Follow the leader?
We have had quite a discussion on the idea of leadership in comments on my blog. Many of my blogs have started out about other subjects and then they have come back to this idea of "leadership." This one is just starting out with the question of leadership. Some of my statements may tend to upset you. I mean no disrespect.
This is an interesting concept to me. Spencer Burke talks about leadership in his book "Making Sense of Church." He suggests that the best metaphor is for us to think of leaders as not so much tour guides, who will tell everyone what to do, what to see and sometimes what to think.
Instead, he suggests that the better metaphor is that of a traveler. This metaphor sees a leader as one who is a fellow learner and someone who is on the journey. Some of the best lessons are learned from those who are supposedly being led.
What does this mean for us? It is a paradigm shift. Jesus called Himself the Good Shepherd. I have been with some shepherds. Most of shepherding happens from the rear with encouragement and gentle guidance. Shepherds don't necessarily order sheep around. Shepherds don't grab sheep. They don't yell and demand their own way. They don't make decisions for the sheep. They help them find their way to greener pastures where the sheep can find the best nourishment. In short, they want the sheep to be the best they can be. On the way, they really learn to love their sheep.
So how does this play out in the church? We have had modeled for us, by godly people, a style that is CEO. There is little knowledge of the inner working of the people, little in the way of collaboration and yet less in the way of humility. Heck, I had one person I worked with tell me the way for him to "control" his area of influence was for him to have a heavy hand and tell people "what to think." Unfortunately, I worked FOR him not with him.
I also see many of the leadership structures in the church that are rife with chauvinism and might even come close to bordering on misogyny. (I know there might be some blood boiling out there now.) Even in our own beloved movement we see this. We have a history of treasuring female equality in ministry. Catherine Booth was a champion for it. While we say women can be "leaders" how many married women were nominated for general? Rarely is a married woman even given the opportunity of traveling the same road as her married male counterparts.
We also have a system that sets up the ordained in powerful positions that really have no checks and balances from the laity. The people who could be valuable fellow travelers or should be guided to where the best nourishment is are often no more than a statistic or pawns in a ministry strategy. Is that really authentic Christianity?
I am struggling with this whole idea of leadership. IS what we practice in the church really biblical or have we twisted the idea of leadership? Is it more important to be a tour guide or traveler? Who is the best leader you have met? What made them the best? Did they tell you what to think or travel with you in the learning process? Does the concept of leadership need to be re-thought in this postmodern paradigm as the church emerges? Is the exclusion of women in leadership just systemic or cultural?
What do you think?
This is an interesting concept to me. Spencer Burke talks about leadership in his book "Making Sense of Church." He suggests that the best metaphor is for us to think of leaders as not so much tour guides, who will tell everyone what to do, what to see and sometimes what to think.
Instead, he suggests that the better metaphor is that of a traveler. This metaphor sees a leader as one who is a fellow learner and someone who is on the journey. Some of the best lessons are learned from those who are supposedly being led.
What does this mean for us? It is a paradigm shift. Jesus called Himself the Good Shepherd. I have been with some shepherds. Most of shepherding happens from the rear with encouragement and gentle guidance. Shepherds don't necessarily order sheep around. Shepherds don't grab sheep. They don't yell and demand their own way. They don't make decisions for the sheep. They help them find their way to greener pastures where the sheep can find the best nourishment. In short, they want the sheep to be the best they can be. On the way, they really learn to love their sheep.
So how does this play out in the church? We have had modeled for us, by godly people, a style that is CEO. There is little knowledge of the inner working of the people, little in the way of collaboration and yet less in the way of humility. Heck, I had one person I worked with tell me the way for him to "control" his area of influence was for him to have a heavy hand and tell people "what to think." Unfortunately, I worked FOR him not with him.
I also see many of the leadership structures in the church that are rife with chauvinism and might even come close to bordering on misogyny. (I know there might be some blood boiling out there now.) Even in our own beloved movement we see this. We have a history of treasuring female equality in ministry. Catherine Booth was a champion for it. While we say women can be "leaders" how many married women were nominated for general? Rarely is a married woman even given the opportunity of traveling the same road as her married male counterparts.
We also have a system that sets up the ordained in powerful positions that really have no checks and balances from the laity. The people who could be valuable fellow travelers or should be guided to where the best nourishment is are often no more than a statistic or pawns in a ministry strategy. Is that really authentic Christianity?
I am struggling with this whole idea of leadership. IS what we practice in the church really biblical or have we twisted the idea of leadership? Is it more important to be a tour guide or traveler? Who is the best leader you have met? What made them the best? Did they tell you what to think or travel with you in the learning process? Does the concept of leadership need to be re-thought in this postmodern paradigm as the church emerges? Is the exclusion of women in leadership just systemic or cultural?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 9:21 PM
42 Comments:
Hey Larry,
Great post...I was wondering if you were going to write a whole new entry after all the discussion in the comment section.
You know we have had serious issues with leaders who were supposed to be helping us on journey since we've become officers, and they did anything but help. As leaders, in corps, DHQ positions, wherever...we are supposed to lead by example first and not treat people as underlings. When I preach, I know that I am a sinner as well and NEVER use the phrase, "You should do this"...I always use "we". We are all on this walk together.
Just a few thoughts.
In His Grip,
Dave
salarmyofficership.blogspot.com
P.S. Thanks for being a great officer and pastor model.
I like the idea of a leader being a fellow traveler and learner. Excellent!
James B. Richards has written a book called “The Lost Art Of Leadership.” His idea on leadership is that “the key to success is not using other people to fulfill our dreams but helping them fulfill theirs.” He says that “leaders inspire commitment by demonstrating commitment to their people and to the philosophy and goals of the organization. . . people who know they are genuinely cared for are much more likely to give themselves freely and wholeheartedly to the organization and its mission.”
I pray that God will make me like that.
Amen.
Blessings,
Bret
As we seek to balance and apply all the duties of leadership, there’s one that I believe many leaders (including myself) have completely failed at -- “to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:12).”
If the Army is going to “Storm the forts of darkness” then we need to be training people to fight. As a church leader, that’s my primary job. Training and equipping people should be at the top of our “stuff-to-do-lists.”
How many of our members/soldiers receive training in evangelism, discipleship, and other ministry focused endeavors on a regular basis?
Please don’t think I’m pointing my finger at everybody else. I’m as guilty as the next guy. It’s difficult to balance all the demands of ministry and be effective.
Blessings,
Bret
Dave,
Thanks for your comments. I wonder if in this new paradigm of leadership if "preaching" as we know it is what we ought to be doing. If we are fellow travelers, maybe we ought ask more questions instead of giving lots of answers
Bret,
Thanks for your comments. I think your comments regarding leadership are good and agree with them for the most part.
I think the second comment regarding the Army "storming the forts" are interesting. This military metaphor may not fit in this culture as it pertains to leadership or even evangelism. I like the idea many emergents are using of evangelism as tending a garden and fighting social injustice as the war.
I think the days of the 4 spiritual laws and "seal the deal" evangelism may be out of step with our culture. I am not sure it is authentic Christianity. I am not sure we need to claim people for Christ, rather travel with them as they journey toward Him. I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit gives us an inate desire for relationship with God. We just need to help people find the right road and the right time to know God.
I agree. But how does this idea of a “fellow traveler” fit with the ranks, structure, mission and brand of the Army? This is, perhaps, one of my biggest struggles.
(I am in the South. It may be different where you are. In some parts of the South “mission” and “brand” are synonymous terms whether those who practice it believe it or not.)
Blessings,
Bret
Why try to fit? I think we need to hear the voice of the Spirit. If you tend the garden, by either planting, tending, watering or gardening you will be in step with him.
If we take on the systems of oppression as warriors, (addiction, poverty, etc.) we are fulfilling mission. Tell me who would not be in agreement with that.
Gardening, comes when we build relationships with the oppressed and gently walk with them through their experience. When they see the presence of Christ in you and me, they will be drawn to the saviour. How is that incompatible with the Army mission or brand?
What you’re suggesting is not. I agree with you 100%. The problem comes when leaders try to cram that mission into programs and methods that don’t necessarily connect to the unique ministry context of a local community. It can be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It doesn’t work. If it was really all about the mission, then the mission is all that would matter. The truth is the mission has a lot of strings that can keep many from being effective.
Agree or disagree?
Blessings,
Bret
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think, friend, that you have struck quite a few nails on the head here. The tendency in our movement is a "top-down" approach to leadership, but I say that only because I have heard it so many times. My experience with my leaders has not been like that to the degree some have complained of. I guess that gives me hope that the "needed" paradigm shifts may be underway to a certain degree.
Eugene Peterson refers to your "traveler" approach as being on a pilgrimage. Certainly there are those who have been further down the road, or on the road longer, who can help us on our way. But the fact remains that we are all on this journey together. Someone once encouraged me to take the "triangle" view of leadership (boss at the top, increasing numbers of people as you work toward the "peons" at the base) and tilt it on it's side, effectively saying, "let's all work together to go in this direction.
Regarding your inflamatory comments about women in leadership (!) - I tend to think the exclusion is systemic, though we may be at the point we're that system can have a chance to fade away. I think there are a whole generation of married women officers who, generally speaking, would not have considered themselves "right" for the leadership positions I think we are talking about. They remember a time when they not only didn't have their own rank, they were officially referred to as "Mrs. Capt. Joe Salvationist." As that generation moves into the non-active ranks, the opportunities will open up. The concern I would have would be forcing the issue - "It's time we had a married woman as a DC, so let's pick one." I think that could certainly be more harmful than beneficial.
Brettster,
Thanks for your comments. As to the whole triangle on the side, it would be fine if it worked that way. Fact is it usually doesn't.
Secondly, I think the time is now that we can make those moves. There are many married women who could step right into leadership in (I hate this term) executive levels and perform better than most men.
I look at this and think, it is not just systemic, but cultural. Conservative Christianity has preached a message of keeping women in their place. It has been done by dressing up chauvinism.
I don't know how many times, over the years, I have heard it said about an officer whose wife was strong that "he needed to get his wife under control." In most contexts, although men say that they are for the rights of women, they ignore the wives and go to husbands when issues arise with the wives.
Bret,
The thing is adaptation in your context. No one manages your every minute.
You have said in the past that the South has now become more accepting of grass roots ministry. Which is it?
I think that often we can blame leadership for mission not being fulfilled. In a local context, it does boil down to what we do.
I think you are still dealing with an older generation of officers. I've never heard anything close to those remarks. I'll concede that my experience is small compared to most. I do sense change is iminenet, though.
As to women who are ready for those leadership positions right now - I do not doubt that and could probably pinpoint a few even with my limited knowledge. That said, do we not put those women in a position to fail by thrusting them into a position there has been little if any preparation for? Setting a target for the future seems a more effective, if more painstaking, route to take. I don't think you rectify 140 years of poor people management and/or systemic sexism by forcing the issue today.
Brett,
Your argument falls on one thing. None of us have training or preparation for any of the DHQ/THQ appointments other than finance which is a process appointment.
You know what my training was for DYS? You know what my training was for Camp Director? Do you know what training I had for TYS after being out of the youth department for 5 yrs? Do you know what preparation I had for my current apointment? NONE!
By making that argument you effectively rule out the gifting of the Holy Spirit and therein lies the rub. Maybe our paradigm is moving counter to what the Spirit wants to do in the Church.
Eddy,
As to the Associate DC comment. There are only a couple of those left. Check the dispo now. The only places where you see really true team ministry is in the corps and arc. Go to any DHQ/thq. Check it out.
As to your strong leader comment. Sometimes the more experienced traveler is stronger and can share wisdom. I wonder how long the group you talk about stayed on track after that leader left?
I like your analogy of the shepherd. I mean, I know you stole it from the Bible and all, but I don’t think I’d every thought about the fact that a shepherd leads from the back. I love that image.
In my own ministry as divisional youth officer (secretary), I see my role as that of an encourager, supporter, equipper and, at times, someone to help hold my youth workers accountable. But! I see my greatest tool for accountability as leading by example. I’m not prepared to speak with a youth worker about the need for discipling his young people, if I’m not discipling young people myself. And it goes right down the list. I see my first point of accountability to be leading by example. Then and only then do I have the right to sit down with a youth worker and challenge what he is or is not doing. And, even when I do challenge a youth worker, I always try to take the approach of asking them how I can be a better support and equip them in that particular area.
I can speak of one Corps that seems to have gotten the power and leadership thing right, and that happens to be the Corps where I worship. The leadership of the Corps is definitely spread out among its people. It does not happen from the top down and all of the responsibility does not rest on the shoulders of the officers. In fact, the officers do not make big decisions. There’s a leadership committee, of which they are a part, that makes those decisions. Problem is, it was the officers who took the Corps in that direction and it’s taken them fourteen years to do it. : ) So, while I think that this change can technically start from the ground up, I question whether it ever would. I think it’s going to take some really strong leadership, even if those leaders aren’t necessarily officers.
Having said all of that, I think that sometimes God raises up a Moses or a Joshua to lead a group of people where they are unwilling to go on their own. When I think about the changes that have taken place here in the UK, I think about Phil Wall. I honestly think that if Phil had not come along, we would not be where we are today.
eddy,
by the way, i like your comment on appointing couples to leadership together as a true form of equality. that is why my wife and i are co-directors of our ministry.
we each have our responsibilities, however, we share the mantle of shepherding. the issue we have is that many people tend to ignore the fact we are a part of this together. often, she will start a project, it will be under her direction and men will address me about it. i don't know how many times i have had to say, "that is my wife's project." but i get a response that can't you just make the decision. see what i mean?
it happens more than most of us want to admit.
Tim, you bring us right back to where we started. What was Phil if he wasn't a man anointed by God to declare a new day for the Army? It sounds as if your CO is as well. I don't think our problem is necessarily with the old model of leadership as much as it is with those who try to force their influence, in the absence of their own gifts, holiness or anointing to do so.
Often I wonder if our issue isn't with leadership as much as with incompetence or maybe we just want to have more of a say in what is done (for right or wrong reasons).
Jim,
I guess you have raised a good point. I do believe, however, that having a voice that is heard is not wrong. It helps those being heard feel as if they have some ownership and then helps them be more motivated.
Any style leadership that has to force issues is incompetent. In fact, it is insecure. I think you are right.. It is not about old style leadership. Jesus's style is 2000 years old. I think it may be the styles that have arisen after Him that have us scratching our heads.
read:
http://www.armybarmy.com/article1a.html
Curtis,
You have thought this through well. However, in saying that the shepherd analogy is flawed, you would be saying that Jesus is flawed, he called himself the good shepherd.
The rest of your comments are thoughtful and thought provoking. Obviously, you would be someone we should listen to on a regular basis.
Good to hear from you.
Hil,
I read Danielle's article. That caused me to think more. I then had a conversation with some married women about their plight in the church. That conversation made me profoundly sad. They basically had given up the hope that they would ever really be acknowledge, let alone listened to.
I was saddened by my friends journey. I hope by starting the conversation in this forum, we can begin to really start systemic and I believe cultural change.
“The shepherd/sheep analogy is inherently flawed…”
(just scribbling that one out of my Bible) : )
Hehe. That reminds me of the time when Drew said…and I quote…”Jesus, be the centre?…that’s kind of played out.”
Haha!
Larry,
In response to your comments above. . .
I agree that our leaders don’t watch our every move and that we do have a considerable amount of freedom. I only agree in part that in the local context, it boils down to what we do. (You are challenging my thinking. This is good!) Are you suggesting that if a Corps is not effective, then ultimately, the Pastor/Corps Officer is to blame?
Let me hit from a different angle: What if a Corps has not been effective for the last 20 years? Who’s to blame? The last 6 or 7 Pastors/leaders?
What if 45 out of 50 Corps in a division are showing little fruit and few signs of Kingdom impact? Who’s to blame?
What about the shortage of officers? (at least in the South) The Officer’s Training College is fed from the Corps. Does this mean that the Corps are responsible for the shortage of officers or is it a bigger problem?
Thanks for your openness and dialogue.
Blessings,
Bret
Susan is right. I get “thank you” letters for responding and getting things in on time that honestly, I knew nothing about.
bret,
In response to your last comment, I would say that there would be some blame to be shared by the CO. I do know people who have worked really hard for years and never seen results measured by our outdated measures. I do not believe the success or failure of mission of a particular corps lies at the feet of DHQ. I do believe they can assist or hinder the mission by outdated or over-controlling policy.
I also believe there are some systemic issues to the training of officers and others in a utilitarian model of leadership. We also often (not always) promote those who are not revolutionaries. We often promote (and I hate that term) people who know how to do what looks good and may not be the best for The Army.
We cannot, however, dwell on the issue of executive leadership and paradigms of modernity to push us forward into this new century. We need to listen to the Spirit. If we do, we will see success measured in different ways. I guess I am not sure what you would consider a successful corps.
Zanalice,
Nice post. I am amazed that you are going to CMA. Women should be kept in their place ;)
I would say this. Leadership is not just about management. It is about vision, authority from the Spirit and the ability to inspire and motivate others.
I know several ladies to whom I would submit in a minute as my leaders. They have the giftings listed above.
I would just reiterate that women would just like to be acknowledged, maybe even talked to. I think I shared earlier that I have been contacted about projects my wife handles. I have been asked to make decisions on those projects. Even though we are co-directors, she rarely gets a copy of important correspondence regarding our program. She is often ignored, even though she has more formal education and in many ways is more suited for leadership (she's a grown up) than I am.
To me therein lies the problem. Women are given lip service and not often given respect.
My comments about readiness were not intended as a slight to the outstanding women officers in our midst. I applaude your partnership with Bret and feel that in our setting we employ a similar set-up, in that we eshew traditional husband/wife roles for those to which we are best suited.
I may be wrong, but I guess what I mean is this - I've seen firsthand situations where individuals were placed in leadership positions in an effort to "balance the scales" and it did not work out well at all. It was difficult on all involved, perhaps the most for the individual who was out of their element and forced into a "box" all in the spirit of "taking a bold step." I'm not saying it's wrong to make these appointments immediately, to identify the giftedness of married women officers and utilize them to the full. I'm only saying that the first step is a big one and must be considered carefully. That seems a fair statement to make.
Zanalice -
I made the "I can do all things..." comment to my 11th grade english teacher. His response - "Stick your (hynie) out that window, then run around and throw rocks at it. Then tell me you can do 'all things.'" ;-)
The problem in our Corps cannot be boiled down to one thing. Bret asked, “What if a Corps has not been effective for the last 20 years? Who’s to blame? The last 6 or 7 Pastors/leaders?” In a sense, yes! They are partly to blame.
Among the many problems/solutions I’ve seen discussed here, nobody has mentioned the fact that most officers have no point of reference outside of the SA. And the few that do come from other failing churches (a term that I’m sure will not be received well). So, even when an officer realizes that “what we’re doing now isn’t working”, they have nothing new to draw on in the way of change. Oh sure, a few of them will pick up a Willow Creek book (or something similar) and attempt to put that model into place, but few are able to assess the needs of a community and then put together a plan/model that makes sense for that particular context. The Army, more than most denominations, does it one way. And so, when you ask a young person in the Army how they would do church if they could do it anyway they wanted, they inevitable respond with a hyped up version of the exact same model we’ve been using for a hundred years. Start asking young people and see if I’m wrong. And the reason for this is because they have nothing else to draw from except youth councils which is often just a hyped up version of the exact same model we’ve been using for a hundred years.
So how do we change this? From a territorial point of view, we’ve got to do something about training school. We’ve got to get some creative and experienced influence in there, and its not likely going to come from our ranks because, again, our ranks have little experience outside of the SA. And, dare I say it, we’ve got to stop expecting people in their 60’s to bring about change. Take a look at the birthdates of those involved in this last high council. Most were born in the 40’s. Now, no offense., I know some truly Godly people who were involved on that council. But none of the people I knew are capable of taking the SA into the 21st century. Most of them were people who believed in the tradition and history of the SA. Most of them believe that we’ve just hit a dry spell and that, if we press on, things will come back around. That way of thinking is the death of any organization, business or religious institute.
This is not the only thing that needs addressing in the Army, so please don’t get me wrong. But it is a huge issue and, if it were addressed, I believe it would have a domino affect on many of the other issues we’re dealing with.
Don't answer this out loud: but officers (men, only please) think long and hard about how you would HONESTLY feel if your wife was appointed as Divisional Secretary and you were placed as Men's Fellowship Secretary. Along with this appointment, you are not included in DFC. You are not expected to keep any regular hours, but when you do come into the office you have to find a babysitter for your young child. In doing this you actualy have to write out your schedule for DFC to review. They then get to judge whether or not your work is worth the cost of a babysitter.
You cannot honestly tell me there wouldn't be some dissappointment, frustration, that there wouldn't be some kind of "what did I do that I didn't get that position?" That you wouldn't question yourself a bit. Not necessarily because you think she couldn't do the job, but more because you work hard too and are perfectly capable.
What were the comments made regarding this situation at THQ with an officer couple who's roles were basically turned around. He was leading, then she was leading. Many comments were made about "wonder how he feels about that"..."he must be mad"...blah blah blah... (head shaking, taking deep breaths to continue)
Susan, I respect your approach, but are there not times when you just want to scream out of frustration? It's so disrespectful...it's as though they're looking right through you...or even worse, seeing you and looking away. There are many women officers who are capable of leadership beyond the Corps, and some who would very much enjoy it and find their talents put to great use. But sit by their husband's side and pop those pills. it's too emotional of a subject for me.
Larry you said:
Gardening, comes when we build relationships with the oppressed and gently walk with them through their experience. When they see the presence of Christ in you and me, they will be drawn to the saviour. How is that incompatible with the Army mission or brand?
Gardening, walking behind, guiding, building all IS compatible with the Army mission and brand. Someone mentioned that there is a corps at that point, the opitome of what we're discussing, but it took a long time - 14 years. What's the average CO appointment? 3? 5 years max? A few long-term ones 8,9 years, but not on the whole. It's a very short time to build relationships, especially these kinds. Trust is a complicated issue and to suggest that it could or should happen in 3 years is preposterous.
"I don't know how long my officers will be here, should I really trust them, or will they just leave in 2 years to never be heard from again?" "They don't know me, my family, and they'll be gone soon anyway."
Comments I've heard or said myself. (not with my current officers, of course:)
Bret commented that his role as a leader is “to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:12).” THANK YOU! Prepare me in many ways. Help me to develop and grow in Christ, but ALSO prepare me by training me to be a good leader. A person with a heart for God might not be that great of a leader.
Recipe for good leadership
1 person with a heart for God
prep time: life
cook time: uh, never mind, I tried to use an analogy that didn't quite work. I've been out of work for too long!:)
Don't answer this out loud: but officers (men, only please) think long and hard about how you would HONESTLY feel if your wife was appointed as Divisional Secretary and you were placed as Men's Fellowship Secretary. Along with this appointment, you are not included in DFC. You are not expected to keep any regular hours, but when you do come into the office you have to find a babysitter for your young child. In doing this you actualy have to write out your schedule for DFC to review. They then get to judge whether or not your work is worth the cost of a babysitter.
You cannot honestly tell me there wouldn't be some dissappointment, frustration, that there wouldn't be some kind of "what did I do that I didn't get that position?" That you wouldn't question yourself a bit. Not necessarily because you think she couldn't do the job, but more because you work hard too and are perfectly capable.
What were the comments made regarding this situation at THQ with an officer couple who's roles were basically turned around. He was leading, then she was leading. Many comments were made about "wonder how he feels about that"..."he must be mad"...blah blah blah... (head shaking, taking deep breaths to continue)
Susan, I respect your approach, but are there not times when you just want to scream out of frustration? It's so disrespectful...it's as though they're looking right through you...or even worse, seeing you and looking away. There are many women officers who are capable of leadership beyond the Corps, and some who would very much enjoy it and find their talents put to great use. But sit by their husband's side and pop those pills. it's too emotional of a subject for me.
Larry you said:
Gardening, comes when we build relationships with the oppressed and gently walk with them through their experience. When they see the presence of Christ in you and me, they will be drawn to the saviour. How is that incompatible with the Army mission or brand?
Gardening, walking behind, guiding, building all IS compatible with the Army mission and brand. Someone mentioned that there is a corps at that point, the opitome of what we're discussing, but it took a long time - 14 years. What's the average CO appointment? 3? 5 years max? A few long-term ones 8,9 years, but not on the whole. It's a very short time to build relationships, especially these kinds. Trust is a complicated issue and to suggest that it could or should happen in 3 years is preposterous.
"I don't know how long my officers will be here, should I really trust them, or will they just leave in 2 years to never be heard from again?" "They don't know me, my family, and they'll be gone soon anyway."
Comments I've heard or said myself. (not with my current officers, of course:)
Bret commented that his role as a leader is “to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:12).” THANK YOU! Prepare me in many ways. Help me to develop and grow in Christ, but ALSO prepare me by training me to be a good leader. A person with a heart for God might not be that great of a leader.
Recipe for good leadership
1 person with a heart for God
prep time: life
cook time: uh, never mind, I tried to use an analogy that didn't quite work. I've been out of work for too long!:)
I'd like to second Hilary's thought on the amount of time officers are left at one appointment. It doesn't change the fact that, if they aren't capable of helping to lead change, they aren't capable. But if they are capable, "time to do it" is absolutely necessary.
Moving officers every 3-5 years is another one of those Army traditions that I just don't get at all.
I'm a little offended by your comment. It suggests to me that you think others who do get frustrated are not in tune with their God and are working to please 'their fellow man'. Surely, that's not what you meant, is it?
Noone is suggesting,I don't think, that the Army make ANY woman a DC or whatever just to make her feel competent or make the Army feel 'progressive'. I think that's what Brett was trying to get at.
c) you missed my point and focused on a single minute detail. most of those individuals that DO sit on DFC would probably rather not. THAT was not my point.
I think you know that.
Praise God that He is bigger than the Army. And even though our human leaders may make human decision and be imperfect, I know and have to continually remind myself that things will come around to where God wants them to be in His time. Maybe our Army just isn't ready for a woman in high-leadership just yet. The question is, how do we get there?
Tim,
did you read the article I referenced earlier? Captain Danielle Strickland wrote something very poignant.
"Dismiss officers who don’t work. Get on it. They are a drag on our system, our culture and our potential. It doesn’t matter their gender. Incompetence should be rewarded with a new job (just not with us)."
As harsh as it sounds, any other business would do the same. And to preempt any comments : yes, we are in business. We have financial obligations - Biblically. Being good stewards also means cutting off resources to situations that create problems and not solve them.
I agree 100% that if someone is incompetent, they just are. But my thoughts go back to the whole training and teaching issue. Maybe another round in Training school or better yet, actual seminary might do them good to get them back on track. They responded to a call from God and maybe its the Army's resposnibility to help them respond with the right tools...
do you know what I mean? did that make sense?
what do you think the Army's obligation is to that kind of officer?
Wow this is turning into a novel....It is GREAT.
Hil,
As to your last post on incompetence and training. I have found that often people train well and then disconnect in the field. I am not sure why? In those cases, I know that the Army give support. There is continuing education and review of personal growth for every officer.
I think that occassionally, the Army, even if someone is called, has a responsibility to ask someone to move on if they are incompetent. It should be done after every means of support is exhausted.
You are right. We should not be run like a business. That would be evil. I think part of the reason the church is dysfunctional at times is that we are not sure if we want to be a business or the church.
You have made some great comments. It is good to hear from you and Curtis. Even though Curtis has a problem with Jesus's analogies ;)
I have such a hard time with this discussion. Having grown up and studied in another denomination, I sometimes stand in awe of the people we put in leadership, and then allow to remain in leadership. As Hillary said, it would not happen in a business, and I can attest to the fact that it would not happen in many other denominations.
I also struggle with the fact that, though many people absolutely cannot see laity as ministers (even laity who are actually performing the duties of a minister), they still see an officer, working in finance, as a minister. ??? Can somebody explain that one to me?
Tim,
I need to email you on another subject. But this one is great. You would know that I respect your position as a minister of the Gospel. WE believe in the priesthood of all believers. At least I do. That is why I do what I do.
As to the finance thing....Many would argue the officer's covenant, which is very meaningful to me,would be testimony that even in what would be the most mundane of positions, it should be treated as sacremental and holy. By the way, some of the most pastoral and missional people I know have been those in finance jobs. Conversely, some of the least visionary and least feeling I know have been in places like the youth department. (Present company excluded.)
Officers don't have control over their appointments. In fact, I have known some people who have asked to be corps officers and have not had that request honored and have been moved to another finance job.
The one thing that an officer has control over is that of having a heart of a shepherd (sorry Curtis, there's that flawed analogy again!) one who leads from the rear and one who often labors in the background so that others, who may be more gifted in other areas can serve up front.
Larry, as I've said before, it's that officer's covenant thing that always gets me. You're right, it's an unbelievable commitment, and I definitely don’t mean to belittle it. And, as I’ve said before, while my wife and I have followed God’s calling all over the world (and I know many other non-officers who have taken up a similar call) it is something very different to trust somebody’s else’s interpretation of God’s call on your life. It’s a sacrifice that always leaves me shaking my head in awe (at least at those who have genuinely laid that part of their life down). And, there’s no doubt, there are some real servants serving in the finance department (I’ve known quite a few). But I think the title of officer gets a little gray once you are no longer shepherding. With the exception of the possible move, I’m never quite sure what sets the officers in the finance department apart from the non-officers, besides the uniform. ???
Btw, I don't mean to pick on finance here. And again, I mean no disrespect.
Wow. Do I really want to be the 48th comment on Larry's blog? I mean, if I'm lucky, the 49th commenter and just maybe the 50th will read my words before they completely ignore it and go off on their own tangent. Which, incidentally, is what I'm about to do...
As someone who's not regularly in a position of "leading" people - save the obvious sense of worship and band leadership - I feel less qualified than most who've commented from actual leadership experience. Actually, I hate leading. I'm a lazy git, as my mom used to affectionately awaken me at 11 AM on a Saturday morning.
Larry, you asked if our current Church/Army leadership model(s) are Bibllically accurate. Funny you should mention, but I just read a great article here that mentions, among other things, this little fact (hat tip Paul T):
the only verse in the NT where the word “Pastor” is used.[3] One solitary verse is a mighty scanty piece of evidence on which to hang the entire Protestant faith! In this regard, there is more Biblical authority for snake handling than there is for the modern Pastor. (Mark 16:18 and Acts 28:3-6 both mention handling snakes. So snake handling wins out two verses to one verse.)
Granted, we're not talking semantics and which terms are appropriate, per se, but you know, there are some who are calling for a complete dismantling of current Church structure as we know it - a redistribution of resources that are spent on things which may or may not be helpful/necessary for our mission (buildings, etc.) I can't say that part of this doesn't resonate with me - a Church that gathers only in homes (when there are too many people, move to a new home), that is decentralized monetarily (when people have needs, others share locally), and that transforms its community (as opposed to attempting to suck the community in - attractional vs. missional).
Specifically, think about what Jesus said about us being salt and light ask whether we're appropriately seasoning and illuminating the world - I like what Jason's blog profile reads: "I want to see the world become permeated with the Kingdom of God". Or are we shoving seasoning down peoples' throats and blinding them by "doing the most good" ?
I hope this is coherent, but as its been twenty minutes since I started the comment, I may have digressed. Oh, well...
i just wanted to see you hit 50 :)
Well, this post must be a record or something. Thanks, Phil for putting me over the top,...so to speak.
I am thinking that I will narrow down this discussion a bit. I need to hear from you quickly on a matter. Look for tonight's post.
great conversation...
the reason i use the fellow traveler vs. shepherd - etc. is the confusing conclusions we make.
question - when do we as sheep evolve into another species i.e. a shepherd? this type of spiritual evolution creates a false identity, we no longer hang out with other sheep, we think of ourselves as them and us, we see sheep as possessions to be counted and add to our wealth... maybe we never really evolve at all, maybe we are just sheep in wolves… opps.
we are sheep - always sheep and there is only one good shepherd and we should follow/know that voice...
sheep to sheep
Post a Comment
<< Home