Overcoming the Contempt of Familiarity

The Seventh Century Greek slave and fable writer, Aesop, is credited with coining the phrase, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” (It is found in the fable, The Fox and the Lion.) This cliché implies that it is wrong, even dangerous, for a leader to become too familiar with those he leads. In ministry it is often suggested that if a pastor gets too close to the congregation then she will end up sacrificing some of the respect of the congregation because they will see the weaknesses of the leader. To avoid this perceived danger some have instructed leaders (even pastors) to maintain a certain aloofness and detachment from those he leads. It is, for example, a violation of military law for commissioned officers to “fraternize” with the enlisted personnel. The belief is that to become too familiar with the enlisted ranks will diminish an officer’s ability to command the respect she needs to lead. In light of this perceived danger one might ask if is it possible to be a servant-leader, to be transparent and vulnerable, and to still be an effective leader.

In Mark’s Gospel chapter 5, we read of Jesus raising a twelve-year-old girl, Jairus’ daughter, from the dead. Then, in chapter 6, we find Jesus returning to His hometown, the town where He grew up, Nazareth. There we do not read of crowds running out to meet Jesus, instead we find an astonishing lack of faith:

2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

This account seems to reinforce the cliché and to underscore the importance of detachment. The people of Jesus’ hometown were not particularly impressed with Jesus and did not rush out to meet Him with their sick and infirmed. Only a few came to Jesus, and Jesus did heal them, but even He was amazed at their lack of faith.

It is very likely that the news of Jesus raising a young girl from death had preceded Him to Nazareth. Many of the miracles, the signs and wonders, were being broadcast abroad. Still, when Jesus came home, back the place of His childhood, the people simply asked, “Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?” Notice the familiarity. These people knew the names of all of Jesus’ brothers! Most of us don’t even know the names of our neighbors, much less their entire family. And because of this, even in the light of the words of wisdom by which Jesus spoke, we are told that “they took offense at him”.

So, could Aesop be right? Is the old leadership model of the heroic figure the right model? Is it possible to be a servant-leader and remain aloof?

I’ve observed leadership in various settings over the years. I’ve been in the military, I worked my way through seminary by working in a factory, and I’ve worked with various pastors in the context of ministry, and it is true, that if a leader is little more than the façade of a great man or woman, then it is in his best interest to keep the people at arm’s length. If the leader portrays herself as infallible then she certainly doesn’t want to get close enough to people for them to see her weaknesses. However, there is a way to overcome the danger of contempt and that is through honesty and humility.

After a series of failure on the part of leaders in many social institutions—from ministry to presidency—younger generations have long ago given up on the illusion that leaders are perfect. In fact, they are often suspicious of leadership that presents itself as somehow superior or above reproach. In Jesus’ case, He was perfect and the lack of faith on the part of the community was unfounded, but we aren’t Jesus. Furthermore, despite the response of His hometown, Jesus was very close to His disciples and we read several times of John laying his head on the chest of Jesus. We see Jesus washing their feet. We find Jesus eating with and “fraternizing” with sinners. Yet Jesus remains the greatest leader to have ever lived.

It is my belief that while a leader should never be guilty of favoritism or of allowing friendships to stand in the path of good leadership decisions, a good leader should never be so detached from the people he leads that he cannot be touched. Even Jesus is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15). The best way to avoid contempt is honesty and humility. A leader should be open and transparent with respect to her struggles. This does not mean that the leader has to detail every failure, but that the leader should own up to his mistakes and set the example by being honest about them.

Moreover, the example of Jesus is that even if some reject the leader, their rejection should not deter the leader from the course he has chosen. Jesus did not retreat in the face of their “offense” but instead Jesus empowered His disciples to move the mission forward. He did not separate Himself from His disciples, but He gave more of Himself to His disciples.

Familiarity can breed contempt among the contemptuous, but familiarity can also build trust and confidence among those whom we serve humbly and honestly as leaders. Furthermore, familiarity with integrity can breed loyalty for those who are willing to serve with humility.

Put Out the Pouters

I was looking back over my blogs and found two places where I indicated that I would address an issue and I failed to do so. The first place where I said I would address an issue was at the end of point XII "Courage to Cancel the Funeral." I noted that I would address the subject of "Casting out the Mourners." This past week I began to address that issue and ended up with a sermon, which you can access at Marginalizing the Mourners. But I still want to address this from the perspective of leadership. So I offer the following which should be considered after point XII.

It is difficult to lead people who persist in having a negative attitude. These are people like those found in Luke's Gospel, chapter 8. Jesus was on his way to heal the 12 year-old daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the local syagogue, when He stopped to talk with a woman who had been healed of a bleeding disorder. In the course of time someone from Jairus' home came with the bad news that his daughter had died. The messenger then told Jairus, "Don't trouble the Master any further." The messenger simply assumed that there was no hope. Jesus, however, looked at Jairus and said, "Don't worry, just believe and your daughter will be healed."

The messenger offered bad news and no hope, but Jesus offered hope and good news which was predicated upon the father's faith and God's power. There will always be people who see only the bad, the sad, the trials and the trouble. They almost always come with bad news and no hope. Every leader needs an honest assesment, and needs people who will be bold enough to bring the news even when it is bad. Leaders should let those around them know that they want the truth and that they are welcome to bring the news even if it is not favorable. However, leaders do not need people who will then publish this news throughout the organization and put a bad spin on every turn of events in the organization.

When Jesus arrived at the house of Jairus the professional mourners had already gathered to weep and to wail at the loss of the young girl. Jesus looked at the situation from the perspective of power, God's power. He said, "She is not dead, she is only sleeping." (She was biologically dead, but from the perspective of God's power, she was only sleeping.) When Jesus said she was only sleeping the people began to ridicule Jesus. Mark's Gospel tells us that Jesus put all the people out of the room except for Peter, James and John, and the girl's parents. Jesus put out the pouters, the grumblers and the doubters.

There are professional mourners in most organizations. These are the glass half-empty people who pout and doubt. They weep and wail over every challenge and see only problems where leaders see potential. The constant negativity of these people will poisen an organization and will spread that negativity throughout the organization if they are given a plateform. A leader does not wallow in self-pity and join the chorus of complainers, but instead the leader faces the situation squarely and then charts a course to overcome the challenge. It may even take a bold risk-taking vision that others may not grasp at first. In these situations the leader best serves the organization by marginalizing the mourners and mainstreaming the posibility thinkers and the bold risk takers who can see the vision and are willing to embrace the challenge.

Jesus raised the young girl back to life and that success set the stage for an even more dramatic event in raising Lazarus from the tomb after being dead for four days. One dramaic victory over seeming overcoming odds goes a long way toward establishing confidence and silencing the doubters. It is all too easy to listen to the negativity and fall into the habit of seeing only the problems or the trouble. Instead, a great leader looks at the situation from a different perspective than the average person and instills hope and possibility in the hearts of the people.

XXI) JESUS AND THE EMERGING LEADERSHIP MODEL

I will wrap this series up with a comparison of the leadership style of Jesus with the model that Jimmy Long proposes for the emerging/Postmodern culture. Long isn’t pushing an “emerging leadership style” as being better than, or more valuable than the modern style. All Long is saying is that a survey of the emerging culture suggests that the leadership style which will be most effective in reaching this culture will most likely have to consist of these particular qualities and that the old model will be less effective for leading the new generation.

With that said, I looked at the list of leadership qualities that Long proposes and I feel that perhaps this model does, in fact, reflect the leadership model of Jesus more closely than the modern model. I know that most of us who value the Bible as “the” Word of God would like to believe that what we are doing, and the way we are doing it, come closest to the biblical model. (If it didn't, presumably we'd change.) However, most of us operate with only a vague understanding of how profoundly we have been impacted by our culture. The modern culture, which emerged out of the Enlightenment, has tended to overshadow the Hebraic/Eastern Worldview in which Scripture was written. The Western worldview of rugged individualism and the heroic figure have impacted the church and have elevated certain positions out of the community and insolated them from the community. As such, leadership, in the modern paradigm, almost always operates with a certain disconnect and therefore often fails to build consensus, but operates from a dictatorial model. In fact, I’ve read leadership material put out by the church only twenty years ago that stated that the pastor was to function as a "benevolent dictator".

There was a day when the position alone was enough, but no more. Now the leader of a church, and even in the business world, has to employ a model that places him or her within the community and his or her role is more that of a servant than a master. This does not mean that no one is at the helm steering the ship, but that everyone on the ship understands where they are going, why they are going there, and how they are going to have to work together to get there.

Returning to Long’s emerging leadership paradigm and the leadership model of Jesus let me suggest the following:

1. Team Leadership—It is obvious that Jesus was building a team to work together to advance the Kingdom of God. Jesus practiced the “see, do, be” mentoring approach. He called the men to Him to be His disciples. SEE: They walked with Him and saw Him perform great miracles. DO: Jesus sent them out into the villages and cities to preach the kingdom, to heal the sick and to cast out demons. BE: Then, before He ascended He told them that He was sending them, even as the Father had sent Him, and that they would do the works that He had done, and even greater than He had done.

2. Community Oriented—Jesus was a man of community. We often see Him alone in prayer, but more often we see Him in with the disciples, with the crowds, even with sinners and publicans. He knew the heart and soul of the people. He understood their frustration with the religious establishment and He was offering them a “better covenant.”

3. Earned Authority—Jesus was unique in the fact that He is God in the flesh. And yet, this authority alone did not gather crowds to Him. It was as He performed miracles, as He did those things that revealed His authority that people believed and followed Him. It is doubtful that even with all His authority, that Jesus would have gathered a following on the power of His words alone. Even His disciples believed after seeing water turned to wine, or seeing Him calm the waves. Likewise, in the emerging community, words alone (regardless of how well we may think we preach and teach) are not going to be enough. It will be by our good works that our faith is revealed and God is glorified—so says Jesus and James.

4. Vulnerable Leader—This is obvious. Jesus made Himself of no reputation. He became human and walked in our skin. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He allowed them to take Him by force, beat Him, and nail Him to a cross naked. One doesn’t get much more vulnerable than that!

5. Developing Vision—Jesus consistently reminded the disciples of His destiny, though they didn’t seem to get it until after the resurrection. He spoke often of the kingdom of God and what it was like. He told them of their roles and challenged them with both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

6. Empower—Jesus empowered the disciples with the authority of His name, and promised them power in the Holy Spirit once He ascended to the Father. Talk about delegating! Jesus came to earth with a mission, called a team around Him to complete the mission, mentored them, empowered them and then sent them to the uttermost parts of the earth while He ascended to the right hand of the Father. True enough, His position at the right hand of the Father further empowers us.

7. Journey—Jesus’ entire ministry illustrates the journey. He was constantly on the move. Unlike foxes that have holes, He said that He didn’t even have anywhere to lay His head. His entire life was a journey toward Calvary, and then to ascension to the Father. He likened the Christian experience to entering a narrow gate and walking on a narrow road.

8. Inspire to Leadership—There were not many who would have been willing to give their lives in martyrdom for the sake of a carpenter’s son. But Jesus inspired these men and women with His words and with His life. He gave them a vision of something far better and eternal than what they had known.

Perhaps I’m pressing the point, but I feel that we need to go back to the future, to reclaim the leadership model of Jesus and that in so doing we will be better equipped to reach the culture that is emerging out of the false security and self-delusion of the modern culture. One of the characteristics of the emerging culture is the loss of a meta-narrative. A meta-narrative is an overarching Worldview which sums up human existence. In the Postmodern culture the meta-narrative is rejected favor of the micro-narrative. In other words, they would maintain that there is no “one” story and that all stories (religions) are equally valid.

The problem with this view is that it is self-deluding. It's fallacy is soon revealed when competing world views, which claim exclusivity, are brought into conflict. If all micro-narratives are equally valid, then each one is right in saying that it is the only one that is right. This creates a logical paradox that eventually dawns upon even the Postmodern. They may claim to hold this tension unresolved, but it creates a vacuum, a void into which Christianity has the opportunity to flow. It cannot be forced, but the macro-narrative of the kingdom of God has something to offer those who become dissatisfied with the void created the multitudinous micro-narratives.

The emerging culture is nothing to be feared, nor should the church allow the culture to dictate the agenda of the church. That agenda has already been established by Christ in the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. However, as fishers of men we should be wise enough to cast our nets where the fish are, to use bait that they will bite on, and to be ready to fill our boats to the overflow with the catch.

During a time when the liturgical tradition church is declining, there are many examples of those who have caught the vision of the opportunities of the emerging culture and whose churches are rapidly growing. It takes leadership, it takes a Jesus kind of leadership, but it can and does happen.

XX) BACK TO THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP

I remember a trilogy of movies from the 80's entitled, Back to the Future. Marty, played by Michael J. Fox, was the main character who, through a series of events related to an eccentric scientist and a time machine, goes first back to the past and then to his future before going back to the more distant past and eventually returns to his present. His present, however, has been altered by his activities in the past. The time machine was a modified Delorian (a stainless steel car for some of you younger folks). Interestingly, at the time the movie was made a Delorian was a modernistic looking car but the car company went defunct and no longer exists.

I reflect upon that movie because the title seems like an oxymoron. The future, as we all know, is thought of as being forward in a linear timeline stretching from the past. We speak of “eternity past” and “eternity future” and illustrate this with a line. A line, in geometry, is a straight line with two arrows pointing in opposite directions on each end. It suggests that it has no beginning and no end. A segment is a line with points or dots at the end. It represents a specific measurment or a definable period to time, as such, time is a segment plucked out of eternity. So to talk about going backward in order to go forward is a paradoxical statement. Yet, in the discussion of leadership it seems that we do, indeed, need to go backward if we hope to be able to lead in the present future. Let me explain.

I recently attended a conference with Leonard Sweet and Jimmy Long as the featured speakers. These men are both recognized as leaders in the current “emerging church” movement. They are also futurists and surveyors of culture. These men, as well as those who work in this field of study agree that our culture, on a global scale, is changing and a new cultural paradigm is “emerging” --hence the concept of the emerging church. Some refer to it as Postmodern. This term too, seems somewhat oxymoronic in that we often though of modern as a dynamic, or a moving definition, rather than a static or stationary definition. As such, we tended to believe that modern is always modern. We conceded that what was “modern” today may well be “antique” in the future, but it seemed that it would be impossible to move beyond modern because modern was moving forward.

Now are are saying that this may not have been the case at all. Many are now saying that we have moved beyond modern. Modernity is a cultural mindset with its own rules, structures and worldview, and many still operate within this worldview. However, the cultural shift going on in the world is so dramatic and dynamic that the cultural paradigm of modernity is quickly becoming obsolete and the changes are accelerating. Within the last week, the disaster in New Orleans is one example of an event in our time that challenges the very fabric of all that we Americans held dear as a “modern” nation. We have watched a modern city in a relatively young nation reduced to primitive, third-world conditions in a matter of days.

What will the results of this tragedy be? How it will affect the psyche and the spirituality of the nation? Already there is a growing dissatisfaction with the response of the government and of leadership in general. Justified or not, the perception being created through the media is that nothing is being done and that leadership from local police precincts all the way up to the president has failed to respond in a timely manner. This perception is and will alter the role and the reality of future leadership.

It was during the conference I attended (which was held prior to Hurricane Katrina) that Jimmy Long compared and contrasted leadership models from the “Modern” cultural paradigm with the paradigm of the “Postmodern” or “Emerging” culture. Let me list both models:

Modern Leadership Paradigm

Individual Leader (One person in charge of the whole)

Task Oriented (We gather together to do this task)

Positional Authority (He/She holds this title, so they are the leader)

Heroic Leader (He/She is the picture of strength and courage)

Building Structures (Organizational and literal structures)

Direct (Give specific commands, directives, directions)

Destination Oriented (We are going to this place and when we get there we have reached our goal)

Aspire to Leadership (Being a leader is a worthy goal, and something to strive for)

Emerging Leadership ParadigmTeam Leadership (The leader is part of a team and they are working together. He is seem more as a coach helping the team to succeed.)

Community Oriented (We are not coming together only to achieve this task, but we are coming together to be together in community.)

Earned Authority (You are not commissioned leadership, you earn it through trust, integrity, and concern.)

Vulnerable Leader (The leader must demonstrate that he or she is on the same road, walking with the team. As such, he or she struggles with the same issues.)

Developing Vision (The leader is not trying to build a structure, but is developing a vision, which may be in flux, not as a fixed point of reference, but as an emerging and fluid direction toward which the organization moves.)

Empower (The leader does not claim to know or have all the answers, but empowers others to find their answers for themselves. Empowers them to become and to achieve a state of genuinaity (my new word, which means to be “genuine, honest, real and in touch with existential moment”.)

Journey (The goal is not to reach a goal, to mobilize for a destination, but to engage in the journey, to have, as Tillich puts it, “the courage to be” in the moment.)

Inspire to Leadership (Given that leadership is now suspect. Baby Boomers have witnessed the Watergate debacle, have gone back to revisit the moral lapses of icons, like John Kennedy, have seen the moral failures of Evangelical Superstars, and now Generation X and the new Millennial generation are witnessing the moral failures of Catholic priests and are witnessing the seeming impotency of current governmental and military leadership in the face of disaster. So who wants to be a leader? What is there to aspire to? If we are going to have leadership for the future, then current leaders are going to have to inspire the next generation to step up and be willing to lead.)

With all of that said, and after reviewing the two lists of characteristics of leadership, it seems to me that the leadership style of Jesus was more along the lines of emerging culture than of the modern. So perhaps, to be an effective leader for to the future, we need to go back to the model that Christ gave us. I will explore this thesis a little more in my next blog.