This blog will become a repository of leadership knowledge for students in the Person in Leadership class (MM 631) at Ashland Theological Seminary. If you are not a member of this class you are welcome to read our blogs but we kindly ask that you not participate by posting a blog. Posting blogs will be reserved for class members only.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Developing Your Discernment
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Walking in Step
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Surprised by Addiction These ministers faced their compulsions—and stayed in ministry. John W. Kennedy
John W. Kennedy discusses different forms of addiction and different pastors who were caught in some form of addiction but survived the process of healing to continue in ministry even when the form of ministry may have changed.
It is bold for a congregation to accept the pastor’s addiction and help them overcome it and return to vital ministry. It was refreshing that a congregation would reject the pastor’s resignation and hold him accountable taking over his role of ministry while he was in recovery. All believers should help each other in this way. As a leader Kennedy indicated that the pastor should be transparent in this situation where he had fallen and was healed, but also realizing that the strains of ministry where the pastor is isolated and held to a unrealistic standard is the real problem with pastors when they made choices which causes them to become addicted to something.
Kennedy also discussed that there needs to be a trustworthy place for pastors to go and receive help from addictions where they are not judged but helped and having people around them to walk with them through healing. We as pastors in the making need to be aware of those areas in our lives where we are susceptible to a problem in our lives where, if left in the dark, or if we become isolated, it could become an addiction which could derail our lives and ministry. We need to be aware of places to go when we realize we have a problem in our lives and get help early on rather than waiting for the addiction to gain complete control. I believe there is a point where a person knows the next step could take them on the downward spiral.
Post-Denominational?
In this short video Brian McLaren talks about denominations (short is an understatement, but regardless of the length I think he raises a good point to get many of us thinking). In the ages of the MP4, McLaren thinks denominations, right now, are in the LP record business. “They need to have a radical change in identity to say we are in the music business, and are not committed to a medium as much as we are to a mission.” This, for McLaren is the most important thing that is needed if we are going to see denominational transformation.
I think that McLaren raises a good point. For those of us who are planning on being leaders in a denominational church we must ask whether or not we are more committed to denominational distinctives or to a larger narrative. This is perhaps the single most important question people in denominations need to ask. It is my fear that if we side with the agenda of our denominations we will run the risk of become increasingly irrelevant. Regardless the position that one takes, for denominations to be transformed something must change. Whether a sort of post-denominationalism is needed or not we must ask these hard questions.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
We Are Family
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Leadership Plan Is Nathan McWherter
Brandon Hatmaker talks about whether we equip people to live on mission or do we just talk about it.
The church is
The church does what is
The church organizes what it does
The church is really defined by the things that we do and the organizational structure forces what we end up doing. So if the church is not structured to do something then they really aren’t that thing no matter what they say that they are. When you say you want to equip people to do the ministry you need to set up the churches structure to give time money and position to the mission. If you say you want to help the poor and you start to create a structure that reflects that, the process causes you to look at the what and the where and the how. It makes you donate resources to that mission and you become effective.
When I think about leadership in response to that it is healthy to look at what you do, what you spend your time on, and compare it to what you are supposed to be doing or what your personal mission statement is and you realize that you might need to restructure your resources. How are you going to live out your mission, when are you going to do it, and how are you going to spend resources of time energy and money to achieve that Goal.
Your Leadership Plan is
Your Leadership Plan does what it is
Your Leadership Plan organizes what it does
7 killers for Charismatic Leadership
This quarter we’ve talked a lot about charismatic leadership. There are some leaders who just seem to attract others to them. When this leader is excited about a new project, he or she is able to get those around them excited as well. In the book Laws of Charisma, Kurt Mortensen describes 7 charisma killers. These seven behaviors have a way of stealing both a leaders charisma and ability to influence others. The seven charisma killers are 1. talking too much, 2. showing how much you know, 3. getting too friendly too fast, 4. getting too comfortable too fast, 5. proxemics (not respecting personal space), 6. being one sided with you facts, and 7. arguing or trying to prove you are right. While this list certainly isn’t exhaustive, these are 7 behaviors that can definitely steal a leader’s ability to influence and receive respect from others. I really like number 6. If a leader is trying to bring correction to someone on their team, and they’re only focusing on one side, the person receiving the correction will simply not feel heard. A leader gains credibility with a team member when they are able to display that they understand what the person has been going through, or understand the situation that the team member is currently in. Steam rolling someone and not acknowledging the existing circumstances, problems, etc. of a situation will cause someone to check out fast. As we acknowledge the good things that our team members are doing, they are then more likely to receive correction well.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Kayak Leadership
A former pastor of mine, Timothy Teague, recently described his observations of a kayak guide in Tybee Island, Georgia. People of all ages, backgrounds, and experience levels came aboard the kayak not fully knowing what was in store for them. Yet, they trusted the kayak leader. One would think that the leader would do a bulk of paddling, but this was not the case. The trusting sojourners paddled for themselves. Most striking was that the guide was facing backwards while leading and giving instructions to his kayakers. The kayak leader did not have to turn around because he had been there before. He could determine where he was just because of the surroundings. The leader led the kayakers from their point of entry to their point of departure, while keeping them safe and helping them gain confidence and experience.
The whole scene he describes is a striking picture of what leadership looks like (or ought to look like). How many times do we define leadership in terms of “us up there” and them “down there?” Do we lead with our backs turned? Or do we want to be the center of attention doing all of the paddling? Are we empowering people to grow, or just to stay on the shore not risking anything? Are we creating an environment where people feel as though they will “return safely” and can trust our guidance? And do we realize that we have too have traveled through the river led by another “kayak leader” named Jesus?
Learning to Delegate
The Leadership of Dwight Eisenhower
Third, he engaged with those on the “outside” of the military (e.g. reporters) with “geniality and candor,” showing them respect and endearing them. Fourth, he was a good team-builder, uniting the American and British forces – “transcending national rivalries” – to fight the Axis Powers. Finally, he tried to reach consensus when making decisions, but was not afraid to make tough decisions himself if this could not be done.
These principles and qualities could also be translated and applied to a ministry context. As leaders in the kingdom, it is important that we: take responsibility for our mistakes (or those of others around us when appropriate), exhibit humility, openly communicate with insiders and outsiders (in relation to the Church), build effective teams, and foster/encourage unity. No doubt these can be found throughout the pages of Scripture and in the individuals whose stories they tell.
Leader Member Exchange
The focus of this online article is the Leader-Member Exchange theory. This leadership theory focuses on the relationship between the leader and those being led. There are two core groups identified in this model. The In-Group consists of those who go beyond what is required of them and actively work to help the leader. The Out-Group consists of those who do only what is required and do not interact much with the leader. Leadership is improved when those in the Out-Group can be grafted into the In-Group. To do this, the leader must determine what is motivating those in the Out-Group. Then, he must he must work to reduce things that hinder motivation. He must then work to build partnering relationships with these members.
This model of leadership has much potential for use in a ministry setting. Indeed, it seems to follow a basic pattern of discipleship, wherein one moves progressively outward to incorporate people into a discipleship network who are not already part of one. Furthermore, within a church setting, it is a matter of fact that there will be those whom a pastor finds more willing to engage with the work of the church and those who are not. Thus, this model provides a good theoretical method for getting this latter group more involved. One potential problem, however, is that there may be those who just do not care to become more involved and embrace the vision of the church. This model seems to assume the ideal, that the leader will just be able to change people’s outlook.
Postmodern Musings
5 Levels of Leadership
In this article, John Maxwell's five levels of leadership are discussed. Since we have already talked some about these levels in class, I have put some thought into what level I am currently operating at. I would guess that out of the five levels of leadership discussed in class, I am currently at "People Development." In this level, "People follow because of what you have done for them." I have empowered young adults and have given them value that they were not finding elsewhere. I have showed them Christ's love, while teaching them how to honor God with their lives. They follow because they are loyal to me, because of what I have done for them. I would love to get to the personhood level of leadership. In this level, "People follow you because of who you are and what you represent." Since I only devote around 6 hours a week to leading in this context, I have not been able to communicate completely who I am and what I represent. I feel that in a full-time ministry context, I would be able to align myself into the personhood level of leadership, which would ultimately be my preferred level. The question that remains is how to you get from one level to the next. As I look back on my ministry experience, it is clear to me that I have been through each of the levels to get to where I am now, but I am not sure how I got there.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Bi-Polar Priest
Brian Mclaren on Spirituality
"Leadership" in Winning by Jack Welch, pgs. 61-80
Leading in Unstable Times
The title of this blog is a tad misleading. The author begins with the premise of how one could lead effectively in unstable times, but he actually digresses and spends time discussing leading through change. This is not a leadership blog for ministry, but the two crises of leadership discussed are very relevant to the church today.
First, the author briefly discusses the role of the leader when great change is needed. He gives the example of politics, where a party simply elects a new leader, rather than give the current leader leeway, to enact necessary change. Many of us may have been raised (or are currently serving in) congregational churches. Thus we know that the pastor faces this risk of the congregation simply ousting him or her from leadership.
The author accurately points out that this truly is not a good way to enact change within a congregation. He writes that when organizations (or nations) rapidly change leaders, they are just like consumers switching to a new brand “which has not let them down YET” (emphasis mine). From the perspective of the congregation, I wonder how we have been guilty of switching churches or simply worship services (which we all know can be simply another church-within-a-church)? From a leadership perspective, how often have we jumped from approach to approach, curriculum to curriculum, and so on? The author aptly describes change as a two-way street. The congregation must provide the leader time and space; the leader must provide the vision.
Distributed Leadership
I found this interesting because it is not an article, but a statement of the leadership model of this particular organization. It is meant for internal use, but provides a good definition of distributive leadership that is applicable beyond this specific context. Rather than reiterate the definition, I will highlight some insights from the description.
Distribute leadership is not delegating. It involves much more collaboration in terms of idea generation, problem solving, and implementation from all members of the team.
Distribute leadership is team oriented. The focus is on process that engages all members of the team with their skills, interests, and perspectives. Everyone shares a common goal and mission. It is built on cooperation and trust.
Distributive leadership values the individual. Everyone is considered an expert in their area regardless of whether they are a decision maker or not. The individual becomes more effective because of the model of the group.
Distributive leadership does not fear mistakes. Failures lead to new approaches. Controlled and reasoned risk-taking is expected and encouraged.
“The central goal of the approach is for individuals to succeed in a climate of shared purpose, teamwork, and respect.” In my opinion, this is an excellent model that could be easily transferred to the church, especially in the context of decentralized ministry. Everyone is valued and engaged. There is a common purpose and the community comes together as one in order to reach the larger goals and purposes of the body.
Messy Process of Change
As I consider the fact that leadership will often--if not always--deal with change, I appreciate Steven Furtick's reminder that change is messy and often slow. I remember a quote from Rick Warren, which I will butcher in my paraphrase here, in which he essentially said, "Growth always brings change. Change always brings loss. Loss always brings sadness. People--whether or not they want to be--are in a constant state of growth and change." We know that to grow into an adult means to also grow into responsibility; it is also the loss of endless free time and irresponsibility. Growth and change are facts of life. In my anticipation for the future and excitement for potential, I often forget that this new change will bring around loss and sadness for someone else.
And it is this sadness that requires a leader to be a pastor. A good leader will guide his people through this sadness. A bad leader would ignore it. A good leader will move slowly and deliberately in these moments; a bad leader would rush ahead.
I see this applying to the change in people's lives and the change we face corporately. It reminds me of the line from the play Julius Caesar, beware the voices of haste. In dealing with people’s lives—whether it be their personal issues or their church--no matter what the change, it seems that it is better to go slow than to go quickly.
We All Need to Be Transformational Leaders
Transformational Leadership
What Is Transformational Leadership?
By Kendra Cherry , About.com Guide
I do not know if I am a transformational leader, but I want to be one. This article provides a brief summary of the history of this leadership theory, and the four components of the theory advanced by Bernard M. Bass. The theory was introduced by James MacGregor Burns, who described the effects of this leadership as follows. “Leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of moral and motivation.”
Who doesn’t want to be able to create a synergy like that? Boosting moral and motivation to achieve common goals will keep the organization from stagnation or death. It will also keep people who are part of the organization enjoying their experience instead of dreading it or not caring about it.
Bass’s four components of transformational leadership include “intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence.” Essentially these components paint the picture of a leader who encourages creativity in the staff team, gives individual support and welcomes feedback from staff, and articulates a clear vision that stirs a mutual passion. The leader also serves a “role model” for others in the organization and a mutual trust and respect builds in their relationships as they work together.
Whether or not this a natural leadership style, it is certainly one that I will need to adapt. Many of us will be serving in churches in need of revitalization, vision, and change. We need to be transformational leaders in order to be effective in helping a church regain healthy levels of growth.
Towards a Theology (not theory) of Leadership
"Manuals and courses on leadership tend to focus on personality strengths and various skill-sets for leadership. But the biblical narrative focuses on faith, obedience and vision. The effectiveness of our native gifts and skills as leaders depend on these. Without them kingdom leadership is not to be found. "
In this article, Sven Eriksson, a minister in the Mennonite Church of Canada, highlights the crucial difference between leadership theory and a theology of leadership. While he acknowledges the value of personality assessments and theories, Eriksson reminds us that, "when God chooses men and women for Kingdom leadership, there is something afoot that may not appear on a personality inventory." Eriksson cites David, the unlikely leader of Israel, recounting that God found leadership qualities in David that the world did not see.
Another poignant reminder brought by the author is that there is no Biblical personality or theory of leadership. The hall of witnesses in Hebrews 11 is a diverse group who carried out different tasks, but were united under a theology of leadership.
Eriksson sets out three building blocks of this theology:
1. Faith - believing what God has said
2. Obedience - taking risks, audacious behavior that counteracts societal norms
3. Vision - future vision "so profoundly compelling it gave them the ability to suffer and die for it"
As we step out into ministry this summer, I wonder, not only at the styles with which we will lead, but the theology that grounds them. What is your theology of leadership?
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Redefining "Radical"
The issue of a consumerist Christian faith in the American church has been under attack for some time. There are numerous books out there that speak against consumerism, especially how it has turned our faith into a consumer product and our churches into a place that dispenses it to anyone who puts money into the offering plate. The reaction to this Christian consumerism over the past few years has been a call to a “radical” Christianity. This is the topic of an article by Skye Jethani entitled “Redefining Radical.” She observes that this has been the typical response recently, but wonders if it is necessarily the proper response. She argues that the call to “radical” Christianity, which is often defined by increased emphasis on missions, social justice issues, and/or poverty relief, is not any different at the heart of the issue than the consumerism that it reacts against. In the end, it is still Christianity that is based on works rather than simply being based in a relationship with Christ. As leaders, it is our responsibility to help people see that our works, whether it be dropping money in the offering plate expecting something in return or selling all our positions and moving to Africa, do not earn our salvation. She mentions 1 Corinthians 7, in which Paul tells the Corinthians that whatever they are doing, they need to be “with God.” People don’t have to be “radical” in order to be with God. Leaders in the church need to find a way to model this for the church.
LAST BLOG POST
I hope you have come to value and appreciate this exercise and the interaction you have had with one another. I have enjoyed reading your blog posts. You have found some excellent resources on Christian Leadership.
Thanks for participating.
May the Lord be with you.
Dr. Dan Lawson.
You Will Suffer - Take Heart
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Situational Leadership Theory
A Small Staff
Well, thus ends Co Hort.
Religious Leaders vs Political Leaders
Monday, May 30, 2011
Truth Professed, or Believed?
In his article “Truth Professed, or Believed?” John Ortberg tackles the issue of hypocrisy in the church. He begins by noting that although the Bible says that “Love must be sincere” (Romans 12:9), it does not always seem to be the case within the church. We often say that we love each other, but are our actions really demonstrating this to each other? Or more importantly, are they really demonstrating this to the outside world? He goes on to name other teachings of Jesus, such as “love your enemies” and “it is better to give than to receive”, and wonders if the church honestly believes these commands to be true. The real way to discover if Christians truly believe these teachings is not to ask them, he argues, but to see if there actions actually match with what they say to be true. He says that the best way to find out if he truly believes if it is better to give than to receive is not to ask him, but to check his bank account. I found this article very interesting because it is an issue that not only surfaces in the congregation, but among leadership as well. How does the way in which we lead reflect what we believe to be true about Jesus, the Bible and the Church? Does it line up with our beliefs, or is our hypocrisy evident? The way to create change in our church is to begin by changing our actions as leaders. We must model authentic faith, and others will follow.
How do you communicate with your team?
In this book, the author discusses leadership as it relates to communicating with subordinates. The author gives examples of how leaders make mistakes in leading. There is the leader who tends to be ambiguous in laying out the vision but reprimands the subordinate when the plans were not carried out to the satisfaction of the leader. There is the leader who is incognito in which the subordinates feel disconnected because all communication is based on a chase to get in touch with the leader to talk. Unless the team is full of self-starters this could be disastrous. There is also the leader who has an open door policy no matter what. This could result in burn-out for the leader if the congregation is large enough to where it is next to impossible for the leader to connect with everyone. Then there is the hovering leader who wants to know everything prior to any decisions are made not giving the team any room to breathe which could result in creativity being smothered and a team that feels inadequate to do the job. Then there is the unilateral leader who is amongst other leaders but makes the decisions without consulting with any of them because they believe they are somewhat more intelligent and wiser than the rest of the team. Finally the book mentions leaders who seem to be constantly negative. They only give feedback when a situation is negative resulting in a stressful team who avoids the leader. The essence is good communication is essential in leadership.
Post-Ethnic Church
In this video Efrem Smith suggests that what the church is missing is leadership that sees ethnic diversity, in our Christian community, as both a necessity and a possibility. Smith sets forth his dream and vision for a post-racial church that embraces the value of many who see beyond race and ethnicity.
The most notable part of this video is when Smith suggests that well-known African-American, such as Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Collin Powell, are perfect examples of post-black leadership. He suggests, these individuals represent a group that has managed to look beyond race issues, instead pursuing their careers as people who happen to be “black.” They, according to Smith, represent a general movement of people who refuse to advocate for the agenda of “their people,” but rather are dreaming for a day when we can maintain our racial and ethnic identities, while also transcending them. Smith’s greatest concern is that the church has not achieved what the nation has achieved. In this way we [the Church] have failed to be the pacesetter in our culture. Post-racial leadership can serve as a transforming presence that can change the face of our congregations. For Smith, church leaders must look beyond the days when segregated churches were needed in order to create safe communities for minorities and first-generation immigrant. Instead we must see that people are searching for a post-ethnic church that can create an all-new vitality and hope for the future.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Servant Leadership of Millard Fuller - Founder of Habitat for Humanity
Creating Worshippers not Workers
He indicates in the article that leaders are about leading workers instead of creating worshipers who are in the intimate places with Christ and allowing the work to come from that. He discussed John who wrote the love Epistles and who was the intimate one reclining on Jesus during the Last Supper, he also had the longest ministry and received the greatest amount of revelation of God. He talked about when the authorities tried to boil him alive in a vat of oil and he did not burn, Merrick indicates this is because of the intimacy he had with Jesus.
In the article, he is trying to convince leaders not to worry about leading but about teaching people how to worship being intimate with Jesus and allow the work to come from that. He said “we take converts and try to make them workers, we need to take converts and make them worshipers and allow the work to come from there.”
Merrick is advising leaders to be in the “face of Christ, to taste and see that the Lord is good and become convinced with body, mind and soul that Christ is the ultimate treasure.” “To be intimate with Christ is to lead with Christ, rather than be a leader for God to become a leader of God.”
I believe that Merrick is right. If the leader is not intimate with Christ and leading from that place, then they are leading in their own strength causing themselves to become the Lord instead of Jesus.