context and socialization in leadership development

I have long believed that leadership, or the lack of it, is a significant key to either the renewal, or the decline, of the church. If this is true, that leadership critical to our success or failure, then we must ask the question as to why we are in our current state of demise, and then seek to remedy the situation. This is of strategic importance. And if we pursue this a little further, we must in the end center our attention on the agencies and people that have been responsible for the training and endorsing of a leadership that has overseen the massive decline of Christianity in the last two centuries. Some hard questions must be asked about the way we train and develop leadership.

Perhaps the single most significant source of the malaise of leadership in our day comes from the way, and the context, in which we form leaders. For the most part, the would-be leader is withdrawn from the context of ordinary life and ministry in order to study in a somewhat cloistered environment for up to seven years in some cases. During that period they are subjected to an immense amount of complex information relating to the Biblical disciplines, theology, ethics, church history, pastoral theology, etc. And while the vast majority of this information is useful and correct; what is far more dangerous to discipleship in that setting is the actual socialization processes that the student undergoes along the way. In effect, they are socialized out of ordinary life, and develop a kind of language and thinking that is seldom understood and expressed outside of the seminary. Its as if in order to learn about ministry and theology we leave our places of habitation and take a flight into the wonderfully abstracted world of abstraction, we fly around there for a long period of time and then wonder why we have trouble landing again.

Please don’t get me wrong, we need serious intellectual engagement with the key ideas of our time, what is truly concerning is that such engagement largely takes place in the largely passive environments of the classroom. To love God fully with our whole being, leadership development must inculcate in the disciple the lifelong love of learning but this must be done in a way far more consistent with the ethos of discipleship than the ethos produced in and through the academy.

October 14, 2007 | Filed Under discipleship, leadership, the forgotten ways |

Comments

24 Responses to “context and socialization in leadership development”

Charlie J on October 14th, 2007 1:47 pm

This is one of the reasons I am enjoying the MAGL program at Fuller….allowing me an online cohort based, one class at a time learning environment while still engaged locally and beyond with mission!
Richard Clarke on October 14th, 2007 3:17 pm

I agree Charlie, just finishing up the MAGL myself.

Alan, I think another point needs to be stressed as well when we look at leadership training. That is, that we do not teach leadership while we are teaching theology. And not only do we not currently teach leadership, but we do not teach leadership development. Therefore, it should come as no shock that most of the educated (book learning anyways) people produced by our current training structure do not in any way attempt to produce someone who can reproduce a leader. To the point, I would say that many of those turned out by these institutions (graduated, that is) may not even be leaders themselves. Sadly, it is not a requirement. And then we wonder why we are not reproducing leaders in our churches.
Matt Stone on October 14th, 2007 9:05 pm

Richard, you said “…we do not teach leadership while we are teaching theology.” Nowhere is that more apparent than in “worship leader” training. If it were 50% of our music would be scrapped without blinking. If it were the training context wouldn’t exclusively be band practice, it could be anywhere.
Matt Stone on October 14th, 2007 9:28 pm

As for Alan’s original comment, I totally agree. I sadly concluded some time ago that if you want to learn about living your faith out at work, the last person you should go to is a pastor, particular one who’s been doing the job for a while, particularly one who’s only jobs prior to that have been in people-orientated professions (eg doctor, teacher) if your jobs have been in task-orientated professions (eg IT, engineering). Why? Because generally, if they even have a theology of work, it will be overly abstract and untested for road worthiness. You know, in that respect I think its a shame that chaplaincy seems to be on the wane.
Isaiah on October 15th, 2007 5:36 am

Leadership training is something that churches should be doing outside of the context of paid ministry. One thing taken forgranted at early christianity, and specifically christianity in different areas of the modern world, is that lead ministry was not salaried. Paul the apostle made tents to support himself. I believe that part of the mission of discipling is training leaders. Isn’t leadership development part of natural discipleship?
As for leaders who would be in a position of leading other leaders, I believe they should have a godly vocation and vision for what they are doing. They are not called by a certain denomination to a certain task, nor a specific parachurch organization for a specific role. They can only be called by God to a ministry specific to them. It isn’t something humans create. For if ministry is something humans create, it’s not real ministry.
len on October 15th, 2007 9:41 am

Could it be that our assumption that leadership is theproblem is itself part of the problem? Why do we look to others to provide leadership? What would change if we began to view leadership as a process that occurs in communities of practice? What would happen if we began to expect leadership from below as often as from above?
Matt Stone on October 15th, 2007 10:36 am

Len

I can say with more experience that I care to have that managing upwards is an arduous task. Someone with control of a pulpit can undo months of hard work with a few careless comments. I agree that every Christian should take personal responsibility for the church, for leaving it all up to paid staff is incredibly disempowering. But equally disempowering is having leaders who do not lead. Though I was once rather anarchistic in orientation, over the years I have come to see that real leadership is essential. There is only so much you can do below when your efforts are actively undermined from above. On the other hand, where leaders create space for people to blossom, amazing things can happen. I gather that is what Alan means by the apostolic environment.

Regards

Matt Stone
Jonathan Brink on October 15th, 2007 12:51 pm

Alan, you said,

“To love God fully with our whole being, leadership development must inculcate in the disciple the lifelong love of learning”

I would suggest that it is actually a lifelong learning to love.
Alan Hirsch on October 15th, 2007 3:05 pm

Len, I agree about the bottom up forms, but it will still require leadership-as-an-extension-of- discipleship. Influence concentrated in leadership.
Bob Carder on October 15th, 2007 3:32 pm

Alan, a great post. I often wonder if the church growth movement and all the John Maxwell (an avid follower for a season) and other leadership seminars may have led to our demise.

At some point it became more about what we can do and less about what God can and will do. What are your thoughts?

I agree Leadership is necessary and must be deliberately geared to disciple making “reproduction” but we must also see that it cannot happen without total dependence on the personal and work of Jesus which is followed by the fullness of His Holy Spirit.

Got any thots?
Patrick on October 15th, 2007 9:06 pm

Matt, the situation you describe just about blew me out of the water in regards to Christian ministry. It did push me to step back for a while, to be sure, if not away. Constant work. Regular dismissal or undermining, without any clear reasoning besides apparent whim.

One thing that comes to mind for me is the military. Lots of church leadership has a barbarian horde quality to it. Find the obvious ‘hero’, pluck them out of the ranks, send them to special warrior camp, keep them in special barracks and give them the biggest haunch of pig at the feasts. They fight, and fight well, inspiring the lower masses, often rising high and above becoming a champion that people can rally around. Finding and training such a person is ‘leadership’ development.

Only barbarians got slaughtered when faced with less hero oriented and more organized armies such as the Romans.

Now, the US military does not look for heroes or plucks out leaders from among the peasants. If you enlist you are a leader. Some rise quicker than others, some have more natural gifts or ambitions, but everyone is a leader. The longer you stay in the more responsibility you are given, the more training you receive (and re-receive), the more trust you have. The non-commissioned officer corps of the US military (and some others) was considered one of the chief advantages in World War 2. Germany and Japan had very highly trained officers but taught and allowed little initiative and leadership to the lower ranks. Caught in unique situations or times in which there wasn’t an advanced officer, they stalled.

Going back to the old topic, then, it’s not just about discipling but also about recasting the idea of hieararchy. The church needs to stop seeing heroes and champions and royalty, jealously guarding the supposed powers of the ordained. Instead there has to be a philosophical switch that assumes and promotes the idea that everyone is a leader to a rising degree, and give people the real developmental training in study and action to put that into practice.

The church has far too often stumbled and messed up in its non-commissioned officer corp. And because these are the people in the workplaces, in the field, on the front lines, the church has become far too weak. Seemingly for the sole reason of protecting ordained “commissioned” turf.
alan hirsch on October 16th, 2007 1:17 am

Bob, too right. Leadership must learn (first and foremost as a disciple) to rely on the leading and power of the Holy Spirit. Not easily taught eh?
Richard Clarke on October 16th, 2007 9:34 am

I need to add this. It fits here. As part of the MAGL, Bobby Clinton has said many times, “Leadership comes from the heart.” It is about the space we are in with God, more than the things we do ‘for’ God.

As we look at Jesus, our primary model, we see Him being about the connection with the father in order to connect with the disciples.

May we remember and model this in our walk.
tony sheng on October 16th, 2007 10:39 pm

this post and the comments also remind me of what Neil Cole writes - that the best leaders are the ones not creating followers but creating other leaders.
Alan Hirsch on October 16th, 2007 11:33 pm

Neil is a genius.
Steve McA on October 17th, 2007 3:05 am

Well said Alan. I’ve been encouraged by the leadership training on offer over here in Sheffield (The Porterbrook Network entry level training, and Northern Training Institute post-grad level studies). In regards to NTI the theological quality is as high as a Masters program, and the papers some of the students produce are fantastic examples of theological reflection on what is happening in the rest of life. Obviously no one’s getting a piece of paper out of this training, but when you’re planting a missional church, while working part-time as a TESOL teacher for example, the need for a piece of paper tends to fall away
alan hirsch on October 17th, 2007 10:28 am

Steve, the greater pity is that the institutions wont recognize such learning as valid. I have always struggled with that given the Forge context. Same deal.
Peggy on October 17th, 2007 5:15 pm

Hello, Alan and all…processing many of these thoughts here at the Allelon gathering, actually. One of the resonant themes coming from the group is a recognition that any dynamic missional order movement will only come if it is lay-led. And this, of course, will require that the leaders both recognize and equip these emerging leaders and encourage them to engage in the work of ministry.

Matt and Patrick…I’ve had way too many of the same poor experiences

Richard and Brad and Len and Andrew and to many others here are all processing this very topic…but I have to get to sleep

Blessings, all.
Jarrod Shappell on October 18th, 2007 3:54 am

Hey all,

As a student at Mars Hill Graduate School in Seattle, WA I resonate with much of what was shared. The language barrier, the abstracted ideas, and the lack of “ordinary life” are all great critiques. Not to mention that many theological educations spend little time in the text and academia tends to take priority over ecclesia. However, I have found it VERY valuable to take a season of preparation.

At MHGS that season involves a critical look at my hermeneutic, my interpersonal style, etc. I believe that assessing, and in some cases deconstructing, these habits is very difficult in the daily grind of ministry. Perhaps I am drinking the MHGS kool-aid here, but if institutions can find a way to integrate the “ordinary life”, or the things of culture, seminary may not be so alienating.
Patrick on October 18th, 2007 3:06 pm

Alan, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on leadership development for each of the separate APEST categories. One problem I saw with seminary is that it tries to be everything to everyone, and becomes kind of a muddy middle ground.

So much of the ministry leadership models I’ve seen, however, tend to emphasize the apostle or evangelist types.

My own leadership comes out of spending a lot of time in study and pursuing the depths. I’ve learned that as I get more and more focused on that, and on deeper spiritual practices, the more I naturally lead and have to offer in my apparent strengths as a prophet/teacher. So, my leadership did respond well in the academic environment, because my gifting is one of translation, taking depths and sharing them broadly.

I’d love to hear you spend a bit on each type and share how you think those young in each type could be absolutely best developed.
richard on October 19th, 2007 1:41 pm

I put this comment on another blog but after reading some thoughts my reflections on leadership development and discipleship are very similar.

First, as a Father of four kids my deep concern for them is what they will learn is any discipling scenario. Other then Jesus warning, to his disciples, about not preventing the little ones from coming to him there is not a lot said regarding the discipling of children. My kids, currently residing in the West, do not have options to go to seminary or Bible College at this stage for their discipleship; but that doesn’t mean they don’t need it now. As communities of faith we need to comprehend kids learn primarily by doing and watching. If we are not walking together their learning of what following Christ looks like will be very stilted. I don’t want them to wait until 18 so can be discipled.

We need to find ways to fashion leaders who keep moving. The best way to create leaders after all is move another leader. Watch what happens to a bunch of children when one of the older ones goes and plays somewhere else.

Secondly, I have been deeply affected by the movie Arthur; yes the movie starring Clive Owen. Laugh if you will. The overwhelming sense in the movie is that of the retraction of Rome from Britain and consequent changes to the whole political, social and economic landscape. It gives a microcosm snapshot of living through great change; not being able to assume what was true yesterday will be true tomorrow. It was into this vacuum that many of the first great missionary groups came to Britain. They were whole family groups building faith communities in the midst of a very volatile environment.

The wonderful small book, “They Converted Our Ancestors: A Study of the Early Church in Britain By John Foster”, is a wonderful and inspiring read regarding this. My point is many of our assumptions regarding discipleship and leadership occur in a location where the church can own property and seminaries and is very much a legal religion. For many places on this earth this is not true. For many times in our history this is not true. It may not be true for my children. We need to start thinking about discipleship in an environment where we may again not be a “legal religion”.
len hjalmarson on October 28th, 2007 4:59 am

Heh, brothers, I agree. But I still think we need to push this question further
Peggy on October 28th, 2007 9:34 am

So, Len, how do you recommend pushing the question further–and in what direction?

Not that I wouldn’t like to push it lots of places; just wondering what you’re thinking.

…being the only one of the sistren commenting on a thread never stops me from answering a comment addressed to the brothers
SeanB on November 20th, 2007 7:49 pm

Ephesians 4 speaks of developing everybody so they ‘do the stuff’ themselves and come into maturity and unity, a glorious church, and how this is done through the gifts mentioned there. How do you see these gifts? How do you see them operating and ‘given’ to the Body so it can mature?