Who Is In Charge?
I have had that conversation dozens of times. You know the conversation. This is one where people need to assert their authority and claim to be in charge.
In our movement we are replete with commanders. We have them on every level. It is because we are in a quasi-military organization. This adds, I believe, to our human need to be in control.
Now I do believe in levels of responsibility and also in checks and balances for all of us. Someone has to make the final call in a disagreement and eventually take the responsibility for the decisions made. I have no problem with that.
I think what is possibly a bankrupt notion is that someone has to be "in charge." Firstly, control is illusory. Anyone who thinks they can completely control another person, short of slavery is fooling themselves. With distance, comes autonomy, to a degree.
We cannot force people to show up for work at hours we think they should, unless we are right there. We cannot enforce much of anything, with the possible exception of some expenditures, over which we have some control.
I think the better question is not "Who is in charge?" I think the better question is "Who is the leader?"
I think there is a difference between being in charge and being a leader. First, if you have to remind everyone that you are the boss, you aren't. Secondly, if you have to ask the question, "Who is in charge?" your idea of leadership may be very shallow.
I believe the best leaders are encouragers, supporters, enablers of mission and people of great inspiration. The greatest leaders, point the way but also help people develop a sense of responsibility for their actions. They also don't have time to tell people what to think, but how to think.
I think the idea of being "in charge" may be against biblical patterns and run opposite what Jesus intended for the Kingdom. I am not sure, but I think that being a leader, may be far superior to being in charge. I will walk through fire for a leader. If you want to be in charge, you will probably have few if any followers.
In fact, being in charge may be close to being theologically indefensible. Maybe I am wrong.
So do you know people who need to be in charge? Do you know real leaders? Are they one in the same or opposites?
What do you think?
In our movement we are replete with commanders. We have them on every level. It is because we are in a quasi-military organization. This adds, I believe, to our human need to be in control.
Now I do believe in levels of responsibility and also in checks and balances for all of us. Someone has to make the final call in a disagreement and eventually take the responsibility for the decisions made. I have no problem with that.
I think what is possibly a bankrupt notion is that someone has to be "in charge." Firstly, control is illusory. Anyone who thinks they can completely control another person, short of slavery is fooling themselves. With distance, comes autonomy, to a degree.
We cannot force people to show up for work at hours we think they should, unless we are right there. We cannot enforce much of anything, with the possible exception of some expenditures, over which we have some control.
I think the better question is not "Who is in charge?" I think the better question is "Who is the leader?"
I think there is a difference between being in charge and being a leader. First, if you have to remind everyone that you are the boss, you aren't. Secondly, if you have to ask the question, "Who is in charge?" your idea of leadership may be very shallow.
I believe the best leaders are encouragers, supporters, enablers of mission and people of great inspiration. The greatest leaders, point the way but also help people develop a sense of responsibility for their actions. They also don't have time to tell people what to think, but how to think.
I think the idea of being "in charge" may be against biblical patterns and run opposite what Jesus intended for the Kingdom. I am not sure, but I think that being a leader, may be far superior to being in charge. I will walk through fire for a leader. If you want to be in charge, you will probably have few if any followers.
In fact, being in charge may be close to being theologically indefensible. Maybe I am wrong.
So do you know people who need to be in charge? Do you know real leaders? Are they one in the same or opposites?
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 7:46 PM
6 Comments:
I think you're right! I have the situation in my current corps which has a member of the congregation who was in a senior corps leadership position but retired. The problem is that this person is still in the mentality that s/he is in charge and unless he approves any idea it won't happen.
The problem that I see is that too many of our leaders work from a business leadership position, which historically has involved an element of domination over others. Unfortunately they then carry this method over into spiritual leadership as well. This simply doesn't work, but often they don't even realise they are doing it!
Here's where overlaying a military metaphor on the church is troublesome. In the Marines, you better hope that someone is in charge, but in the body of Christ, (as illustrated in the book of Acts and suggested by Paul in his letters) there is a desire for concensus, and the valuing of each member of the body (I Cor. 12). A DC once told me, when two people ride on a horse, someone has to be in front, but even in that example, that person can change from time to time, and the role of the one in front is to give direction, i.e. leadership.
I like the way Max DePree writes about leadership, both in Leadership is an Art and Leadership Jazz.
The model of a jazz band leader speaks more powerfully to me than does that of a military bandmaster. As in the "one, two, you know what to do" of setting the tempo, staying connected, but letting the band play their music.
Hhhmmmm...somebody has to be in the front of a limo too, but I'm not sure your DC would appreciate that analogy. Still, I tend to think of leadership from that perspective more than the "two riders on a horse perspective". Actually, I much prefer the "lead from behind" idea. Push people towards growth.
I've found that when people discover a truth themselves, they face a decision; will they respond to that truth or not? But, when I try to tell them what's true, it's only my opinion and no decision is necessary.
I'm typing this from our youth club and I've got freaking rap music playing all around me so I can only hope that any of this is making sense.
A collegue made a statement today concerning those who don't like the SA the way it is: If they don't like it, they can get out. Nice. My response to that is: if you want to join the military, go ahead. This is the church.
Tim,
I like the idea of leading from behind. It is espoused by Spencer Burke in his writings. You're right, we are not the military. We are the church.
HS,
Isn't the Jazz Band Leader one of the musicians too? Often we forget that we are part of the band and are prone to making mistakes in our interpretation of the music. The fact is, often the band leader is not the best musician in the group, but can be the one with the best ear of how to pull it all together.
Graeme,
Thanks for weighing in. I often wonder when we will learn that we must operate from Kingdom principles not just business principles. Domination is not the way. That way of operating just breeds passive aggressive types in my opinion.
"Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart..."
Larry's spot on!
Not my words but those of a friend and former colleague. So I'll resist from commenting further.
"A 1 an a 2 and you know what to do" - exceptional!
And now Mr. Feldbush from the Cuy. Falls High School Goldtones has arrived to my interpretation of leadership in ministry!
Post a Comment
<< Home