Only Wonder Understands

In my last post I noted a particular style of leadership that places the responsibility of cultural changes in an organization in the hands of a charismatic leader endowed with a strong vision. This “top down” approach to leadership has been part of the history of the church since the beginning, and can be a very efficient way to bring about cultural change.

However, as the church has evolved and God continues to be revealed, another approach to leadership was envisioned and put into practice. This model is likewise based in the scriptures, but focused less on the stories of specific leaders and located in Jesus’ command to servant leadership, demonstrated in the washing of feet and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This form of leadership recognizes that the knowledge of God can be an elusive thing, and requires the leader to humble him or herself so as to enter into a process of discernment. Yes, they may indeed be given a vision of a new way from God, but leaders in this stream recognize that carrying out a vision is only as good as one’s ability to inspire others to believe that this image is from God, and to then buy into that vision.

This form of leadership also draws upon two other biblical descriptors. The first is the communitarian ideal of the church described at the end of Acts chapter two, and later in chapter four. The other is Paul’s repeated use of the image of the church as the body of Christ, in which every person is a vital and valued part of that body. These texts point to a power in the gathered community (a power demonstrated at Pentecost when the gathered community received the Holy Spirit). It is in the gathered community that God is most often revealed, and thus any visions given to a member of that community must be brought forth and discerned by the community as a whole.

Practically, this form of leadership places great trust in the power of the community to discern the will of God. This approach buys into “the wisdom of crowds,” understanding that persons affected by a proposed vision often have great insight into the practical realities of that vision, and can often enhance the original vision with new possibilities never considered.

This style of leadership in bringing forth change has the ability to defuse potential conflict because it understands that God’s vision more often than not arises from the bottom up rather than the top down. It values the input of all, recognizing that human weakness and sin may lead to a resistance to change, but knowing that this resistance must be acknowledged and valued in order for change to occur. This approach doesn’t immediately see resistance as attempts to undermine the vision, but rather welcomes it as a means of perfecting what God is doing in our midst.

The problem with this form of leadership is that it is extremely inefficient. Discernment rarely happens quickly. The ability to reach some sort of consensus decreases with the addition of each additional member of the decision making team. This is an approach that recognizes change at a glacial pace, believing that the change will be more deeply rooted in the cultural ethos than that which has been imposed from on high.

The fact is, for Type A individuals, a servant leadership model of cultural change is painful in its willingness to eschew efficiency for relationship. This is not a model where things can move quickly. Rather, it is a model which values the community relationships more than bringing about change.

One of the continuing conversations in the church is the need for radical change. It is in fact an age old conversation, going back to the Apostle Paul’s way out call for the church to accept Gentiles. The reformers that led to the streams of faith that I inhabit likewise were agents of change, calling for the church to become something new and cast aside the old. From the very beginning, the church has had to deal with those who want to hold on to the old and those who believe that God is calling us to a new thing.

The question for most church leaders today is not whether our church cultures have to change, but rather how shall we go about effecting that change. The church has always adapted to the surrounding world, developing new ways of talking about Jesus and our belief in him as the source of meaning. While there may be some leaders who want to hold on to the old ways, remaining static in the face of a changing world, I believe that the majority of persons in any faith group (be it a church, an annual conference, a denomination, etc.) WANT their group to be relevant, to speak to the world around them, and to have an impact on the world. The problem for most is a lack of knowledge regarding how to go about making the changes that allow the community to be those things.

Traditionally the way that change has often happened in the church is for a strong, charismatic leader to arise who brings down a vision from on high which is then adopted or rejected by the people below. There is much to be said for this approach. It is extremely efficient. It can happen relatively quickly. It doesn’t require much discussion or relationship. All it requires is for people to be obedient to the leader and carry out his or her plan of action.

For many of us (or at least the readers of this blog) this approach seems foreign, for it represents a hierarchical way of being that we thought had been cast aside. Yet, one has to be careful to write this way off as an anachronism for in fact it represents the model of change repeated again and again in the scriptures. The story of faith that we received from our ancestors was based in stories of heroic figures who heard the call of God and went about acting on the call, often in the fact of opposition and danger. Likewise, the history of the church has often been based in the stories of the saints of faith, those larger than life people who often bucked the system to bring about needed change in the church. This is a prophetic model of bringing about change, and while it may indeed be out of touch with current realities, it has a basis in our history and tradition, and can be very effective.

Of course, there are problems with this approach (as there are with all ways of providing leadership). This approach to change-making is very often based in the personality of the visionary. Dynamic leaders are fun to listen to and can inspire us to new things, however when they are gone the community can often find itself floundering and without direction. This approach is one often filled with conflict as those who discern a different vision are marginalized for not “getting with the program.” And worst of all, this is an approach to leadership that can frankly be abusive when unhealthy people are given too much power and control to form the destiny of others. This “top down” form of is what led to such horrors as the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and far too many other battles in congregations to mention.