I was recently at a meeting and it was, as has been the case over the last two years, a meeting in which there was a lot of energy. This particular group of men and women have been meeting to review where the congregation has been, discussing where it currently is, and imaging where the Spirit might be guiding. In times of such intentional reflection there is always richness. This group, as with most that engage with leadership, modelled self-challenge, as well as comfort in listening to ideas that were either new or difficult. I suspect that many who are in leadership, either Ordered or Lay, have been in this place. And, as my own experience has evidenced, there are moments of profound insight, perhaps even revelation ...
During a particular moment in the conversation, one of us was sharing an event from the past. There was much fondness in the recollection and the reminiscing was obviously held dearly. As we discussed the event and how it was lived out in the present and how it might work in the future, it became clear that the church had changed. Though the event that had provided opportunities for fellowship in the past, it was clear that the current context in which we all sat was no longer appropriate for it. That was hard enough. The leader in this case clearly had emotional investment, had benefited from the experience in the past and obviously wanted to share that with the family of faith who may never have had the opportunity. There were many tensions in that moment and then, or so it seemed to me, wisdom was spoken...
"It's just hard to let it go ..." And it is in that honesty, that vulnerability, that this blog was conceived.
I do not have extensive personal experience about leadership in the past, though I have read a lot about how generational context has informed the way it has been lived out. Emerging Spirit has effectively used, in my opinion, parallel descriptions to illustrate the shift in church leadership from the ‘Sage on the Stage' to the ‘Guide on the Side.' Obviously any reduction of research can water down its import, but I believe this concise comparison helped in that moment. The leader, about whom I was discussing, shifted from a model that assumed leadership equalled ownership and, therefore, success was connected to the person who facilitated the event to a perspective that is grounded in a comfort to take chances: Chances that opened the door to accept that just because something that worked in the past and did not work in the present was not a reflection on the individual.
I think this event has a lot to say about both the leadership of today and wherever the church might be going, regardless of whether we mean ‘C'hurch or ‘c'hurch. Whoever our leaders are and might be, there is going to require a comfort, a confidence perhaps more accurately, in who s/he is and to live with the ambiguity that comes with failure. If we cannot let go of where we have been, while also being able to reflect on what we can learn from the past, we are simply going to continue to recreate the same structures and models in which we currently reside. Edifices that are clearly no longer contextually appropriate. If we can live into that role of self-assuredness that is able to differentiate success as being connected with how many are in attendance and from success that is not gauged by qualitative results, but quantitative ones, then perhaps this Emerging Spirit might be an opportunity for newness, for resurrection.
The resistance to the intent of the Emerging Spirit program, as I have experienced it, is that it is comfortable with the reality that we do not know where we are going, and our society does not like that. There are few buoys or frames of reference that are similar to our current context. The most potent is that of the Early Church, which was composed of men and women who were inundated by a dominant culture that conveyed messages that did not encourage the taking of chances. We live in a culture of professionals and experts, where we doubt ourselves and acquiesce responsibility. Waking up can be a difficult thing. To lead, to be a community of disciples, requires something that no amount of education, no volume of information can ever provide and that is faith. Faith is not the rejection of knowledge or science, it is the realisation that all of the words that we have accumulated over the millennia are, perhaps crudely put, simply tools. Letting go is, finally, about humility and taking a step of faith and then using the tools we have collectively developed to help nurture the Kingdom that will be in the here and now ...
© WonderCafe. All Rights Reserved
Brought to you by the people of The United Church of Canada
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of WonderCafe or The United Church of Canada

Comments
rishi
Personally, I think that the
Posted on: 05/16/2009 09:06
Personally, I think that the "sage on the stage" vs. the "guide on the side" dichotomy, apart from being annoyingly baby-boomerish, conceals more than it reveals.
It conceals a bona fide leadership crisis in the church, a crisis of pseudo-sages on the stages and pseudo-guides on the sides, who have accumulated a good stock of shlock, but whose lives lack the fruit (the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual development) to practically lead others into a way of life that is truly better than they are now living -- "better," that is, because it manifestly reduces unnecessary suffering and fosters the flourishing of human beings.
Ours is not just a problem of an outdated form. And concealing this situation with clever would-be-post-modern spins and jargon is not helpful. Instead of trying to construct an all new and improved religious professional, who can walk and talk like a real live "guide on the side," why not abandon the Frankenstein approach altogether for a while and do something novel?
Many traditions outside of our little religious bubble grow leaders very differently than we do. Why not sincerely ask those who still have credible sages and guides in their midst (maybe the Buddhists? or the Hindus? or surviving Aboriginal elders?) what they think has gone wrong with our religion and how they think we might go about fixing it? Lots of former members of the church are finding credible spiritual leaders, and a better way of life, within such communities. Maybe we should follow their lead.
Profoundly tired of the emerging rhetoric,
Rishi
Fionavar
Rishi, I agree that until we
Posted on: 05/16/2009 02:48
Rishi,
I agree that until we begin to have conversations about leadership, we are tempted to indeed fall into our old patterns. I also feel resonance with the idea of a leadership crisis ... I also realise that WE are all products of our context and never, fully, divest of the places from which we come ... My own context is an Orthodox Tradition and, though I have been humbled by recent revelation, it informs much of the filters with which I perceive my UCC Accountability.
Though I do not challenge your appropriate observation to understand more fully ecumenical and inter-denominational understanding of leadership, I think that we also need to more fully appreciate our own Denominational perspective. And, and I hope this is not heard as argumentative, until we appreciate our own context (and I would offer we do not in fact know our history collectively well) we stand in temptation of disregarding the wisdom that exists with those who are within our midst and upon whose shoulders we stand ...
rishi
That is a good point, well
Posted on: 05/16/2009 09:03
That is a good point, well taken.
A related question is: How far back should we go in appreciating our denominational perspective (Tommy Douglas? John Wesley? Calvin? Theresa of Avila? Augustine? Plato?) ?
Another is: How can we responsibly question the wisdom of some of those on whose shoulders we are currently standing?
And one final one: Must all those now in our midst with a loud voice (e.g., David Giuliano, Lois Wilson, Gretta Vosper ) be deemed equally wise, and if not, on what basis will wisdom be known?
I still think, though, that the timing is very good for an outside consultation (and I don't mean with a marketting firm... :)
Rishi
Fionavar
I think that because we
Posted on: 05/17/2009 00:22
I think that because we recognise that we stand upon other's shoulders does not mean that we do not question ... in fact I think that is part of repsonsibility. If we do not question and challenge tthe voices from our past, we stand in a dangerous place that can lead to idolatry. As well, if we do not recognise and challenge the past, we end up in a place in which we do in fact loose sight of our context and history. I guess, I wonder, how do we stay engaged with who we have been, in order to become more fully who we are journeying toward?
I think the answer, for me, with your second question lies in the what I just said. Leadership is important, but I do not think we are meant to simply defer. The question for me, and perhaps this is semantic, is how do we effectively engage in discussion with our leaders in a way that leads to newness. If we have leaders who are already in a binary place, I have the answer and you do not, then we are not going to get too far. If, however, we come to the table confident in who we are and open to the vulnerability that comes with true sharing, then something new might begin.
Finally the idea of a consultation ... I would love to hear more abnout what that means for you rather than me infer soemthing that may not be present.