Biblical Warrent (with interpretation) for Collaborative Leadership



Captain Chelsey Sullenberger
(from Wikepedia)

 Growing up in a Presbyterian church in a little town in southern Illinois, I was shaped by experiences of shared leadership. Since one or another of my extended family served on the governing board constantly, I overhead lots of stories of the excitements and difficulties among the leaders and the pastors. It was just assumed in that Presbyterian culture ministers had to work with the elders and that elders were important in the life of the congregation. Later on as a young pastor wanting to be up-to-date, I fell into the fads of leadership of the 1970’s and 1980’s which cast pastors in roles of management and executive leadership. Those fads fit nicely my graduate work in management and organization development. When the 1990’s rolled around, the fashion for leadership shifted to the term “visionary” by which the leader was imagined to be the head of the organization, where the eyes are placed up on the head so that the leader could “see.” It worked well as far as it went, but I can see now, the mistakes I did make arose from failing to make full partnership with the elders and members of the congregation. For someone like me who fancies himself a student of “leadership,” all of this shifting and changing makes for a story with shifts and tensions and deep ironies.


As you probably know the Bible is not necessarily a source of absolute and eternal answers, but offers us insights and inspiration to fit our current circumstances. So it is on the topic of leadership. There are lots of stories of leaders in the Bible, some good examples and some really bad examples. The only place I’ve seen the actual word “leadership” is in one of the lists of “gifts of the Spirit” needed for the church in the middle of the first century of the Common Era. For inclusion in the list, the Apostle Paul chose a nautical term which has been variously translated as leaders, administrators, government. There’s a lot to make of the word, which in the original Greek language is kubernesis. The literal meaning of the word is a nautical term for pilot or “steersman,” or “helmsman,” the one who handles the tiller, who provides the direction for all. It implies the kind of wise and experienced direction or governance needed for safe travel to get the ship where it needs to go. The gift of governance is given among the many gifts needed, including proclaiming the Word which was the sole domain of the original Apostles. Nonetheless, every human organization needs some order and direction in order to carry out its purpose to expand awareness of God’s grace and love as known through Jesus. And the overarching reason for the gifts of the Spirit is given in the introduction to this essay “To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”

The problem with this word kubernesis is that it can mean different kinds of leadership and we have to interpret it. In contemporary American organizations we have what I call a “myth of leadership” by which leadership is what is done by a single person at the “top” of an organizational chart, who directs all the operations without relying on the help of subordinates or other members of the organization (Preskill and Brookfield, Learning as a Way of Leadership, 2009, p. 3). The leader in this American myth is all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present, and un-moved by the changes of time or the emotions of people (sounds like a description of God, doesn’t it—except I’m not sure I believe in that kind of God, either). Such a leader has all the charm of Donald Trump and all of the sensitivity of Leona Helmsly. One management expert has noted that the top-down, control and command style of leadership is the “default mode” for the way Americans expect leaders to behave. If it is the default, popular tradition of leadership (Sharon Deloz Parks, Leadership Can be Taught), it’s no wonder that even some “experts” in leadership got caught up in it.

But interpreting kubernesis in that straight-line, top-down, singlular way misses an important re-interpretation of the word taken in the 20th century. As scientists began to make sense of the new insights of the work of Einstein and other physicists, and realized how everything is interconnected, both machines and organizations, they discovered that there are circles or loops of influence at work all around. They took that circular and inter-related understanding of the way the world keeps itself in order and created new science called cybernetics. That term came directly from the Greek word kubernesis. Cybernetics, when applied to human organizations, helps us see that it is not enough to see organizations and organisms operate in simple cause and effect, organizational charts with straight line relationships. When we step back to see how there are also circular, relational dynamics, guided by great feedback loops of information and emotion, we can explain a lot more about how we work together in organizations, even the church. Thanks to cybernetics, it is now clear that a human organization is not a simple machine, but more like a living organism in which every part is connected to every other part and leadership is a shared enterprise. With the rise of cybernetics, the old myth of the lone, all powerful leader at the top no longer makes sense to us.

With those newer understandings of how things work, investigators in the1980’s started looking at crash landings of several major large passenger aircraft. Seeing how the circles of relationship work or don’t work helped them to find that a common factor in many disasters was a lack of communication among the members of the cockpit crew. Many black box recordings from those crashes contained stilted conversations in which the captain would not or could not ask for or hear the information, suggestions and even warnings of other officers on the flight deck. Without all of the resources available these captains made decisions that took the lives of hundreds of people including themselves. That was due to the myth of the “sky god captain” who had absolute power. From that point on, the aviation industry demythologized the sky-god-captains and a new culture of leadership in aviation was born. It is called “crew resource management.” CRM uses all of the loops and feed-back mechanisms of cybernetics to insure that in moments of crisis everyone in the cockpit of an airliner become leaders and every officer has major responsibility for the safety of the aircraft—not just the captain. In case you’re wondering, Captain Chelsey Sullenberger (Sulley) who safely piloted the disabled airplane into the Hudson River two years ago was himself a Crew Resource Management expert. While the media tried to make him a single-handed hero, he acknowledged publicly that it was a full team effort that saved the lives of 155 passengers and perhaps countless on-the-ground individuals as well.

So to interpret Paul’s use of the word kubernesis for the 21st century we begin to see that the pilot can no longer be a lone, objective controller of the workings of a ship or an organization. He or she is an integral part of the ship as a whole, including the ships mechanisms, the ship’s crew, the resources aboard the ship, the information available to the steersman regarding weather and navigational directions. The steersman also has a set of feelings and hopes and dreams that also play into the loops of information about how to steer the ship and where the ship actually goes. In that fashion, the First Century picture of the helmsman is filled out by the 20th and 21st century image of the cybernetic leader. The winds and change and uncharted waters of this present age require more complex ways. Cybernetic leadership is collaborative leadership in contrast to command and control leadership. One source has defined it as “forming and sustaining relationships that lead to results in the common good.” (Preskill and Brookfield, p. 4). Instead of the top-down all powerful leader we have a leader who listens and shares. Instead of the visionary leader who does the seeing for the organization, we see that the leader is one who helps the organization to see where they need to go and what they need to do (Otto Scharmer, Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges (Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning, 2007), 136).

To check this interpretation with other scriptural information, I would like to note that in the synoptic Gospels Jesus is hardly a loner, or a top down leader. He created a team of disciples, included more and more people in his circle, and was physically absent when his followers turned the world upside down. Paul was himself a collaborator, not a dictator. He found the human resources and invited, trained, nurtured and guided them to build Christian communities around the Mediterranean Sea.

Leaders of the 21st Century: I commend to you this new image of leadership by relationship, leadership that takes all the resources around it into consideration, leadership that brings a whole team to work to achieve the common good. I think this is the leadership that is gifted by the Spirit of God for this time.









Remembering Reyolds Price

Reynolds Price, Novelist
(picture courtesy of Duke University)

I note with sadness the death of Reynolds Price, one of my favorite novelists.  He carried the second half of the 20th century as the essential North Carolina storyteller and thus Southern Writer.  His prose was always a delight to the ear and eye, his characters always carefully observed and developed, his description of culture and family and human nature in his particular time and place always universal. For me he articulated a both a deep sense of the irony of life and an abiding conviction that human life is precious to the creator.

He has helped me to articulate my sense of human nature as essentially good but prone to slip into destructiveness.  For example he referred to  many of his characters as "decent outlaws"--a phrase I have often used to describe several of the characters of the Hebrew Scriptures such as Jacob the Patriarch, and implicitly myself and other members of my tribe.

I was consistently drawn to and warmed by his underlying spirituality, drawn from his own experiences of mystical awareness.  In his book Letter to a Man in the Fire (Scribner, 1999, p. 27), he wrote:

"Starting on a warm afternoon in the summer of 1939, when I was wandering alone in the pine woods by our suburban house in piedmont North Carolina, I've experienced moments of sustained calm awareness that subsequent questioning has never discounted.  These moments, which recurred at unpredictable and widely spaced intervals till some thirteen years ago, still seem to me undeniable manifestations of the Creator's benign, or patiently watchful, interest in particular stretches of my life, though perhaps not all of it.  And each of these moments--never lasting for more than seconds but seeming, in retrospect, hours long--has taken the form of sudden and entirely unsought breakings-in upon my consciousness of a demonstration that all of visible and invisible nature (myself included) is a single reality, a single thought from a central mind."

Because I am one who relishes experiences of the Holy, I have appreciated the consummate word-smithing of Reynolds Price that has helped me  make sense of them in light of the Christian tradition. 

Not having Reynolds Price alive and writing is a loss!

Thinking Again about Missional Ecclesiology

Reading the proposed "New Form of Government" of the PC(USA) again in preparation for last weekend's Lay Diploma School in Western Kentucky, the starkness of the missional ecclesiology hit me harder than before.  I'll vote for it because I believe we need to streamline the denomination's constitution and this is a fair and balanced approach to that task.  I'm sorry we have bought the missional perspective as the primary model, however. 

What struck me this time is the heavy emphasis on hierarchical thinking in the missional model.  My concern is that missional theology is based firmly on neo-orthodox doctrine, whose notions of revelation are carefully argued from the scriptural witness to Jesus as Christ and who avoided fundamentalist orthodoxy by including the response of the faithful through the witness of the Holy Spirit.  Neo-orthodoxy grew in the soil of European rationalism of the 20th century with its assumption of male dominance and hierarchical order.  Without question these assumptions and values fit nicely into the traditional Presbyterian ethos as reflected in the constitutional documents already, so it's hard to argue against them.  The sense of hierarchy is there in the traditional words: Christ is Lord of All and everything is done in "obedience" to Christ.

I only wish we could have more openness to more relational terms and more breadth in our theological underpinnings.  I long for my denomination to recognize that the richness of human experience, particularly the witness of the creation, and the wisdom of science and the humanities play a partnering role in understanding our faith.  Other 20th century theologians such as the process, liberation and black and womanist theologians speak more from the heart of the human experience and approach hierarchy with more hard-earned skepticism. 

I wish Presbyterians would wake up to the movement of that same Holy Spirit calling us from the margins of the 21st century to really (and I mean really) reform our practices of governing and our theological assumptions.  I keep praying!

Chief Chaska and the Multicultural Church




Chaska and Little Crow

  An article in today's New York Times reminded me of how the church interacts with its culture.  It told of renewed efforts to have Chief Chaska pardoned. Minnesotans know the story of the Dakota revolt that led to capture and conviction of over 300 Dakota men for the violence.  Lincoln Pardoned most of them and 38 of them were hanged in a mass execution in Mankato MN December 26,1862. Chaska (his nickname--and a town near Minneapolis carries that name) had been pardoned but was slipped into the execution group, perhaps because he had been defended by a European-American woman. 

The combination of racism and sexism with the overarching narrative of manifest destiny (by which the European Americans assumed their absolute privilege to take over all of North America and eradicate any "dusky" people who got in their way) was much a part of the culture and also the faith of the church on the 19th century frontier. 

Yet there is another side of the story in church history.  Presbyterians were part of the effort to befriend the Dakota people, many of whom became Christians.  The Pond brothers were missionaries from the revival movements on the East Coast who moved to Minnesota out of their concern for the well-being of the Native Americans there.  I served for two years as interim pastor of one of the churches they founded, Oak Grove Presbyterian in Bloomington MN.  The story of the Mankato executions and echoes of the Presbyterian mission to the Dakota people are still alive there.

The church is usually multi-cultural.  It absorbs and lives out many of the values of its context, and it also makes a prophetic stance against many of those values.  It cannot be completely completely counter-cultural as some would wish because we are always people of our time and place.  But the church's finest hours have always been those moments when it attracted lots of people of many cultures to its message and its practices and still found ways to encourage some critiques of cultures as well--including the dominant cultures and its oppressive ways.

In the story of the last moments of Chaska and 37 others, a hymn now in The Presbyterian Hymnal (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990, # 271)  plays an important role.  It has been told that on their walk from their cells to the scaffold, the condemned sang "Many and great, O God, Are Thy Things." It is a Dakota tune, titled "Lacquiparle" for the site of the mission where it was written. The words were adapted by missionary Joseph Renville who along with the Pond Brothers developed the alphabet and writing of the Dakota language there in southern Minnesota.  On their way to die for the crime of protecting their land and their livelihood, Dakota men expressed their multi-cultural heritage with these words, translated, of course, into English:

"Many and great, O God, are thy things,
Maker of earth and sky;
Thy hands have set the heavens with stars,
Thy fingers spread the mountains and plains.
Lo at Thy word the waters were formed,
Deep seas obeyed Thy voice.

"Grant unto us communion with Thee,
Thou star abiding One;
Come unto us and dwell with us;
With Thee are found the gifts of life.
Bless us with life that has not end,
Eternal life with Thee."

A Plea for Diplomacy and Leadership in Politics

My "senator of origin" is Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican of Illinois.  He was the Republican Leader of the senate when Republicans were chronically in the minority.  I long for his stately manner, shock of white hair, mellifluous voice, poetic rhetoric, and willingness to sit down and talk to anybody about how to get something done for the good of the country, whether or not it was in the Republican Party's best interests.  Here's quote from the Senate's obituary when he died in 1969, that catches the spirit I'm remembering:

"There are 100 diverse personalities in the U.S. Senate.  Oh Great God.  What an amazing and dissonant 100 personalities they are!  What an amazing thing it is to harmonize them."  

The people running for Senate today seem to me to be lacking in any sense of the "amazing."  They're angry, pitifully immature, and reactive.  I can't believe I'm longing for a this Republican throwback! 

Of course living in Kentucky is especially hard for this kind of sensitivity.  I know Illinois may not be that much better than Kentucky in its narrowness and racism, but I have a high view of my home state because of the politicians of my youth like Dirksen, Adlai Stevenson and Paul Simon.

Don't even get me started on another positive icon:  Paul Wellstone of Minnesota!

Conflict Workshop in Cincinnati October 30

Deborah and I are leading a one day workshop on "Hope in Conflict" for the Presbytery of Cincinnati, Saturday, October 30, 9-3:30, at Lakeside Presbyterian Church, 2690 Dixie Highway, Lakeside Park, KY 41017 (in northern Kentucky, suburb of Cincinnati).  Church phone 859-341-1963.  Directions to Lakeside are on the Presbytery and Church websites.

Registration:  $10.00 per person /maximum $25 per church. Registration fee includes lunch. Checks payable to Presbytery of Cincinnati

Register through the Presbytery Office:  Speak to Marian at 513-221-4850  OR Register through Lakeside Presbyterian Church:  by e-mail to lakeside@lakesidechurch.org.

e-mail me for more information:  dsawyer@lpts.edu.  See our website at http://www.flourishingchurch.com/

Objectives for the Workshop

1. Establish in the Presbytery an ongoing learning environment about congregational conflict using the book as a learning tool.
2. Encourage a shift in perception that conflict is expected and potentially lifegiving for a congregation.
3. Learn tools of conflict utilization that can be used by any church leader to interpret conflict and learn from it.

Festival of Faiths and The Seminary Luncheon

Two events directly related to Louisville Seminary are on tap for the 2010 Festival of Faiths with the theme of "Sacred Soil."  This is an exciting way for LPTS to connect with the interfaith leaders of the community and commit to our Doors to Dialogue Initiative.

Monday, November 8, 2010, 7:30 am to 3 pm. Kentuckiana Interfaith Community Faith Leader’s Forum ”Why Being an Environmentalist of Faith is so Hard ... and Worth It: A Morning of Prayer, Meditation, Lecture, and Discussion”

Faith leaders are invited to enjoy a complimentary breakfast, interfaith panel discussion, scholarly lecture and open discussion. The morning will be led by Dr. Roger S. Gottlieb, professor of philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a well-known scholar and author on faith and environmental issues. The afternoon will be led by Mitch Hescox, CEO of the Evangelical Environment Network, speaking about “The Creation Care Challenge.” Other visiting scholars participating in the forum will be Dr. Larry Rasmussen, Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics, Union Theological Seminary, and Ibrahim Abdul-Matin, author of Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet.

7:30 am – Faith Leader Breakfast and Conversation
9:00 am – Dr. Roger Gottlieb: Why Being an Environmentalist of Faith is so Hard: And Worth It
10 am – An Interfaith Panel Discussion on being a Religious Environmentalist
11 am – Group Discussion, Questions and Answers
12:30 – The Annual LPTS Luncheon, “Doors to Dialog”
2 pm – Mitch Hescox: The Creation Care Challeng

You are invited to participate in all or any of the events of the day. The event is free, but reservations are required for breakfast attendance.
 
 Monday, November 8, 2010, 12:30 to 2 pm. Annual Louisville Presbyterian Seminary Luncheon: "Setting the Seeds for Dialogue"

A seminary is a seedbed for cultivating knowledge about ultimate concerns. As LPTS announces a major commitment to interfaith cooperation with its “Doors to Dialogue” initiative, faith leaders will be invited to find common ground in specific ways to become partners in the initiative. Doors to Dialogue (D2D) is a new approach to seminary education at Louisville Seminary to enhance students’ learning to prepare them better to provide religious leadership in contexts of religious difference. At this lunch you will learn more of this initiative and of ways you can partner in it.

Bring your own lunch or order a box lunch from Miss Cs', a deli located in the Henry Clay.