Battle #5 - Culture over a leader...
I recently heard a recording from Jim Collins (author of Good to Great and Built to Last). He said we must get over the draw we have to the idea of a need for a dynamic, charismatic leader.
I grew up in the church. My dad was a pastor my whole life. I have spent my life around church leadership in varying degrees. I have to say that there is no place that the tendency to follow a dynamic leader is more present than in the church. One powerful church pastor told me, "People are sheep. They will go where ever you lead them." Fairly scary proposition!
One of the transitions that I observe in culture is that the boomer generation was a very hierarchical in its respect of and need for leadership. people respected positions, not people. This is not true anymore. With the fall of so many great high profile leaders across the leadership perspective, we have grown cynical of leaders in general. The notion of a strong dynamic leader being the answer to the church's woes is a painfully misinformed idea in this culture. And it will serve to further widen the gap between the church and the world.
We need to establish and participate in a culture that reflects the ideals and values that we espouse. While leaders definitely have a strong role to play in that scenario, it is not in the control and steering of people. The leader's role falls more inline with being a co-laborer and a model of the values and vision lived out. Not a benevolent dictator.
In the book ReWork, the authors make a great statement. "You don't create culture. It happens...Culture is the byproduct of consistent behavior....Culture is action not words."
Simple implication - what we do is what we will reproduce, not what we teach. So people are attracted to who we are through what we do. By the way, they are repulsed by who we are by the same criteria. It is not enough for a high powered, dynamic leader to get up and preach a motivational sermon anymore.
The people who are part of the church will determine what the church is known by regardless of how strong the preaching is. The responsibility is solely on the people to become what Christ has called them to. This is a scary idea, but is a reality none the less. I am not sure that it is better or worse, it is simply a reality of the world in which the church is called to function.
I think it would be fun to discuss the potential good and bad of this notion. so, have at it!
May you become part of a culture that collectively pursues the mission of Christ above their own individual comfort. And may you become the type of follower of Christ and deeply presses into his agenda for the purpose of knowing Him more and more. May your church community be defined as a place full of passionate followers of Christ.
I think that you have an interesting point regarding the idea of church and its culture. The people of a group, i.e. church, represent their group. If a church member follows a path not in God's will, then it will also show in the actions they choose, and their actions will be construed by others as an indication of how well that church performs that mission.
ReplyDeleteIt is like my time in the military, a unit becomes known by what the soldiers do when they come in contact with people from outside their own group. When a soldier operates outside his orders when in contact with outside groups and people, then the unit of the soldier as a whole becomes known for the one soldier's mistake.
In essence, I agree with you that a member of the church has the same responsibility in representing the church as a pastor, if not more because of their daily contact outside of the church.
But the interesting point you make is that the pastor, or leader of the group, must do more than just give a great speech/sermon. A good leader would follow the model the values of the group and participate in the group's activity and mission. But then what separates the leader from the group? If the leader is a co-laborer, then how is he distinguished? Does he have a techne, skill that is pertinent to the group's mission?
As individuals we are all equal before God's eyes. But we as people here on Earth do not see this way. People do see leader's and do hold them to higher standards. Especially in groups that have moral standards. Calling the Pastor a co-laborer maybe ideal but, the congregation will always place the authority and trust on ecumenical matters into their leader's hands, in the same way that my soldier's give me the authority and trust on matters of war.
I believe that leader's have an inherent responsibility that in some ways sets them apart from being a co-laborer. I do agree with the idea that everyone does have equal representation of the group's image and the responsibility to uphold its integrity.