think of plenty of more misogynistic things. In fact, this isn't misogynist at all.
It isn't using femaleness as an insult. It's using a stereotype (so sue me) of an aristocratic personage who expects to have everything done for them.
And yes, my readers would have known.
So why say princess instead of prince?
Aussie vernacular.
Karl has made a valid observation about the irony of the comment juxtaposed next to the macho comments.
I would suggest that it is one thing to use "female-ness" per se as an insult and another thing to use "female-ness" in a man as an insult toward a man.
I suspect we would all agree that the other end of the continuum from the macho man would be the effeminate man.
Traits that are perfectly appropriate in a "princess" might be disturbing in a man.
No Jason, it is politically correct nitpicking gone OTT. It is, really. A raspberry is the best response!
What does it say about my style of leadership that when I first read #4, I thought 'oh good, he's having a go at all those Apple fanboys...'?
;-)
My comment was primarily an attempt to help Karl see the distinction between what you said and using "female-ness" per se as an insult (which would be the height of misogynous arrogance). Your response seems to suggest that you may not see that distinction.
You can learn a lot by really listening to criticisms of your writing.
It's a good post and I found it helpful. Thanks.
Sorry Jason, I think I misunderstood you!
=)
Just for the sake of peace, I will now delete the offending phrase.
Helpful post.
My daughter and the year two class she taught last year adopted that particular phrase to cope with needlessly overwrought reactions.
Maybe you'd have had more success with 'man up'.
Then again, probably not.
I think Michael's opening comments are important.
We all vere into 1,2,3 of them at times, so humility is key.
The church arguably has had great leaders who would fall headfirst into one or more of Michael's categories, eg what would we say of Martin Luther or a John Knox, men mightily used of God.
I think some of the categories don't ring quite true, eg I'm not sure the wimps I've run across in my time I would call authoritarian nor do I think macho men are much into complementarianism.
While I haven't come across said combination (of pusillanimous ambition) much in the flesh, it circumstantially appears to me that the inflation of papal claims under both Gregory VII and Pius IX were partly occasioned by a morbid fear of weakness on their respective parts.
Another tragic case in point: Marshal Pétain. Were it not for his defeatism at a critical juncture, would he have dared assume control of the Vichy Regime?
Excellent post! Very perceptive and helpful.
Haha why did I bother taking notes this morning?!
Post a Comment