Transforming Church

With the advent of the Post-modern Age, those who were to become mega-churches led the way for congregations to sharpen the clarity on how they fit into the mission of Christ. Those who simply identified a “Mission Statement,” however, did not do their homework. Every time a pastor with charismatic strength leaned on it, they sold short helping the congregation figure out together what they were called to do. The more pastors looked to their charismatic strength in leadership, knowingly or unknowingly, the more likely they were to read the vision of the congregation through their own eyes.

Charismatic leadership style can be found in many places, but more frequently in mega-churches. There can be no question that this leadership style can attract people, but it’s not without problems. Whether or not a pastor with potential for charisma intentionally uses this style of leadership, the temptation is there to use it. And to whatever extent small or great they advantage this easier to expedite style, they produce a liability in their congregation that eventually is going to require recovery. As luring as it is for apparent immediate success, charismatic leading has a longer debilitating effect on the congregation.

A pastor is called to stay clearly and transparently faithful to Christ’s mission for the church. Part of good leadership is being personally separate from what is leading the congregation. Clearly pastors are not to lead from their own personality. Also part of good leadership is knowing how to use that separation. This means that pastors help the congregation figure out what they are called specifically to do now and in the future (the vision that has been provided them by the Holy Spirit), to learn what they have the potential to be really good at, and then help them to generate the most effective organic network of spiritual gifts to bring that about.

Twenty years into the thus-far-fifty-years of the Post-modern Age, Edwin Friedman offered what is still the most effective path for church leadership. The long accepted label for it is “self-differentiated.” A faithful vision for the congregation can only come from the Holy Spirit, not the pastor or others. Leading with the banner of the Holy Spirit and not the pastor’s personal banner is key. This vision should be so transparent and clear to everyone, that when the pastor is no longer there, the congregation should not miss a beat.

With self-differentiation the choice is not whether to be involved but how to be involved. Differentiated means clearly knowing who you are, and though that can change, to always be faithful to who you are. The leadership approach is never to suggest that others have to agree with you or be the same as you. Also, at the same time, since you are leading from a motivation force beyond yourself, you are able to engage without becoming defensive. Ultimately being self-differentiated is being in charge of yourself and NOT being compelled to change others.

The focus is never on getting others to get things right, only you yourself. What you have to say should never come across as a threat or a demand on others. As you practice and live this leadership style it becomes an easy lesson that the differentiation of others does not need to make you nervous.

Not necessarily verbalized, but with certain conversations the starting ground will need to be based on a kind of agreeing to disagree. Go from there – but never compromise the principle of staying connected with them. Many conversations along the way may not end in agreement, but only if you stay connected will you be able to explore the future together.

The importance of parishioners clearly seeing you as you are cannot be overestimated. Besides keeping conversations genuine it will derail any speculation on how you might be “deceptively” trying to change them. As you let them see you as you are, you also assure them that you respect where they are.

I’m not sure if you have or are able to put your hands on a copy of Friedman’s book, “Generation to Generation,” New York: Guilford Press, 1985, but to read or reread what he has to say about how defensive people work triangles of people to their end can be extremely helpful. I certainly don’t mean to give the impression that self-differentiation is a walk in the park, that you can live it with your eyes closed. Friedman warns about being naïve and getting sabotaged. When it happens, though, do not view it as betrayal. Most of the time, depending on the temperature of the conversation, others are just mistakenly trying to bring you into togetherness with them.

We all have to encounter and relate to people who have trouble with the idea of agreeing to disagree. Vast numbers view things as black and white. But if we are aware, at least, of how triangulation works, we will hopefully learn how to deal with it. Understanding triangulation may be the most aggressive challenge as leaders we will have to face.

One more warning needs to be shared, but this time with the congregation that clearly understands its vision but now has to work through a transition in pastoral leadership. It cannot be impressed on them enough that they need to take utmost care that a candidate is able to clearly see the vision from the Holy Spirit the congregation has identified and invested themselves in. If there is any doubt the candidate might not fully see and own it, run away fast. A controlling pastor will make all the Holy Spirit’s work unravel. And if the potential new pastor is charismatic, he or she will more easily be seduced with their own vision.

Ultimately what this is about is allowing and trusting the Holy Spirit to lead. Leadership is not a game of leverage with winners and losers. If that is allowed to happen, everyone has failed.