Beware the Dreaded Dualism
One of my parishioners told me that if the people are not following, the leader is not leading. My first thought was that a leader can be encouraging the people to go in the right direction, or for that matter the wrong direction and they refuse to go.
But what he was thinking about was a definition that is quite “functional.” Leadership which does not achieve results is not leadership. For example, if I am trying to get the people of my congregation to grow the membership and they are not doing it, it is not happening, then I am not leading.
Conversely, if the people are moving in a concerted direction, am I leading them?
The underlying issue here is a fallacious dualism. There are leaders and followers. Any organization is made up of those few who set the direction, have the vision and control the company; and it includes the larger number who take orders, do or do not do as they are directed. I am not a management specialist, but I have been to many church management seminars where it seems to me the same dichotomy is assumed.
Beware of the Dreaded Dualism.
Any analysis that begins with a two sided assumption is a dualism. Liberal vs. Conservative. Love vs Hate. Heaven vs Hell. Win the war vs loose the war. Accept homosexuality vs. reject homosexuality. Anti-abortion vs pro-abortion. Body vs soul.
Dualisms assume there is little or no space between the two sides and that the two sides are opposite. Let’s be extreme here for a moment. Dualisms are always wrong because life is more nuanced. George W. Bush says we must win the war in Iraq because the only alternative is to loose it. Good vs Bad. His way of thinking takes no account of changing our behavior in use of oil, power. His approach assumes that military might is the final arbiter of “winning.”
Leaders and followers change places repeatedly, influence each other, assist and hinder each other in myriad ways.
My metaphor for leadership is the theatre. The stage director studies a play, imagines what it will look like, sound like, feel like on the stage. She develops a vision for a realized artistic product. The director then works with designers and actors to try to realize her vision. In that process of leading and rehearsing the vision gets changed. The stage director does not so much tell the actors what to do as he helps them do what they do within some parameters. At the end of rehearsals, the director goes to the back of the auditorium and watches with the rest of the audience as the actors and scenery and technicians do what they do.
That is the metaphor for my work as church “leader.” It is not my calling to do the work of the church. It is not my calling to be “the priest-leader” while lay people “follow.” My calling as priest is to encourage, bless, shove, listen, talk, be present, preside over the Eucharist and help other Christians prepare themselves to follow Jesus.
But what he was thinking about was a definition that is quite “functional.” Leadership which does not achieve results is not leadership. For example, if I am trying to get the people of my congregation to grow the membership and they are not doing it, it is not happening, then I am not leading.
Conversely, if the people are moving in a concerted direction, am I leading them?
The underlying issue here is a fallacious dualism. There are leaders and followers. Any organization is made up of those few who set the direction, have the vision and control the company; and it includes the larger number who take orders, do or do not do as they are directed. I am not a management specialist, but I have been to many church management seminars where it seems to me the same dichotomy is assumed.
Beware of the Dreaded Dualism.
Any analysis that begins with a two sided assumption is a dualism. Liberal vs. Conservative. Love vs Hate. Heaven vs Hell. Win the war vs loose the war. Accept homosexuality vs. reject homosexuality. Anti-abortion vs pro-abortion. Body vs soul.
Dualisms assume there is little or no space between the two sides and that the two sides are opposite. Let’s be extreme here for a moment. Dualisms are always wrong because life is more nuanced. George W. Bush says we must win the war in Iraq because the only alternative is to loose it. Good vs Bad. His way of thinking takes no account of changing our behavior in use of oil, power. His approach assumes that military might is the final arbiter of “winning.”
Leaders and followers change places repeatedly, influence each other, assist and hinder each other in myriad ways.
My metaphor for leadership is the theatre. The stage director studies a play, imagines what it will look like, sound like, feel like on the stage. She develops a vision for a realized artistic product. The director then works with designers and actors to try to realize her vision. In that process of leading and rehearsing the vision gets changed. The stage director does not so much tell the actors what to do as he helps them do what they do within some parameters. At the end of rehearsals, the director goes to the back of the auditorium and watches with the rest of the audience as the actors and scenery and technicians do what they do.
That is the metaphor for my work as church “leader.” It is not my calling to do the work of the church. It is not my calling to be “the priest-leader” while lay people “follow.” My calling as priest is to encourage, bless, shove, listen, talk, be present, preside over the Eucharist and help other Christians prepare themselves to follow Jesus.
posted by Thomas Van Brunt | 1:39 PM
|
0 comments
