I’ve got another question to toss out today — we’ll see if it gets anyone out of shape or yields as many comments as yesterday’s…. ;^)
I’ve been reading The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations in bites and chunks over the past week. In the past, I’ve talked about leadership and in particular pastoral relationships and authority. The issue I’ve flagged is an inherent power imbalance in the relationship, which puts the parishioner “below” the pastor. In that context, sharing personal information and receiving advice exacerbates the imbalance… they can’t be peers. This sets up a dangerous environment for both — the pastor in that he’s isolated, and the parishioner in that he’s easily open to manipulation. Further, power in a relationship tends to shape it — and not in a good way. The pastor is therefore tempted to misuse the power he has and manipulate the parishioner… and in some relationships, this temptation can grow over time. To be sure, in other relationships, it diminishes and the parishioner becomes more like a peer. The pastor(s) I describe may not be doing this intentionally, but the way the relationship is cast makes the danger inherent. Others (the good ones!) recognize the danger and take steps to ward against it. I’m sure I’ve said more on this around here somewhere.
Anyway, I was reading this book and noticed in the midst of his description of a personality they call the catalyst (page 125):
When people feel heard, when they feel understood and supported, they are more likely to change. A catalyst doesn’t prescribe a solution, nor does he hit you over the head with one. Instead, he assumes a peer relationship and listens intently. You don’t follow a catalyst because you have to—you follow a catalyst because he understands you.
When we give advice to someone, we automatically create a power hierarchy. The advice-giver is superior to the recipient. As we’ve seen, this kind of hierarchy is detrimental to a decentralized organization. In meeting people where they are, catalysts can inspire change without being coercive.
And, well, you can guess what connection I made for the church… and I was glad to see someone else describe the inherent power imbalance between one who gives and one who receives guidance. In our pattern of pastoral leadership, we have typically set up the imbalance by design. (I’m mostly saying pastor, but it could be any leadership role in the church.)
So now, what do you all say? How do we deal with the imbalance, prevent it, live with it… what?
Hi you there Bro. Maynard! Trust this finds you well. you tickled quite an itch that I have about church leadership. I’m involved in a couple of discussions about this very thing elsewhere. My bookshelf is lined with all kinds of leadership models for the pastor and only a very few get to the root of the issue. The very word “pastor” is lost in our techno/industrial society. Pastor is just another word for shepherd. That’s where much of the confusion comes (I think). I am discovering that when I lovingly shepherd a people the issues of leadership are non-issues.
I recommend a classic for your consideration – The Minister as Shepherd, Charles Jefferson.
Under the Mercy,
John
Interesting.. well, this is what person focused therapy (Rogerian among others) has been saying for years, and its part of where I have just been with my ten article series on “the leader as listener.” The fundamental question: what produces change? whether we are talking about systemic or individual, tho at one level all change must be systemic..
I must confess I have no simple answers here. On the one hand, inspiring change without being coercive is certainly the ideal. But on the other, experience differentials should count for something.
If you’ll recall, my background (up to my mid-twenties) is with the Brethren assemblies. By and large these are groups without paid leadership. The elders and deacons are elected every couple of years. Sure, it can lead to the same type of “power” issues where a few families tend to rule the roost. I’ve been in some of those. But I’ve also been in at least one that worked. The biggest bonus to having leaders who live in the “real world”(that is, they hold down other jobs, etc.) is that they (in my experience) are so much better at understanding the context of your life than those whose context is full-time (paid) ministry.
All that is simply to give background to this idea: We all have something to give. Youth tend to have zeal and energy to share. Age tends to have experience and wisdom. When I’m looking for wisdom, I prefer to look to one who has more experience than I – not simply a peer. What good is shared ignorance? I see it less as an issue of authority and power and more as plain good sense.
I never did understand why people would go to their pastor for advice when there’s a whole church-full of life experience to be tapped. Nor do I understand the need to stratify the congregation (by age or station of life) when such choices cut us off from the diversity we require to be healthy.
When did people trade in experience and life-sharing for power and authority? When did we abdicate our responsibility to live in each other’s lives and just start paying someone to do it for us? Does the need to claim power and authority as leaders come from our own insecurity? I mean, if no-one is following you are you really a leader? If not, then are the claims of power and authority simply tools being used in order to keep a position we haven’t necessarily earned?
Of course, making the parallel between parent-child relationships, with the authority and power inherently necessary in them, and that of a church leader-parishoner opens up another can of worms. Nah… I’m not going there…
I’ve had the book on my shelf for years, but have never read it. I know our idea of shepherding is twisted… a whole movement even took that name and really had nothing to do with the way Jesus meant the metaphor. Perhaps I’ll dust off my copy soon, now that you’ve brought it up.
Good analysis on it — your concluding ideas describe the epitome of modernism… no wonder we lost the metaphor.
i agree… listening goes much further than offering advice. but let me play devil’s advocate… don’t we find the gospel writers portraying Jesus as an ‘advice giver’ so to speak? a teacher? yes he is involved in the lives of those around him…however…he is seen as a definite authority figure.
same with paul and his advice through letters to the early followers of Jesus.
where do i follow Jesus’ example and where don’t i?
sincerely wondering…
Brad
Mmm-hmm, good point Brad. The gospels do portray Jesus as a teacher and giver of advice. But when we look at it afresh, I think we might say that the general pattern (meaning that exceptions may exist) is that Jesus taught those who came to him, he answered questions, and he asked questions (sometimes answering a question with a question). Recall when Jesus was found in the temple as a boy, the Jewish teachers were amazed at his understanding based on his questions? The teaching pattern at the time was to pose questions, and as the answers were discussed, the learning occurred mixed with insights from the “class”. There was a process of engagement rather than merely issuing instruction.
The NT Epistles are a bit of a different matter. Romans lays out a very careful structured argument, but most of the epistles are situational and although they give advice, by-and-large they aren’t heavy-handed at all. The Corinthians got a harsh letter, but that one was lost and never made the Canon… proof Paul was human too? Again, grossly generalizing, the tone I get from the epistles, is something like, “God is really really good, and he did stuff, and Jesus is like this, and we trust in such-and-such, and therefore we should all…” whereupon follows some kind of application, like love one another or take heart and encourage each other. The parental corollary might be something like, “HEY!! You kids play nice!” except the writers try to motivate us with Gospel truth rather than saying “or I’ll get out the wooden spoon and smack you both!”
So to answer the question, I think you always follow Jesus’ example.
And to defray getting jumped on, I’m just taking literary license with the wooden spoon thing to make the point… even if you don’t say that, your mothers probably did!
Make sense?
Sonja’s right. Great book.
the Bryan version of wooden spoon is “it’s gonna cost you five bucks”. point works either way. And I think Paul came really close to that several times.
love the use of the banana beer story followed the note on “mashing” thoughts together. You’re sounding like a writer.
And on sheep I have to say I also get irritated by the metaphor. But then, I look at the attractional church model. Many (not all- nobody yell at me) seem to be following a charismatic shepherd and don’t really want a catalyst. In fact, some of the biggest best known congregations seems are like that. How can we get away from the sheep metaphor? I find myself wondering sometimes if I’m just an irritable sheep looking around for more irritable sheep to herd with…
Ah, guess I didn’t help much. Great discussion.
Cindy,
10 years ago I was right there with you in my dislike of the sheep metaphor. Further exploration of it has thoroughly changed my mind, particularly the idea that the leadership of the church is to exhibit shepherd like qualities. It is the very picture given by Jesus to Peter in John 21 (“Feed my sheep…”) and it must have stuck with this fisherman, turned shepherd of souls, as he would later write,
“I have a special concern for you church leaders. I know what it’s like to be a leader, in on Christ’s sufferings as well as the coming glory. Here’s my concern: that you care for God’s flock with all the diligence of a shepherd. Not because you have to, but because you want to please God. Not calculating what you can get out of it, but acting spontaneously. Not bossily telling others what to do, but tenderly showing them the way.” (I Peter 5:1-3, from The Message).
It is regrettable that the shepherd image is lost to our society. We have much to learn and gain by reclaiming it as THE model for pastoral ministry. Charles Jefferson states “The church lost the way which leads to life as soon as the envoys of the Son of God forgot that they were shepherds. Darkness fell upon the earth when the shepherd was swallowed up in the priest.”