What I Would Do (9)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One of the questions that must be discussed in this whole process for me if I were to return to parish ministry is quite simply a natural outgrowth of what I have written. It is clear to me that if I returned to the parish I would see myself as a change agent seeking to help the congregation move into a new era with a perspective that may or may not be familiar and comfortable. Such a move would be extremely challenging and even difficult.

So the question becomes, "Is it fair to ask a church to change? Is it fair to challenge them to become something they have never been?"

Fair? It is essential! The only option to change is to die.

I know that sounds harsh and even closed-minded. But the option is to support and maintain the status quo and that never works! Never! I have colleagues who would argue with me from their own experiences. I would respond to them that if their congregation is alive and vibrant it is because they have changed. They cannot be doing things the way they did them 20 years ago. If they are, the life is draining out of them.

If a church were to call me I would lay before them what I have been laying out in this series. The status quo will not survive. It never does.

People change. We always do.

The world has changed. The mission is different. Our communities are different. People have different styles and are looking for different ideas. The church has changed. If it hasn't changed forward, it has moved backward.

This does not, absolutely not, mean that we abandon tradition. What we like to call tradition is truly only about 75 years old- as old as about half-way back through the oldest living generation. And in the past 75 years the world has changed more quickly than at any time in history. That is why there seems to be more disconnect and that brings about a true sense of urgency. The church as we know it is not the same and, as any major organization, moves more slowly than the culture.

That's okay, of course. But we need to be at least moving in the right direction. Admittedly I am a "pioneer;" and "early adopter." I change regularly. My wife says she has been married to countless people in our 35 years- and they are all me. That's my DNA. Therefore I need around me those who can remind me to keep people informed and involved. (By the way, that is another role of denominations- a conservative force slowing down change so it doesn't happen so quickly that the church is left behind.) As I said in a post last week though:

Pioneers are not the ones who get the things into reality and a final form. Pioneers, I am told, are passionate people who can sometimes be too passionate. Passion is scary (even to another passionate person.) Passion can turn people off. But the good news is that in most cases somewhere along the line, many of the ideas and dreams of the pioneers become real to others. They settle in and others take them, add flesh to the bones- and off it goes.

Such is the patience and humility needed by the pioneer- to cast the vision, live the passion and then wait to see who picks it up and runs with it.

That is a difficult thing to manage when one is pastor of a church. At least on the surface. It seems like the pastoral role is quite well understood and has been so for a long time. Well, I still believe that with the right kind of dialogue and conversation, beginning before the call is even accepted, it can be done. It is not an easy or a quick task. It may take some time to develop. But it all comes back to leadership.

It does appear that the further into this series that I get- and the closer to the end I get- the question of leadership and management is at the heart of what the church may need for the coming years. I know of very few churches that will be able to survive if they do business as usual from 25 years ago. No, they won't die overnight, but they will find themselves having greater difficulty meeting the needs around them in the changing world.

That leadership can be seen and developed in any style of church. It just has to be appropriate for the community that one is in- and in which the church seeks to be in mission.

Note: I have a hunch that we are quickly coming to the end of this series. There will probably be one more to go summing it all up - if that is possible. It will probably be in a couple of weeks since I have a few other things I think I want to be working on in the next weeks. But feel free to drop me a note if you want me to deal with something specific.

What I Would Do (8)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am a denominational person. This September will mark 33 years that I have been ordained pastor of my particular denomination. Over the past three and a half years I have not sought out any other denomination to worship in. When I walk into a church of my denomination I know I am in a place that feels like home.

I know that I may be part of the last generation of era in which denomination plays such a role. Or maybe not. Pope Benedict XVI and his recent proclamation about the "one true church" and the rest of us as "ecclesial communities" may be an attempt at maintaining the prime position the Roman Church feels it has. But with possible exceptions like his, there are those who say that the era of different denominations is coming to an end.

Or at least the die-hard connections we have made to them. There is a melting pot of worship and style that is happening. There is a re-aligning along different theological fault lines. There is a new tribalism that may be at work based more on comfort than theology.

Which may be the way it has always been. It's just that we got comfortable with our own denominational styles and structures and made them basic to the faith. But does it have a place in the postModern world? Is it useful?

I would give a resounding "Yes!" to that. It potentially marks clear areas of agreement and at times disagreement. The problem is not the different theologies- the problem is when we believe that our theology is the only one, true theology. The question may be more important to consider how we can get along in spite of our differing theologies and bring a united witness to the Gospel.

Denominations give us a sub-identity. Christian- in this day and age- is far too broad a category for most of us. Different denominations give us different places where our individual and unique experiences of the faith can be lived out.

For example, I am not a Pentecostal. I have never spoken in tongues. I believe in the presence of the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues. But such ecstatic worship is uncomfortable to me. That doesn't make it wrong or bad. It just doesn't connect me to God. Is that okay? I hope so. In a postModern world where absolutes will be challenged, anything that appears to be presented as an "Absolute" will be questioned.

Denominations, then, become associations of congregations with like-mindedness on a variety of topics- worship, style, attitude, theology, history, and the like. In that they give those of us in them an identity that says more about us than it does about God. For example, my particular denomination- Moravian- has quite a singular place in history. It is where Protestant mission began. It is where music and congregational singing was introduced. It is where the roots of the Reformation were planted 100 years before Martin Luther.

It is also a denomination that is built on fellowship more than dogma; our story as evidence of the directions we take than on theology. It is a denomination that looks to a religion of the heart more than the head. It is a denomination that is clearly in the mainstream of the mainline Protestant movement and traditionally connected to ecumenism.

That means we are not Lutheran or Episcopalian or Methodist though we have strong connections with all three of them. I can appreciate them- as well as the Baptists and Mennonites, Presbyterians and Alliance churches. The rich tapestry (as one of our liturgies says) of the Christian faith needs- absolutely NEEDS- this diversity. Especially if the church is to reach out to all kinds of people with all kinds of personalities.

How then do we work this in our postModern world? Denominations will hopefully work more fully together to develop resources and opportunities for mission to their own particular groups. If we think we are in competition with other denominations and congregations, we miss the mark. By a wide mile or more. A person who feels comfortable in a Baptist church will probably not feel comfortable in a Lutheran Church. Someone who likes the high liturgy of the Episcopal/Anglican communion will feel short-changed in the Moravian Church. And that is okay!

Denominations give the smaller organizations- the congregations- the chance to do things they might not be able to do on their own and make international and national connections that they never would be able to make. What I guess this means to me is that I would continue- if I went back- to support and promote the work of the denomination as essential to our local mission and our being essential to the greater mission.

Denominational structure is not there to support its own history or view- although it will do that. It is there to support the missional nature of the church. It is essential that the denomination recognize its partnership with the local churches and the local churches partnership with the denomination. We need each other. We are not as a local church to rely solely on ourselves and do only what we want to do. The greater church - as evidenced by the denominational connection- is a way to keep us from being too ingrown.

This is a change in thinking. Not in theory but in practice. It is important as a way of keeping the world-wide witness of the church from being further fractured. If we are looking beyond simply shuffling members around from one church to another, if we are truly interested in reaching out in mission to those who have chosen to remain outside, such a willingness to work together is essential.

We will keep our individual identities and theologies. And thank God for that. I would hate to lose the richness and color of all our styles living and working together in this Kingdom of God.

What I Would Do (7)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Earlier this week, United Methodist Bishop and renowned author William Willimon wrote the following on his blog:

Unfortunately, I fear that most of us pastors think of ourselves as caregivers to the congregation, maintainers of the status quo, rather than agents of change.--Link to blog post

In a discussion earlier this week, this post came to mind. Several of us were talking about the difference between church planter-type pastors and parish-type pastors. It may very well be that the practical difference is found in that very quote. Or, as Bill Easum used to describe it- it is possible to have too many gifts of mercy for the job you are doing. Or, as Jim Collins talks about in Good to Great, you have to get the wrong people off the bus and the right people on in order to move to greatness. We don't like to do that. We don't want to leave anyone out.

The same kind of distinctions may very well be in place for the difference between leaders and managers. As we continue to look at the issue, we are on shaky ground. We are, in many ways moving away from the training that most clergy have had. Most training is a professional education to do a particular type of job. Feed the hungry, visit the sick, kind of things. That has become, as we talked about in a much earlier post, the definition of being a pastor. Add a little bit of good theological education, put a dash of church history, stir in Clinical Pastoral Education and there you have it.

Pastor. The Expert. The Hired Hand to do The Job.

Nothing wrong with that in theory. But it certainly based on Jesus' ministry. I know I have covered this in other posts but I bring it back in here because it would inform and guide my attempts, if I went back into parish ministry, to live it differently. In order to do that one of the things I will be required (by my own needs) to do is find a spiritual director and a coach. They could be one and the same, but II will want to utilize the coach in specific leadership and development ways and a spiritual director as a guide along the spiritual road that must be walked through the whole thing. If I can find someone who can do both, all the better. It will allow for a deeper and broader intergration.

I have learned that outside support is critical to a personal ministry that is growing. An outside coach and spiritual director can often see through the pains and acute tensions of a situation and ask the right questions. Never, never do I have enough resources in myself to do it. Never, never do I have all the insights and answers. I need to be able to admit that and look for those people around me. Support is not an option. It is non-negotiable. Professionals, non-professionals, friends, even strangers.

I have a close friend that I have been doing this with for 19 years now. We now live over 320 miles apart, but once in a while, if too much time goes by, we meet at a restaurant 160 miles from each of us. He is a supportive friend I couldn't live without. Other friends are contacted on the phone. Other people are at my support meetings. At another point in my ministry I was part of other support groups through the greater church. Non-negotiable.

Last week I commented that if all this were possible we wouldn't need God. The real underlying importance of that statement is not that we need God, but that we need to know what God wants us to do and then seek the proper power to do it. We all pay a lot of lip service to that idea but in our actions and realities of daily life we often behave differently. That's why one of the things I would seek to do differently were I to re-enter the ministry is to seek more and broader ways to introduce spiritual disciplines to the church I am serving. That says Alan Roxburgh is an essential part of being missional.

From Alan Roxburgh's Journal comes this:

Growing numbers of leaders are aware that missional change is not primarily about techniques and programs. It’s about culture or worldview change... The question is: How does this kind of disciplined culture change occur? there is one element that does seem common to those leaders who sustain themselves on the way - they are rooted in some form of regular spiritual practices... but .. the vast majority of church leaders have no daily form of Christian practice or formation in their own lives.

To live and grow together as a missional congregation/community the practice of Christian formation is one I would seek to develop. There are countless ways that such formation has been done over the centuries. We are rediscovering many of them in new ways today. The modern semi-monastic movements, praying the Daily Hours, quiet contemplative retreats- these and many more work to strengthen the community and keep us aimed at God and the world beyond our own doors.

I said I would talk a little about denominationalism...well- I guess that will wait for another week.

What I Would Do (6)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We are talking a shift here about the role of leadership in the church. Part of this comes from the shift I talked about many weeks ago- the shift from official Christendom to this post-Christendom world where Christianity is back to where it started in many ways- one of many wrestling for attention and the following of people. In our average church- denomination or local congregation- that has not been absorbed very well.

That means that the pastor of a local church, if he or she is to help bring that church into a new place, will have to be a change leader. Or more to the point, perhaps, truly be a leader, and not a manager. Servant leadership makes sense. Servant management doesn't. Not when we are trying to shift things.

John Kotter in his book Leading Change gives a good breakdown between managers and leaders:

Managers:
Plan and Budget
Organize and Staff
Control and Problem Solve
This leads to predictability and order and the short-term results expected by those who are the stakeholders.

On the other hand we have:

Leaders:
Establish Direction
Align People
Motivate and Inspire
This leads to change.

To manage or to lead, that is the question. Nope, that is not a question at all. Not if one is missional. That is the question only if the status quo is what we want to maintain. That is the question if the pastor and leaders are there to serve the congregation alone or their denomination alone. (Maybe a little bit about denominationalism at a later point, but not here.)

If you want to take it a step further, leaders see a different set of stakeholders, or even for that matter a different Stakeholder. Management sees those who pay your salary; leaders see who called you. Management is institutionalism personified; leadership is mission in action.

One of the problems Kotter talks about is complacency. He says, for example, in essence that when complacency is at work the fights and arguments tend to be inward, aimed at each other. Complacency comes from

Arrogance- we know, they don't.
Insularity- separate classes of people
Bureaucracy- organize, organize, organize.

These do not produce change programs that will be anything but DOA. Complacency is the result, for example, of the attitudes of Christendom- the melding of church and secular culture, where everyone was a Christian and expected to be loyal to the church- even if they weren't Christian. It is the equating of culture and/or state with the Christian faith. You will be complacent at that point since you don't have to do anything. Or you direct your mission efforts beyond the culture- overseas, for example, in order to bring them to faith. We don't need it.\

Leadership in the post-Christian/pre-Christian world cannot be about management. It must be about the mission of God in our midst. It must lead us to see what we can be doing and how the opportunities for mission are beyond counting.

If all we do is manage, we are trying to save the institution. That is never enough. Here is a quote from Seth Godin's book, Survival is Not Enough (p.204 - 205) thanks to an article in Jeff Patton's newsletter:

How can you motivate a group of successful people to give up their point of view before it is too late? In many cases you can’t. They are too fat, too happy, too sure that they know how to do it and that there are no other right answers. These are at an evolutionary dead end, and their DNA has calcified. They want to be serfs so let them.

Create teams of naive novices, people who bring a beginner’s mind to a problem. They haven’t figured out all the ways that are impossible, so they ‘re far more likely to come up with solutions that are bad...and then motivated enough to evolve those solutions into ones that work.

There's a lot of wisdom in that last paragraph. A beginner's mind. Come at it with wide-eyed wonder, not a sight blurred by dullness and the way it has always been. Such leadership needs to keep working through all the things that don't work until the things that do work begin to show through. Such leadership is dangerous- and may even be fatal in some established churches. One must have a vision and be able to share it from the depths of one's heart and soul. Then, as Bill Easum would say, watch for the twinkle in someone else's eyes- and grab them.

It may be easier to do this in new church starts. But unless the people coming into the church plant are new, naive novices, chances are it may end up looking like a variation of what has gone before. Pretty soon the complacency will set in and well, we don't need more complacent churches. We need more missional ones.

If I went back I would want to make this as absolutely clear as possible from the word "Go!" It is not fair to pull a bait and switch by holding back on this and then saying, after the furniture is all moved in, "By the way, I'm not going to do it that way." Share the vision. Live the vision. It is essential to be transparent. In an established church it would probably take more time than I have left in ministry to get it done. Not that it can't be started and the DNA re-engineered. Sure it can.

And of course if I could do it, I wouldn't need God in the process.

But that, like denominationalism is for another week.

What I Would Do (5)

Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It is interesting that I find myself having difficulty getting into the topic of leadership as I see what I would do if I went back into parish ministry. My difficulty is based simply on the fact that it is hard to conceive of going into an established church and trying to be anything but what they want- unless of course you feel called to be a change agent- or a martyr. So in order to back into the topic I want to approach it from a more non-specific angle. This week I will come at the general topic for the type of leadership I would want to give and foster. The change part will come later.

It seems obvious from looking at what Jesus said and did that the most faithful style of leadership is the one that has come to be known as "servant leadership." This is a person-centered approach to leading. It has been around for a long time but has only recently been seen as a specific leadership style. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Servant leadership is an approach to leadership development, coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf and advanced by several authors such as Stephen Covey, Peter Block, Peter Senge, Max De Pree, Margaret Wheatley, Ken Blanchard, John Sullivan, and others. Servant-leadership emphasizes the leader's role as steward of the resources (human, financial and otherwise) provided by the organization. It encourages leaders to serve others while staying focused on achieving results in line with the organization's values and integrity.
--Link

As I see it, servant leadership in the church is to follow the ethics, style, and direction of Jesus. That sounds so straightforward and intuitive that it is hard to think of any way to disagree with it. But in practice that is not the style of the church and probably hasn't been for quite a few centuries. For lots of good and bad reasons the idea of leadership in the church has been more hierarchical or tyrannical with a hierarchy or tyranny of both clergy and/or lay people possible depending on the particular theology or history of the church.

To live that out in a church is not an easy task. Clergy have been misused and abused by churches through low-pay, incredibly impossible demands on them, or lack of free or family time for generations. They justify is through saying the clergy is to be a "servant." Vice versa there are clergy who abuse and misuse their leadership by insisting that the lay people are their servants by being the "earthly ambassador" for Christ or any of a number of different theological constructs. In short to be a servant is usually to be misused and abused.

In contrast Jesus-led servant leadership is far more proactive. A servant is not a slave. A servant is not to be mistreated. A servant is to do the work of the master- and in the church the master is neither the pastor nor the congregation. The Master is God. So first and foremost a servant leader knows the mission and helps live it. In that moment the servant leader knows that it is not about them and their power. It is about the growth of the mission of God and their commitment to it.

All well and good. But there has to be more. In searching the Web this past week I found a series of questions that according to its authors are a way of checking whether you are or have been a servant leader. Note as you read it that this is from a state university in a secular setting. It is not from within the history or theology of the church. But it sure could be....

• Do people believe that you are willing to sacrifice your own self-interest for the good of the group?
• Do people believe that you want to hear their ideas and will value them?
• Do people believe that you will understand what is happening in their lives and how it affects them?
• Do people come to you when the chips are down or when something traumatic has happened in their lives?
• Do others believe that you have a strong awareness for what is going on?
• Do others follow your requests because they want to as opposed to because they “have to”?
• Do others communicate their ideas and vision for the organization when you are around?
• Do others have confidence in your ability to anticipate the future and its consequences?
• Do others believe you are preparing the organization to make a positive difference in the world?
• Do people believe that you are committed to helping them develop and grow?
• Do people feel a strong sense of community in the organization that you lead?

--Link-University of Nebraska-Lincoln

The authors, John E. Barbuto, Jr. and Daniel W. Wheeler, Extension Leadership Development Specialists for the University, could have been describing what we have traditionally called "ministry." Yet we can see where that has fallen apart with the questions on community, the openness of others to share their visions, preparing to make a positive difference in the world and not just in the church, and people following because they want to not because they feel coerced or forced. This kind of give-and-take openness isn't any more common in the church than it is in the business world. Yet it is essential.

In this postModern world it has become a non-negotiable. One of the things about the world around us is that people are less and less willing to accept leadership based on simple position, authority, or degrees. Leadership is followed when it is earned. Loyalty is to those who exhibit true and open leadership and is withheld from those who don't. "Because I'm the boss" is no longer as good a reason to do it as it is to look for a new job. The leader has to be willing to risk and share their vision and bring the people on board.

On one of my recent travels I listened to a CD of a servant leadership training session by James Hunter. The CD was subtitled "achieving success through character, bravery & influence." In one section he commented on this change in leadership acceptance by saying that today most people don't quit their job- "they quit their supervisor." Many will not remain in a job where they are treated poorly or misused and abused even for better pay. It may work for a while but it won't stick.

Perhaps that is one of the lessons we in the church haven't learned. Perhaps it isn't that people have left "the church" but rather the human institutional leadership style. When old traditions are more important than the mission, when the feelings of long-dead members still control the decisions, when lay and clergy seek to have their will done at the expense of other people's visions, people will leave.

Now no one is perfect. Even the best servant leaders make mistakes all the time. They step on toes, they ignore a vision, they get bogged down in institutionalism. In spite of the long history of servant leadership in the teachings of Jesus people like St. Francis are few and far between. The rest of us have to work on it daily, prayerfully, and very intentionally. A place to start is with that series of questions that delineate the characteristics of servant leadership. To ask those questions on a regular basis, to hold them up as a guidepost toward greater fulfillment of the life of Jesus in our common life will bring us all a little closer to living a little more often like Jesus.

That's the theory and theology. That's the easy part. As one of my youth group once responded in a Jesus-based values discussion- everyone knows what Jesus would do. I just might not be able to do it. But that's for next week.