Problems are like rocks--they're hard

Luke 8:6
6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. KJV

Last year our church had some work completed on two of our fields. In fact, we had the two fields combined to make one large field. We have a dream of a sports ministry at the church and with a gym for basketball and volleyball, as well as a top-notch fitness center--we are well on our way. However, we needed to develop our fields for softball, football, and soccer. Last year the Lord blessed us with over $50,000 in dirt and grading to bring our dreams closer to reality.

Every morning I drive down the edge of the large field and enjoy the serene scene of rich green grass growing over a field that is several acres large. Away from the phone in the office, I check my calendar, read some devotional scriptures, and then I get out and pray while I walk the field. As I walk the field I find that beneath the grass, mostly hidden from view, there are many stones and some large rocks that need to be removed before anyone attempts to dive for pop-fly or tackle someone. So every morning I find and fling rocks from our field. As I’ve done this, I asked God what lesson there is for me in this exercise. This morning God have me an “ah-ha” moment.

Rocks are like problems. There are small ones that can be easily handled, in fact, several can be handled at once and easily dispensed with. Others are larger, harder to dig out and difficult to carry. Some require assistance in removing. Some are hidden beneath the grass and not readily seen, others stand out like a sore thumb.

In addition to myself, some geese have found our field and the fresh green grass is more than they can resist. So them come, they eat, and they leave behind little reminders of their visit. If I get in a hurry, and if I don’t pay close attention to what I’m doing, I find myself with a handful of goose poo. (I hate it when that happens!)

Leadership requires that problems, challenges, and obstacles be dealt with. Let’s face it, problems are hard, that’s why we call them problems, but with patience, persistence, and close observation, they can be dispensed with until the beauty on the surface, is matched by the beauty beneath. It may seem like an endless task. Sometimes it seems like the ground is growing more rocks, but over time I see the difference and feel good about what I’ve done. Still, I know that before the job is finished, I’m going to have to recruit others to the field with me to find and fling the rocks from our field.

When To Speak Out

You're at a meeting and an issue arises that you are informed on and on which you have an opinion or an important insight. However, your comments do not agree with what appears to be a consensus among the members of the meeting. When do you speak up? How do you broach the subject? Or do you sit back and hope that someone else will speak to the topic and therefore you will not have to get up in front of a crowd and speak.

I speak in front of crowds frequently, and do so with little anxiety. I enjoy being asked to share my insights and inspirations. But when I'm in front of a group of my peers, I tend to get nervous. I have as much experience as most of them, and more education than most of them, but there is something about a group of peers that tends to intimidate me. The problem with not speaking, even when one's insights are obviously outside of the seeming consensus is that there is a tendency for something known as "groupthink" to occur.

Groupthink is the enemy of innovation and creativity. Groupthink tends to keep everyone going in the same direction without asking if this is the direction we should be going.

The fact is that there is a time to speak, and we should respect the process enough to allow others with various opinions to be heard. In fact, we should encourage diversity of perspectives because if we are all standing on one side of the mountain, we will all have but a part of the picture, not the entire picture. We need to hear from the other side.

If you are informed on the subject, and have another perspective to add to the discussion, do not sit back. Add your voice and be willing to be different.

Emerging Problems

It is no secret that the Emergent movement is a protest against traditional church. The problem with Emergents is that aside from some commonality with respect to their attempts to engage the enigma known as Postmodernism, and a few common practices in the expression of worship, the movement is ill-defined, lacking in theological formation, and is driven by pragmatism rather than principle.

When one attempts to explore the tenants of the Emergent movement, one finds a plethora of voices all claiming to speak for the movement. There are many who are ready to rush into the leadership void, and a few have already claimed that mantle for themselves. They have attempted to set the agenda and when others on the fringe make claims for the Emergent movement they are dismissed because they do not align with a movement that is seeking to liberate church from the confines of creeds and doctrines, boundaries and bonds of traditionalism. Yet, one finds that the logic of Emergent church becomes quite circular and self-serving.

For example, in one message board, an inquirer is shocked at some statements of a self-proclaimed Emergent, but the views of this Emergent are dismissed because they don’t represent the mainline view of the movement. Sez who? Sez the people who claim to be the spokesmen/women for Emergents.

They cannot point to any consistent theology because it is still in formation (or in their words “reformation”). They cannot state what they are, only what they are not. They are not traditional (as they define traditional), they are not linear in their approach to thinking and communicating, they are not modernists, they are not positivists, they are not bound by the dogma of previous generations, they are not limited to previous exegetical approaches to Scripture, they are not churchy, and they are not hierarchical in organizational structure (unless you disagree with the self-ascribed leadership).

The Emergent movement is driven by pragmatism because, by their own admission, it is a movement that is targeting the Postmodern generation. The foundational question is not biblically based, but is culturally driven, it is the question of what do we have to do to reach this generation. A principle driven movement begins with biblically based foundational premises, but the Emergent church is prepared to place clear biblical principles on the shelf while they wrestle with what it will take to appeal to the Postmoderns.

For example, in Scripture the issue of homosexuality is unambiguously addressed as a perversion of human conduct that is completely inconsistent with the biblical example of Christ, Pauline teaching, Old Covenant and New Covenant stipulations. Yet, because the Postmoderns are more open to alternate lifestyles, Brian McLaren is willing to put the issue of homosexuality on hold, to set it aside for a few years before taking a position. Pragmatism does not ask what is right, but what works. Admittedly, many churches are operating from this same paradigm, so how is Emergent any different from the form of church they reject?

Again, fresh expressions of worship are always welcomed. A renewed desire for an experiential relationship with God is certainly appropriate. A willingness to look at Scripture with culturally unbiased eyes for a contemporary word from God is a good thing. But the Emergent movement, as I read it in Sweet, McLaren, et al, is not as much about reformation of Protestantism or Pentecostalism, but it is, in their minds, as much of a protest against current Christianity as Protestantism was against Catholicism. In the words of Erwin McManus, “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity.”

I am wary of those who drape their own shoulders with the mantle of leadership and then define reality through their own eyes. As one poster on a message board argued, “I am the authority for what the Emergent church really is. Ask me, don’t search for yourself.”

Motivating Volunteers

How do we motivate volunteers to remain committed and to give of themselves sacrificially? I think that Maslow’s self-esteem and self-actualization levels in his five teir hierarchy are important. Additionally, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory holds promise in that the intrinsic conditions needed to elicit motivation can be employed in the church. These are achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, the work itself, and the possibility of growth.

I think that by providing training with certificates and measured advancement can be motivating, as well as publicly presenting certificates or diplomas for completion. Also, recognizing the contributions of others is motivational. I have always had a weekly lay-leaders recognition program where I prayerfully consider the labors of a lay-leader from that week and then recognize them in the bulletin as “Christian Worker of the Week,” and post their name and ministry activity on the bulletin board.

This is important for me as well, in that, if forces me to stop and seriously consider all the significant contributions to ministry that are made by volunteers in the church. After that, I have to stop for a moment and thank God for so many committed people.

Three Leaders In The Flock

The truth is that we have far too many people who want the title, the position, and the privilege of being a leader but fail to lead effectively. It is frustrating for a pastor to have a teacher who does not lead his or her class, to have an elder who does not consistently engage the people for whom he is responsible, or to have the staff member who fails to train and equip workers to minister. Ultimately, as the pastor I am responsible for leading the leaders and developing them. As President Harry Truman reminded himself with a plaque on his desk, “The buck stops here!” If my leaders aren’t leading, then perhaps, I’m not doing my job.

The Gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 11 through 13 shows us three types of leaders who impact a flock. Jesus said,

11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. NIV

A shepherd, by definition, leads the sheep. Jesus said in verse 4 that the sheep will follow the shepherd because they know his voice. Three types of leadership models are found in this text. First, there is the good shepherd. This is a servant leader (or perhaps more definitively, a kenotic leader) who is prepared to give everything for the sheep. Five times in verses 11-18 Jesus refers to laying down His life. This leader is willing to place the welfare of the sheep ahead of his own life.

The second kind of leader is the hired hand. He may be a shepherd, but he has no investment in the flock. He is there for himself and for his own benefit. An example would be a bad Charismatic leader, or perhaps a transactional leader. If it benefits him to care for the flock he will, but if personal sacrifice is called for, it will not happen. He will abandon the flock to the wolf.

Finally, there is the wolf. Although not a leader in the parable, it is true that wolves often come into the flock wearing the mantle of a leader. Jesus refers to them as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). He is worse than a hired hand because he is interested only in himself and anticipates using the flock to feed on.

I’ve seen examples of all three of these types of leaders come into a church. I’ve sent the good shepherds who gave and sacrificed and who raised up other good shepherds as the flock grew. I’ve seen hired hands who were just passing through. They needed a church to start out in, but they made no real emotional or spiritual investment in the church. Finally, I’ve seen wolves in a shepherd's garb. They had the hairstyle and the clothing down, the pastoral mannerisms and even the right words, but it quickly became evident that their intention was to fleece the flock and move on. They drained the saving accounts, lived as extravagantly as they could for as long as they could, and then when there was nothing else to take, they moved on. Sadly, too many denominations allow this to happen without corrective action or punitive measures for the wolves.

Grandma's Leadership Paradigm

I grew up in West Virginia deep in the hills next to a creek. Most of the people who lived around us were family. Often when we would get together to address a situation or engage in a project the entire enterprise dissolved into yet another exercise in futility and family feuds. My grandmother (the matriarch of the family) would usually assess the situation by telling us there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I don’t suppose that was politically correct, but then again, I doubt that she ever heard of the concept of political correctness.

Her comment reflected a strongly held belief that someone (emphasize “one”) should be in control. Other phrases like “too many cooks in the kitchen” and “too many hands in the pot” illustrated the idea that there should be a clearly identified, communally recognized, and perhaps even officially certified leader in charge. The feeling was that if this delineation between leader and follower were not clearly defined and respected then nothing would “get done”.

My grandmother was born in 1906 and she died in 2005 at the age of ninety-nine. Obviously, she came from a different era, a time when great men like Ford, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy lived. It was widely believed that a “great man” could lead a nation, a church, or a business forward in pursuit of success. This was held to be true from the local church on the dirt road of Elk Lick, West Virginia, to the nation’s capital, to the Ford Motor Company that transformed her world from dirt roads and horses, to automobiles and pavement.

By the time my grandmother passed much had changed. Great men had experienced great failures, dramatically affecting the national psyche and bringing about a significant change in the way we view leaders. After Nixon’s Watergate, Clinton’s Monicagate, and the Enron debacle at the hands of a CEO, leaders having singular control is no longer viewed favorably. Now we want more cooks in the kitchen, we want more chiefs in the camp, and we expect to see leadership shared among teams and not held by a few elites at the top of some imaginary hierarchical structure.

There has been a shift of focus in leadership studies from the singular impact of the leader, to the significant importance of the followers. Assumed, perhaps, is that a collective is more trustworthy than an individual is, or that power distributed in the hands of many is less dangerous than a concentration of power in the hands of the few, or the one. This is, after all, the premise of democracy.

More recent leadership literature, such as the massive work by Bernard Bass, Bass & Stogdills’ Handbook of Leadership, or Gary Yukl’s Leadership in Organizations, has relegated the Great Man theories to the dusty pages of history. Even the Charismatic Leader theories have been abandoned in favor of Transformational leadership models where the leader empowers, inspires, and partners with the followers. The charismatic leader, or the benevolent dictator, might inspire, but he or she failed to empower or to partner with the followers.

The philosophical shift from a top-down model to a more egalitarian approach is a movement that continues to evolve as the Servant Leadership model popularized by Charles Greenleaf has come into prominence.

My grandmother was a devoutly Christian woman whose view of leadership was shaped by the times and by her experiences. It was her experience that too many people trying to take the lead on one project was a failure waiting to happen. However, she readily embraced the cliché espoused by many a preacher that “the ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Furthermore, in our church we regularly observed the practice of feetwashing as a sacrament of our church. Each time we participated in this ordinance we were powerfully reminded of the night Jesus, the Lord and Master, took on the role of a servant. As such, the concept of Servant-Leader was not foreign to her theologically; it was just that she never thought of it as a general model for leadership. One leader in charge with the followers in line behind him was her paradigm. (As a widowed mother of eight children this probably made sense.)

It seems that the modern idealism of an evolution of science and society taking us toward a utopian “Camelot” future died with Kennedy. Skepticism and post-modernity were born with the Vietnam War and Watergate, were nurtured in Monicagate and Enron, and is coming into their own in the light of CIA misinformation leading us into a war on a quest to destroy weapons of mass destruction that apparently never existed.

As the war against terrorism wages on and as the level of gridlock, partisanship, and vitriol escalates among the nation’s political “leaders,” we can only imagine where the paradigm of leadership will be 54 years from now when I turn 99. The trend has been to take the leader off the throne, down from the pyramid and into the masses. In fact, the paradigmatic shift now seems to place the leader under the followers, lifting them up and encouraging them to achieve their full potential. So where does the leadership model go from here? Is there an ultimate model, one model that will stand as the logical end to a quest for the perfect model?

If social trends continue and if the leadership paradigm sift continues in the direction it has historically gone, then leadership in 2050 will be problematic at best. The level cynicism and relativism may be as epidemic as the Avian Bird Flue by then. The family, a time tested laboratory for leadership, will be redefined and religious relativism will every man or woman their own Messiah. Perhaps it will all be academic by then. Could it be that the anarchy looming on the horizon of the societal sunset is the very sea out of which a worldwide dictator will emerge? Is this the beginning of the end of leadership? And if leadership is cast into the abyss with the last worldwide dictator (Antichrist), will the world then be ready for a King (Jesus)?

LEADERSHIP DNA

I think there is a book somewhere that has a title referencing leadership DNA. I haven't read it, but in the past few weeks I've been doing extensive reading in the fields of psychology, sociology and epistemology. As I read I see the classic debate of nature vs. nurture being rehashed. Are we born to be leaders, or are we made?

Most will claim that it is a little of both. I would argue (as a parent observing the different temperaments of my children) that we are born with certain personality traits. We are born bold or timid, we are born with an IQ and maybe even an EQ, we are born assertive or reticent, but what we do with these predispositional traits is shaped by our environment. Where we grow up, how we are raised, the opportunities or the challenges we overcome all help to shape the raw DNA material into the person we will become.

As an adult (beginning somewhere around the age of 20 or so) we find that our leadership personality traits (LPT) are fairly well set. We can improve, we can learn, we can maximize our strengths and work around our weaknesses, but we are who we are. This would mean that it can be an exercise in futility to accept a leadership position which is outside the realm of our LPT. We may want the paycheck, the promotion, the recognition and the status, but we should be honest with ourselves and true to ourselves. We will be much more effective and satisfied by finding our fit.

I watched a person in a poor leadership fit, flounder and fail. They began to believe that they could not lead, that they were not a “leader”. But placed in the right position, in the proper setting for their own LPT they excelled and regained their self-confidence. Personality temperament assessments and surveys are helpful tools in providing insight into our LPT and thus, where we are most likely to achieve success as a leader.

We don't like to hear this. We often want to believe that we can do anything that we set our mind to, that we can "grow" into the position. In truth, there is the tendency to grow into our highest level of incompetence (the Peter Principle). Leadership and management courses, seminars, and conferences will gladly take our money and lead us to believe that we can change our LPT and become an effective leader outside of our area of interest, expertise, or leadership DNA. We usually leave the seminar psyched up, enthused and ready to implement a few simple laws of leadership, believing that we will transform ourselves and the organization that we are leading. The truth is that after the excitement wears off, we look in the mirror and we are the same person we were before the course, seminar or conference.

What then is the value of consultation, conferences, seminars or courses? They can help us become better at what we do best. They can help us to understand ourselves and to discover our strengths and identify our weaknesses. We can become more efficient, we can learn new practices, and we can use new tools in the arena of leadership, but it will all be shaped by who we are.

It is for this reason that I believe strongly in the concept of team leadership. A carefully chosen team, with LPT's that complement and complete one another on the team can make all the difference. The future of leadership will probably be in more effective team building and team leading. The days of the Lone Ranger leadership model are quickly passing.

Socialization and the Emergent Movement

I've been doing much reading in preparation for the Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership that I am taking through Regent University. The first semester required over $1,000 in books. There are around twenty books of required reading and these are BIG books. Wew!

In my reading--which includes psychology, sociology, philosophy, management and leadership--I have been challenged in my thinking. One of the challenges is to the idea of the autonomous self. The autonomous self is the belief, idea, theory, or theology that every man or woman is completely in control of who they are, how they think, what they do, how to live, and so forth. Those who believe in autonomous self will argue that a man or woman can change if they want to. That all which is required is that a person pull themselves up by their bootstraps, make a decision to change how their view themselves and then live according to a new paradigm.

The social self theory would argue that there are social dynamics involved over which the individual has only limited or even no control. The social self theory would argue that much of who we see ourselves as (and therefore act and live accordingly) is thrust upon us by society. Therefore we tend to conform to the expectations of society as we come to an understanding of who we are and how we should act in a given societal milieu.

There are some powerful points to be made for both theories, and it may be that there are elements of truth in both. At the very least it should cause us to step back and reflect upon the influence of social expectation upon us and then to ask if we are trying to live up to the image of Christ as an issue of a personal decision of salvation, or if we are merely trying to fulfill the social expectations of a the group with which we identify. We need to consider if we are merely acting as it is expected of us by our church, or if we have truly experienced a spiritual change through the New Birth. Only a true tranformation will enable us to stand and to prevail in the absense of the mediating influences of other Christians.

It would seem to me that much of what happens in religious circles is a socialization process whereby the group in which we find fulfillment and meaning defines us and supplies us with the expectations of acceptance in that group. It is also true that the more dogmatic and the less introspective a group is, the more narrowly they define those expectations, for example the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, or even some forms of fundamentalist Christianity.

The danger of some of the newer forms of religious expression, such as Emergent Theology, is that they can be equally restrictive and self-deluding. There is the propensity for this movement, as with most novel movements, to speak in absolutist terms and with a false sense of definity about things which are, by their own definition, "emerging." They talk about the Postmodern paradigm and assume that current forms of religious expression are not and will not be effective in reaching the next generation. They have put forth their own models for religious expression and declare with some bravado that these expressions are the future of the church because, according to some, the church as we know it has no future (i.e. George Barna).

In predictable fashion the Emergent movement, which represents something of a protest movement against traditional religious expression, is in the process of creating its own tradition, which (as is always the claim) is closer to the primitive expressions of Christianity than current "traditional Christianity". As such, there will be a socialization process within the movement that will define the "authentic Christian". By claiming that they are seeking authenticity there is the implication that other expressions are less than authentic if not inauthentic. Therefore, to be authentic, to be a real Christian, one must allow the definitions of the Emergent movement to shape them. Either way there is then a socialization process involved in this movement or there is acquiescence to the Postmodern social definitions of self. Either way, there are social expectations that seek, even if unknowingly, to redefine individuals according to their new model.

Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate, and am willing to incorporate many of the expressions of worship and witness of the "emergent" movement. My concern is the willingness of the "movement" to dismiss as archaic, current forms of Christian religious expressions. It is the epitome of hypocrisy to malign tradition while at the same time creating your own. Of course, they would argue that they are not creating a tradition, they are rediscovering authentic expressions of the Christian faith. This is, after all, the traditional response by new movements.

Putting Puzzles Together

My wife and I (mostly me) have taken up the hobby of putting together puzzles. She brought home a giant box containing ten puzzles from 1000 pieces to 500 pieces. I immediately pulled out the largest in the box and for a little over one week my wife, my daughter and I began to put the puzzle together. Since then I have completed a 750 piece puzzle and am now working on a 500 piece puzzle.

In the process of putting together puzzles, I have been thinking about leadership and have come up with the following parallels.

1. It helps to begin with a vision of the big picture. I once did a leadership training class where I gave each of two teams a 240 piece puzzle with the same picture on each of them. I gave one team the box cover with the picture and the other team had no picture to look at. I told them it was a race and as you can imagine, the team with the picture finished well ahead of the other team. A big picture, or a vision of what you are trying to accomplish is a big help.

2. It helps to have a structure, or an outline from which to begin. I always look for the straight edged pieces first and then put the boarder of the puzzle together before trying to fill in the details of the picture. Successful leaders have boundaries and they are able to communicate the boundaries of the vision to others.

3. After looking at the big picture and creating the boarder, I begin to group similar colors together. This makes it easier to find the pieces when I need them. In leadership, a sense of order and grouping is important. Knowing which team members will be needed for a particular task, knowing who has which skills and who technical knowledge in advance helps to make decisions quickly and effectively.

4. When I am working on the same puzzle with other people we have to try to work together or we find that we are working at cross purposes. Some times my wife and get in one another's way, or we get in one another's light and we find ourselves sniping at one another. In leadership, we must learn to communicate and coordinate our efforts so that we are working together to accomplish a common goal, rather than working against one another.

5. Even in completing a puzzle, our competitive spirit comes out. When my wife and I were coming down the final pieces we each snatched and grabbed the pieces from one another trying to be the one who completed the puzzle by putting in the final piece. We each wanted to be able to say that we completed the puzzle. In fact, I held onto the last piece, but she wouldn't let me put it in the last remaining hole in the puzzle. I finally had to give it to her so that she could claim victory. In business, we need to lay aside personal agendas, try to work together and share the glory for a job well done. As long as the entire organization benefits, the individuals in the team will benefit as well.

I'm sure there are other puzzle principles to leadership if I took the time to think of them. If you have a puzzle principle to leadership add it to this blog.

HONEST ASSESMENT OF SELF AND OTHERS

Recently I was reading a massive book entitled Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications,(the title is long, but the book is longer at over eleven hundred pages) written by Bernard M. Bass, and I was reminded of a fact that I had read in earlier research. Bass states, “In most surveys, leaders tend to give themselves in inflated evaluation in contrast to their colleague’s descriptions of their performance. . . . Concepts of the self can be perceived or actually be at variance with the outside world and affect a leader’s performance” (p. 152). I was already familiar with similar research that showed that most people believe they are better at a skill, talent, position, and so forth, than they really are.

Watching the early rounds of the American Idol television show is the most painfully clear example of this. Singer after singer steps up thinking that they are the next idol but most of them are not even average. Then, when someone like Simon is finally honest with them (someone who isn’t particularly concerned about hurting their feelings), most of these "wanna-be's" either melt into tears after coming off the stage or defiantly declare that they are as good as they thought they were, it’s just that those judges don’t know good talent when they see it.

As a pastor I often encounter people who are convinced that they are called to a particular ministry or role in the church and that they are very good at it, but in observing them I had to disagree. There is a message here for the leader as well. We must be, as all the research shows, humble enough to listen to and act upon feedback from people who feel free to be honest with us. Now, as a leader we are always the target of unfair and uninformed criticism. Some people want a teaching minister but we are more dynamic in our delivery so they criticize us. Well, Paul’s statement about being all things to all men not withstanding, we cannot be everything to everyone. I’ve told some of my critics with as much humility as I could muster, "I’m sorry you aren’t 'fed' by my ministry, but there are many other wonderful churches in the area and you might be better served to look for a place where you can be 'fed'”.

After filtering out the static of the chronic complainers, we need to listen to the people we respect. I have told the staff of the church here that they are welcome to come into my office at any time, close the door, and tell me what they really think. They can tell me if I’ve failed them, or if they see anything in my conduct or character that might reflect poorly on the church. I want honest and open feedback, but I have also warned them that if they talk about me to others in the church, if they criticize and undermine me to others instead of coming and talking to me, they may well find their employment here terminated.

I always live with the assumption that I might not be as good as my momma says I am. I might not be as good of a preacher as the people walking out the door on Sunday shaking my hand, say I am. Over the years I have worked with many young pastors (young in ministry, young and older in age) and often their zeal far surpasses their ability. I’ve also had teachers and singers come to me convinced that they were excellent in their respective roles. At one large church where I served as the Pastor of Christian Education a man came to me, handed me a business card and said, “I’m a teacher and I’d like to teach an adult class.” I didn’t know this man very well but my observation was that he did not have an engaging personality, and seemed to lack the social skills necessary to build relationships necessary for a successful class. I inquired from other staff members who had been at the church much longer than me and they immediately knew who had approached me. They said that he had a great desire to teach, and had taken classes and was apparently biblically adept, but when he was given the opportunity to teach an elective class, no one showed up. He could not get a class going and then when he was placed in an established class it dwindled down to nothing.

Somewhere, someone should have been honest enough with this man to say, “You obviously have the desire and the information to be a teacher, but your interpersonal skills are holding you back. You need to sit under a teacher who is strong in these areas and watch them as they interact with others. Or we can get together a couple times a month and I can help you, but I can’t place you in another class until then.”

The Bible tells us that we are to speak the truth in love. I once had a young man who was a pretty good preacher, but he couldn’t carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket. However, before he preached he liked to sing a special song (special to him but not anyone else). Once, when he got up and began to sing, the teenagers laughed out loud. They thought he was trying to be funny. Finally, some of the people came to me, the pastor, and told me that it was my responsibility to tell this young minister that he was doing more damage than good by trying to sing before he spoke. Because I didn’t want to hurt his feelings I was reluctant, but eventually I broached the subject with him and he said that he already knew he couldn’t carry a tune, but he liked to make a joyful noise. I suggested that he do this at home in the shower rather than before he spoke.

We face this repeatedly in leadership. There are people who think they are ready for the promotion, but we can clearly see that they are not. We have people in positions that they are not effective in and yet we are reluctant to tell the truth in love. This is particularly difficult in the church because we have an obligation to minister to staff members as much as we do to church members and so we often just hope for the best while they flounder and those under them suffer. As leaders we either have to offer training, mentoring, and feedback, and if these don't work we have to make the change.

At the same time we must consider the very real possibility that we need to address issues in our own leadership strengths and weaknesses. Do we really know ourselves? I have always been struck by the fact that when Jesus told the disciples during the Last Supper that one of them would betray Him, they began to ask, “Is it I?” Didn’t they know themselves well enough to answer that question for themselves?

In contrast, Jesus knew who He was, where He came from, and what He had been sent to do. In John 8:14-18, Jesus answers the criticism of the Pharisees with these words:

14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. NIV

Jesus knew who He was and while He was humble and meek, He was neither weak nor intimidated by others. Neither their criticism nor their praise deterred Him from being who He was and doing what He had been sent by the Father to do. His example is that we need to know who we really are, our strengths and weaknesses, know what we have been called to do, and then do it. We will have our own Pharisees who will only criticize, and we will have our fans who only cheer us on, but we need honest and loving feedback from people we respect and who care about us. If you don’t have someone in your life like that then find one.

IDENTIFYING THE INFLUENCES

Jesus tells us that He is our example (Jn. 13:15). As we read the Gospels we have the opportunity to observe, through the eyes of the evangelists, the life, teaching, practices and character of Christ. If we grew up in a Christian home and attended church we had the opportunity to become immersed in the life of Christ. Through Sunday school, Bible classes, home/family devotions, sermons, personal Bible study, and so forth, we have been impacted by the powerful example of Christ. As a believer we also have the privilege of having the Spirit of Christ alive within us.

The influence, inspiration, and incarnation of Christ can all come together to create in us a model of leadership that reflects that of Christ Himself. If Jesus was the only influence in our lives with respect to a model for leadership we would be well served. However, we all know that there are many other influences, the most primal and perhaps the most powerful being that of our parents. Study after study of human behavior come to the undeniable conclusion that each of us is shaped, influenced, and impacted by our family of origin. Leadership qualities are often formed through things like birth order, our relationship with our parents, how authority was exercised in the home, and how leadership roles were addressed by our parents.

Strong willed and confident parents often raise children who are strong willed and confident. Parents who are easily intimidated or socially withdrawn often see the same behavior reflected in their children. So as a leader it is often helpful to take the time to reflect upon the major influences on our life and how they have affected our leadership paradigms. For example, I once heard an interview with Ted Turner talking about how he never felt affirmed by his father and that nothing was ever quite good enough to please him. So this relationship drove Turner, and perhaps continues to drive Turner, to try to be the best and to gain approval and affirmation for his success. The influence of his father continues to live long after his father has passed away.

I think this kind of reflection upon role models of leadership in our life is important because we often act in ways that are the direct result of those influences. Sometimes we act instinctually, without analysis or reason simply as a result of how we have been “programmed” by the people who have influence our lives. I often see this in marriage counseling with couples who don’t understand that they came into their marriage with expectations for their spouse that were formed in their family of origin. The problem is that the other spouse was raised in a different family and he or she comes with their own expectations from their family of origin. Often, the result is years of misunderstanding and frustration until they are willing to sit down and talk about this and reflect upon those expectations and evaluate the rational for their actions.

For example, I pretty much grew up in a single parent home. When I was a toddler and young child my father was in the Air Force spending time in Vietnam and later was in Germany while we lived in the States. My mother took charge and was very protective of my sister and me. When my father retired from the military and we moved to West Virginia it was difficult for her to relinquish her assertive role as the leader of the family. My father was a quiet man who seemed content to allow my mother to handle all the correction of the children, manage the family finances, as well as function as the spiritual leader of the home. She was outgoing in public and yet very concerned about how she was perceived by others.

Eventually, my father left our home, had an affair, divorced my mother and deserted our family. In fact, for the past thirty years I had not seen my father until this past December (2005) when I tracked him down to a veterans nursing home in Louisiana. I loaded my family into our mini van and we drove down to see him. He was now 73 years old and when I walked into the room I did not recognize him. Interestingly, he seemed obsessed with my mother and with blaming her for all his bad choices.

These are my two earliest role models and as such they influenced my leadership paradigm. If I allowed the worst of these influences to dominate I would be an overbearing dogmatist who blamed others for my mistakes and who, while seeking public approval, lived in fear of rejection. Or I could take the best qualities and be an independent thinker who is not afraid to take charge, who is socially aware of how others feel and who is a comfortable delegating responsibility to others.

In fact, few of us end up with only the positive or the negative influences, but the result is often a combination. The challenge for the leader to is to recognize his or her weaknesses and to maximize our strengths. I recently took a leadership assessment test which pegged me as a combination of being someone who leads primarily by inspiration and secondarily by drive. On a DISC temperamental analysis test this is a DI personality temperament. As such, I have to guard against becoming too competitive or domineering and to maximize the enthusiastic and persuasive qualities of my temperament.

I can look at my mother and see that she has been the major influence and after evaluating myself in light of that influence I am grateful for the sense of humor and outgoing personality she instilled, but I have had to overcome fear of rejection and, as such, the temptation to do only what is popular. We cannot simply dismiss the models that have been instilled, but we can recognize and maximize. Recognize our weaknesses and maximize our strengths. Furthermore, as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, we can take on more and more of His persona, of His influence and inspiration as we grow as an individual and as a leader.