Alban at Duke Divinity School at Durham, North Carolina, United States for Monday, 16 October 2017 "PRACTICAL WISDOM FOR LEADING CONGREGATIONS: Disruption and leadership development in mainline Protestantism" - Alban Weekly
Faith & Leadership
Disruption and leadership development in mainline Protestantism
Photo courtesy of Duke Divinity School
Mainline Protestantism has been slow to create new models of clergy leadership development that take into account the disruptive forces acting in congregations and the culture.Editor's note: This is part of a series of articles in which three United Methodist Church leaders explore disruptive innovation and what it means for the future of mainline Protestantism.
Mainline Protestantism long assumed that it didn't need to do anything extraordinary to develop clergy leadership. After all, in many cases, being a pastor was almost a "family business." We could always rely on the strong families who had handed down the calling from generation to generation. For many pastors, mentoring took place in literal family systems, and regardless of how one was called to ministry, clergy gatherings had a family-like feel.
Even for those who were not born into pastoral ministry, the path to ordained leadership was clear and easily understood. Young people tested their leadership skills in church youth groups, developed them in campus ministries, and then nourished and strengthened them in seminaries. Family and denominational structures reinforced each other and prepared people for a particular kind of leadership that was rooted in established cultures. Ken recalls a clergy colleague who rebelled against his family, not by taking a year to follow the Grateful Dead, but by attending a different southern Presbyterian seminary than his father had!
Beneath this model of clergy development was a certain set of assumptions about the nature and role of seminary and the entire process of pastoral formation. Seminary was assumed to be the primary place that prepared clergy to serve as pastors. Would-be pastors were initially formed within families, congregations and denominations, but the seminary was where the real education occurred, transmitting and instilling the knowledge and skills necessary for effective congregational ministry. Beyond seminary, some modest continuing education might be good to have, but it wasn't essential.
This model of leadership development seemed to function well for both church and clergy in an era when congregations were homogeneous, candidates for ministry were mostly middle-class Anglo men, and clergy skills were easily transferable from one congregation and community to the next. In retrospect, that model never was as effective as people thought it was, but in that very different time, it at least appeared to be working OK.
That time, however, has long since passed. Yet mainline Protestantism has been slow to adapt and develop new models that take into account the disruptive forces acting in congregations and the culture. Instead, we continue to rely mostly upon the same ineffective systems while failing to address the leadership development needs of clergy and congregations.
Seminaries still tend to offer curricula rooted in assumptions of cultural and denominational stability. Denominations continue to provide education and training based primarily on institutionally endorsed needs and categories. And even the way we identify and recruit future clergy depends more on people self-selecting for ministry than on any comprehensive and creative discernment of the church’s needs.
In short, we in the mainline have not paid attention to multiple disruptive forces affecting clergy leadership development. A more diverse population -- including women and people from a variety of ethnic and immigrant traditions -- are answering God’s call into ministry. Congregations and entire denominations are undergoing profound change. In an increasingly post-Christian America, churches have new and different expectations for clergy, including the possession of entrepreneurial skills.
For years, the “professional” model of leadership development -- focused on obtaining degrees, first from college and then seminary -- seemed able to cope with the forces of disruption. It could handle a broader range of clergy candidates as long as the women and ethnic candidates came from the middle class and could afford college and seminary tuition. But the old model has not worked as well for aspiring pastors from immigrant communities who lack either the money or the time necessary to acquire the requisite bachelor’s and master’s degrees.
At the same time, seminaries have been slow to recognize the new skills that clergy leaders need in today’s changing environment. Because many students lack basic formation in Scripture, history, doctrine and preaching, seminaries appropriately continue to emphasize knowledge and skills in these classical areas. Even in this new era, clergy and lay leaders need to know the church’s Scripture, traditions and practices.
Yet seminaries either haven’t seen or have resisted the need for new courses and training in areas of practical theology that are critically important in disruptive times. Clergy today need to know not only about Scripture but also about leadership and management, entrepreneurial approaches to mission and evangelism (including church planting), community development, and digital media and other new forms of communication.
Meanwhile, as seminaries operate much as they always have, mainline denominations have continued to focus on their standards and rules for becoming clergy. They have discounted the significance of lay leadership development other than in congregational roles or as part of recognized men’s or women’s groups.
As a result, rather than creatively discerning the church’s leadership needs, challenges and opportunities and then finding candidates to address them, denominational and seminary leaders have relied primarily on potential candidates working through their own sense of call to ministry. The result has been weak talent pools, poorly defined roles, narrow descriptions of essential clergy skills, and ineffective and under-financed systems of leadership development.
But if seminaries and denominations have been blind to the forces of disruptive innovation, local congregations have not. Instead, they have felt the disruptive forces firsthand and, as a result, have launched a host of innovative experiments to develop the clergy they need. Congregations such as Willow Creek in Chicago, Saddleback in Southern California and Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City have become teaching congregations, with their own programs to develop congregational leaders. Other congregations, such as St. John’s United Methodist Church in Houston, have hired missions pastors to do innovative ministry in surrounding neighborhoods, programs such as Lanecia Rouse’s arts ministry(link is external) with homeless persons.
In addition, many congregations are looking not to seminaries but to their own laity for the next generation of leadership. They recognize that laypeople are likely better-equipped than seminary graduates to provide the skills they need in such areas as business, education and community development.
Read more in this series
Other experiments in disruptive innovation are being supported by foundations, seminaries and other Christian institutions. For example, the Lilly Endowment Transition-into-Ministry project helps young clergy leaders get a good start in ministry. City Seminary in New York is exploring new ways to equip people for urban ministry, especially those from immigrant populations. Other seminaries are developing new degree programs and other initiatives to support, encourage and nurture future leaders. And Christian institutions such as church-related hospitals and camps are also developing Christian leaders in fresh ways.
The driving force behind these new forms of leadership development in mainline Protestantism is simple; as Clay Christensen’s work tells us, new problems had to be solved and new populations reached. Even though seminaries and denominations as a rule have been slow to adapt, some congregations and institutions have not, as these and other experiments have helped find new solutions and new populations.
Can mainline Protestants shift our mindsets so as to embrace such experiments? Can we create new ecosystems to encourage long-term, faithful and effective leadership development for both laity and clergy?
Clearly, seminaries will have to play an important part in this new ecology. So too will teaching congregations and other Christian institutions that support and nurture congregations.
And all of us, together, will need to learn to adapt and innovate.
Read more »
IDEAS THAT IMPACT: LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Faith & Leadership
RECONCILIATION, GLOBAL, CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP
The leader and the loyal opposition
What if Christian leaders intentionally cultivated relationships with people in their organizations who offer constructive and creative disagreement?
A radio interview with a recently re-elected president of an African nation caught my attention recently on my way in to work. The interviewer was asking him about the results of his re-election (which he won by more than 90 percent of the vote). She asked whether the final tallies were the result of repression of opposition voices, and, after some back-and-forth, she asked pointedly, “Don’t you, as the leader of your country, have a responsibility to cultivate a viable opposition party?”
Such an interesting question! Setting aside the larger geopolitical and human rights implications, it made me wonder if leaders of institutions have a responsibility to cultivate opposition to their own leadership.
Frankly, I’m not sure most leaders even think about it, because it seldom feels as though they suffer from a shortage of opposition. Further, most have been trained to believe that central to their work is “gaining alignment,” the building of strong coalitions within their organization (and beyond) to achieve a discerned vision. In many leader development programs, days-long sessions are dedicated to the art of attaining and maintaining organizational alignment.
This suggests that for most leaders “the opposition” has become a problem to be solved or overcome, not a constituency to be encouraged. But might there be merit in a leader spending his or her limited time cultivating a loyal opposition? The answer, I would suggest, depends on how we define the opposition.
If we hear in that word a reference to the predictable obstructionists who derail any meeting they attend, or if we hear it and imagine the crank who is never happier than when he or she is complaining about a policy or program, then “the opposition” seems like a group of people no one should spend time cultivating.
But if we define the word differently then we might find a group worthy of significant individual and institutional investment. If we hear “opposition” and think about those people with whom we have serious disagreements but with whom we have creative and constructive encounters, then we have identified a group worthy of a share -- perhaps even a sizable share -- of time and resources.
Doris Kearns Goodwin offers one example of this in her book “Team of Rivals,” in which she chronicles the inner workings of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet. Lincoln selected for his cabinet three of his former rivals for the Republican nomination for president (William Seward as secretary of state, Salmon Chase as treasury secretary and Edward Bates as attorney general). Historians may argue whether this represented a certain “keep your friends close, your enemies closer” political pragmatism on Lincoln’s part; however, Kearns Goodwin seems to suggest that by harnessing the energies and passions of this opposition, Lincoln offered the country better leadership in the end.
And if, as Christians, we already have an obligation to reach out to those who disagree with us, doesn’t it make sense to invest in those opponents with whom reconciliation seems most fruitful?
Here, the notion of the “loyal opposition” might be helpful. In the British parliamentary system (among others), the party that is in the minority is referred to as the loyal opposition, a sign of their ideological divergence from the party in power but also of their respect for the majority party’s authority to govern. For Christian institutional leaders, cultivating a loyal opposition, a group that can disagree while also recognizing the calling and authority of the leader, seems essential.
The problem for most leaders is that they spend so much of their time reacting to those who simply oppose them that their “loyal” opposition gets neglected. Members of the latter group then never receive the attention and support they need to become creative and constructive dissenters. Without such attention, people can devolve into frustrated naysayers.
But what if that changed? What if institutional and ecclesial leaders refused to pay attention to the squeaking wheels? What would happen if the bishop made it a practice to shred all anonymous letters (which are soul-taxing even if not terribly time-consuming)? Or if the pastor refused to meet with lay members until they offered constructive solutions to their familiar litany of complaints?
Then, in turn, what would happen if the bishop invited five pastors with whom she disagreed on almost everything to breakfast once a month to talk about the diocesan, synod, or conference vision? What if a pastor invited the two or three most opinionated lay leaders to read a book with him and discuss it informally? What if …
These particular ideas may not work. But it’s worth asking: What if leaders actually sought out constructive opposition and cultivated it wisely?
Of course, for Christian institutional leaders, trusting and cultivating the loyal opposition is not just politically savvy or institutionally beneficial; it is not just about providing better leadership in the end. It is also about the witness we offer in and through our leadership, for investing in the other with whom we disagree is a practice of reconciliation. It says that our relationships will not be defined or determined by our differences, but by grace -- grace that binds us together in shared work for the sake of the world.
By identifying and nurturing a loyal opposition, lea
ders not only do themselves a favor but live attuned to the heartbeat of the gospel.
Read more from Nathan E. Kirkpatrick »
Faith & Leadership
MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Victoria Atkinson White: ‘Challenge assignments’ can help develop your staff
"Challenge assignments" can help develop your staff
Read more from Nathan E. Kirkpatrick »
Faith & Leadership
MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Victoria Atkinson White: ‘Challenge assignments’ can help develop your staff
"Challenge assignments" can help develop your staff
Illustration by Claire Doyle Ragin
Successful leaders benefit from a combination of on-the-job learning that stretches them, developmental relationships, and formal training, writes the managing director of grants at Leadership Education at Duke Divinity.
Fear and excitement pulsed through me. I knew the only answer was, “Yes, sir, thank you for the opportunity.” I had been on the job for a little more than a year when my boss told me that we had been invited to submit a $2 million grant proposal to strengthen relationships among our key partners. He wanted me to write it. I had a seminary degree, and I had good instincts in nurturing relationships among people and organizations. I was a decent writer. But I had no experience with grants. I assembled a team to help fill the gaps in my experience. Through this process, I got to know professionals who helped me take the project further than I ever could have dreamed. A grant coach from the funding institution served as an invaluable mentor and brainstorming partner. The experience of writing that grant changed the course of my vocation. It introduced me to new avenues of ministry and networks that have continued to expand over the years. It helped me learn the skills needed to craft and oversee a large foundation grant.
Training opportunity: Send your staff to Foundations of Christian Leadership(link is external), a formational program that cultivates theological and practical imagination in emerging leaders
What I saw at the time as a résumé builder and generous opportunity I now see as an example of what the Center for Creative Leadership calls a “challenge assignment” -- a key component of CCL’s “70-20-10” rule for leadership development.The “Lessons of Experience” research from CCL suggests that “successful leaders learn within three clusters of experience(link is external): challenging assignments (70%), developmental relationships (20%), and coursework and training (10%).” Through this challenge assignment, my supervisor secured what he and the institution needed: the grant. At the same time, he created a contextual leadership development opportunity for me. Creating opportunities for challenge is one of the drivers behind Leadership Education at Duke Divinity’s new Innovation Grants program. Grants of up to $5,000 will be available to participants in a number of Leadership Education programs, beginning with Foundations of Christian Leadership-Greensboro(link is external). Sending employees to conferences or seminars can be a simple and effective way to help them learn new mindsets, network with other professionals and develop leadership skills. But how many times have you returned from a conference energized, only to quickly return to your old ways of functioning? Challenging those returning employees with assignments that push them beyond their skills and experience will, in keeping with the 70-20-10 guideline, reinforce what they have learned, develop their leadership capacity and expand the capacity of the organization. As a leader, do you look for opportunities to give such assignments to promising employees? If you don’t routinely hand out challenge assignments, what is preventing you from making this investment in less-experienced staff? Our Innovation Grants process provides some guidance for structuring challenge assignments in your institution. Consider these questions:
More importantly, I learned the value of challenge assignments to developing leadership skills and confidence in others, and I now look for opportunities to pass this experience along. It is a sacred privilege to take stock of the talents of those around me and offer occasions for growth, challenge and leadership development -- moments when they can say, “Yes, thank you for the opportunity.”
FROM THE ALBAN LIBRARY
Discover inspiring, practical ways your board can make its meetings become opportunities for deepening faith, developing leadership, and church renewal. Research included in this book includes interviews with lay leaders; clergy; and seminary, judicatory, and denominational staff from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and Evangelical Christian faith traditions.
|
Follow us on social media:
Copyright © 2016. All Rights Reserved.
Alban at Duke Divinity School
No comments:
Post a Comment