First, let me preface this post by speaking of the idea of Mark Driscoll. I don't know Driscoll. I shouldn't draw final conclusions on the real Driscoll because I am not involved with him. He has not wronged me personally that I know of. I am using the rumors of Driscoll to ask a question.
Can a leader without integrity be effective? This question begs others. What does it mean to be effective? What do you mean by integrity?
In the rumors, it sounds like Driscoll's leadership style ultimately undid him at least for the moment. It wasn't the accusations of plagiarism though. It was, in rumor, the way he treated other people.
But here is my question. What if a leader's lack of integrity never becomes known? Is it possible that there are leaders out there right now who are, by all accounts, very effective leaders but who have significant integrity issues? I would almost bet my life on it.
I want to be very clear here. It is essential for truly Christian leaders to have moral integrity. I am not in any way trying to negate the need for inner spiritual health in a Christian leader. What I am saying is this. I don't think for one moment that there haven't been famous Christian leaders we deeply admire and whose ministries we view as immense successes who will not be in the kingdom. I strongly believe we will find out in the kingdom of God that some of our idols, as it turns out, did not have integrity.
This is the principle that God often lets the wicked prosper. In this world, God often lets the unrighteous prevail. Indeed, I would say that it is more likely that, on average, the most righteous in the church are not the leaders but the servants. God uses and blesses the gifts and drive that often are present in great leaders, but that drive also carries with it great temptations.
So I can't see at all how a Bobby Clinton can say, "God won't use a leader who lacks integrity" (63). What about Pharoah? What about Cyrus, king of Persia? True, they weren't Christians, but I think even the barest look at church history suggests this idea is blatantly false. Historically, I suspect some of the leaders we think of having the biggest effect sometimes were far less principled than many under them.
I would edit Clinton's sentence, not to speak of effective leadership but to speak of godly leadership: "Integrity is foundational for godly leadership," for leadership that truly counts. Integrity is essential for a leadership that God values and considers worth a dime, yes.
But by worldly standards, I suspect there are gobs of "effective" and "extraordinary" leaders who have had serious integrity issues. It's just that, in God's eyes, they're schmucks.
Showing posts with label Bobby Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bobby Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Thursday, January 03, 2013
The Fiscal Cliff and Church Leadership
I thought there were a number of lessons for church leadership that can be drawn from the fiscal cliff crisis.
1. "Be wise as serpents..."
I thought there was some clever maneuvering through the crisis. Boehner had to keep House Republicans happy enough to re-elect him as Speaker (we'll find out today if it worked), while working toward the goal. Even his Majority Leader (Cantor) and Majority Whip (McCarthy) were against him.
I thought it was clever for Obama to turn to the Senate when the House fell apart. Frankly, I never thought they'd pull it off after the House recessed New Year's Eve. But then again, I thought it was clever for the Senate to wait until after midnight on New Year's so that it was technically a tax cut rather than tax hike.
Being a church leader can call for some clever maneuvering, especially when people are being stubborn and the normal route is blocked... and sometimes you have to be clever or someone else with power will out-maneuver you.
2. Clever maneuvering usually ticks people off.
Obama and the Democrats felt this wrath when they used clever maneuvering to get the Affordable Care Act through. Most people are relieved that Congress got this current deal done, but very few are sitting back admiring their savvy. Most are pretty ticked at a "do nothing" Congress.
So a church leader spends chips of clout when he or she uses cleverness or politics to get things done. There's definitely a time to do it, but you spend capital when you do. Choose your battles, because political and power maneuvering can be an act of leadership martyrdom. It can be worth it, just as self-sacrifice can be worth it. But choose when to use your stinger wisely (because it's the last thing you'll do as a bee).
3. Power always wins.
... even over the right, unless God intervenes. Of course to a large extent I mean power wins over what you think is right, because all the different sides imagine themselves standing up for what is right. The Republicans think they are fighting for justice, maybe even God. The Democrats think they are fighting for justice, maybe even God.
But secondly, God rarely rides in on a horse to save your cause. Most of the time, God lets power play itself out. I had to laugh at Bobby Clinton's aha moment in The Making of Leader when, surprise, surprise, he had this incredible insight one day well into his leadership career: "In a power conflict the leader with higher power will usually win regardless of rightness of issue" (188). Duh!
Yet, some church leaders don't get this. They think everyone will eventually see that they're right if they just keep talking or stonewalling long enough. Some people don't know when they've lost or when to give up. There's a time when you just don't have the votes, and it's pointless to keep talking. In such instances it doesn't matter how hard you bang your head against the wall. The wall doesn't care.
4. There are very few "victory or death" situations.
I believe there are causes worth dying for... but there aren't a lot of them. Not raising taxes at all? Not cutting entitlements at all? These are far from absolute moral principles. I'm pretty sure most economic experts would say the choices we've faced this last Congress have been between significant economic crisis and giving in a little on your absolutism of choice.
Try this "win or die" approach in a church and you're toast. You're fired. You're out of the ministry. You're out of leadership. In fact, say good bye to your marriage and any friends other than your wolf pack if you're a "my way or the highway" type person. Don't cry persecution when you are the one who ends up packing. In real life, you almost always have to meet people somewhere in the middle, even if they are stubborn donkeys.
5. Something is better than nothing.
The choice in this gridlock was not "taxes or no taxes." The choice was "some taxes or a massive amount of taxes." Thankfully, a majority of Congress in the end realized time was up and most compromised. No one on either side is happy, but progress was made.
As a church leader, as a spouse, as a parent, you often can't get everything you think you should. It's the difference between a teenager who daydreams about dating someone and actually dating someone who has thoughts and desires of her own. Sometimes they don't say back what you daydreamed.
But you can often get something. You can move things in the right direction. You can argue and argue over it all and end up with nothing. Or you can get something. You may not get the church to move locations, but you might get a new venue offsite in the meantime. You might not get the full membership rules of the denomination changed, but you might get a new category of community membership in the meantime.
1. "Be wise as serpents..."
I thought there was some clever maneuvering through the crisis. Boehner had to keep House Republicans happy enough to re-elect him as Speaker (we'll find out today if it worked), while working toward the goal. Even his Majority Leader (Cantor) and Majority Whip (McCarthy) were against him.
I thought it was clever for Obama to turn to the Senate when the House fell apart. Frankly, I never thought they'd pull it off after the House recessed New Year's Eve. But then again, I thought it was clever for the Senate to wait until after midnight on New Year's so that it was technically a tax cut rather than tax hike.
Being a church leader can call for some clever maneuvering, especially when people are being stubborn and the normal route is blocked... and sometimes you have to be clever or someone else with power will out-maneuver you.
2. Clever maneuvering usually ticks people off.
Obama and the Democrats felt this wrath when they used clever maneuvering to get the Affordable Care Act through. Most people are relieved that Congress got this current deal done, but very few are sitting back admiring their savvy. Most are pretty ticked at a "do nothing" Congress.
So a church leader spends chips of clout when he or she uses cleverness or politics to get things done. There's definitely a time to do it, but you spend capital when you do. Choose your battles, because political and power maneuvering can be an act of leadership martyrdom. It can be worth it, just as self-sacrifice can be worth it. But choose when to use your stinger wisely (because it's the last thing you'll do as a bee).
3. Power always wins.
... even over the right, unless God intervenes. Of course to a large extent I mean power wins over what you think is right, because all the different sides imagine themselves standing up for what is right. The Republicans think they are fighting for justice, maybe even God. The Democrats think they are fighting for justice, maybe even God.
But secondly, God rarely rides in on a horse to save your cause. Most of the time, God lets power play itself out. I had to laugh at Bobby Clinton's aha moment in The Making of Leader when, surprise, surprise, he had this incredible insight one day well into his leadership career: "In a power conflict the leader with higher power will usually win regardless of rightness of issue" (188). Duh!
Yet, some church leaders don't get this. They think everyone will eventually see that they're right if they just keep talking or stonewalling long enough. Some people don't know when they've lost or when to give up. There's a time when you just don't have the votes, and it's pointless to keep talking. In such instances it doesn't matter how hard you bang your head against the wall. The wall doesn't care.
4. There are very few "victory or death" situations.
I believe there are causes worth dying for... but there aren't a lot of them. Not raising taxes at all? Not cutting entitlements at all? These are far from absolute moral principles. I'm pretty sure most economic experts would say the choices we've faced this last Congress have been between significant economic crisis and giving in a little on your absolutism of choice.
Try this "win or die" approach in a church and you're toast. You're fired. You're out of the ministry. You're out of leadership. In fact, say good bye to your marriage and any friends other than your wolf pack if you're a "my way or the highway" type person. Don't cry persecution when you are the one who ends up packing. In real life, you almost always have to meet people somewhere in the middle, even if they are stubborn donkeys.
5. Something is better than nothing.
The choice in this gridlock was not "taxes or no taxes." The choice was "some taxes or a massive amount of taxes." Thankfully, a majority of Congress in the end realized time was up and most compromised. No one on either side is happy, but progress was made.
As a church leader, as a spouse, as a parent, you often can't get everything you think you should. It's the difference between a teenager who daydreams about dating someone and actually dating someone who has thoughts and desires of her own. Sometimes they don't say back what you daydreamed.
But you can often get something. You can move things in the right direction. You can argue and argue over it all and end up with nothing. Or you can get something. You may not get the church to move locations, but you might get a new venue offsite in the meantime. You might not get the full membership rules of the denomination changed, but you might get a new category of community membership in the meantime.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Bobby Clinton and Bible Characters
I want to be a little more positive to begin with towards Boby clinto's use of biblical characters than I was in the last post on him. Despite the annoying rigidity of his system, despite his annoying determinism, despite his hermeneutical obliviousness, he obviously knows an aweful lot about the kinds of experiences emerging leaders often undergo. He just needs someone to remove the annoying clothing in which he dresses thse components and all would be well.
What he sees in the various characters of the Bible often works because 1) he knows what he's looking for and 2) there are indeed some traces of common human lessons in these stories to be learned. Much of what we say we are getting from the Bible often turns out to be a mirror of our own God-given wisdom rather than a true drawing from the text. This is why ten different preachers can give ten different helpful messages from the same passage and a hundred members of these different congregations hear a hundred still different helpful unintended messages.
But here are three clear problems with Clinton's use of biblical characters:
1. He confuses description with prescription. We cannot assume that God wants us to imitate the actions of any biblical narrative just because someone is described as doing something. Fee and Stuart say we have to find a clear statement in the non-narrative portions of Scripture to know what to imitate in the narratives. I think we can do more than this, because narratives often have an implied "evaluative point of view." But even so we must take into account...
2. Individual books of Scripture speak to us in relation to the whole of Scripture. Any individual book may give us a misleading sense of direction if we do not take into account the rest. If we only had Ecclesiastes, we would not believe in the afterlife. If we only had Joshua, we would think that misfortune is always a consequence of sin. We do not technically move from any one passage to today, but through the whole council of Scripture to today.
So Elijah built high places to Yahweh all over the place, never went to Jerusalem to worship as far as we know, believed Baal was a real god, and more or less commissioned Jehu to assassinate Ahab. He was a scary dude. There may be lessons about modern leadership we can learn from him, but I bet Clinton would be taken aback if he had actually met him.
3. Leadership in one culture will not be the same in another. If you just look at my description of Elijah above, you can see his sense of leadership would not be advised in a North American church. Because Jesus ministered at a different time and place, it is not even clear that he gives us the paradigm for leadership in our time in terms of specifics.
4. Biblical narratives do not seem to be exact videotapes. These characters in real life were almost certainly more complex than in the biblical narratives.
What he sees in the various characters of the Bible often works because 1) he knows what he's looking for and 2) there are indeed some traces of common human lessons in these stories to be learned. Much of what we say we are getting from the Bible often turns out to be a mirror of our own God-given wisdom rather than a true drawing from the text. This is why ten different preachers can give ten different helpful messages from the same passage and a hundred members of these different congregations hear a hundred still different helpful unintended messages.
But here are three clear problems with Clinton's use of biblical characters:
1. He confuses description with prescription. We cannot assume that God wants us to imitate the actions of any biblical narrative just because someone is described as doing something. Fee and Stuart say we have to find a clear statement in the non-narrative portions of Scripture to know what to imitate in the narratives. I think we can do more than this, because narratives often have an implied "evaluative point of view." But even so we must take into account...
2. Individual books of Scripture speak to us in relation to the whole of Scripture. Any individual book may give us a misleading sense of direction if we do not take into account the rest. If we only had Ecclesiastes, we would not believe in the afterlife. If we only had Joshua, we would think that misfortune is always a consequence of sin. We do not technically move from any one passage to today, but through the whole council of Scripture to today.
So Elijah built high places to Yahweh all over the place, never went to Jerusalem to worship as far as we know, believed Baal was a real god, and more or less commissioned Jehu to assassinate Ahab. He was a scary dude. There may be lessons about modern leadership we can learn from him, but I bet Clinton would be taken aback if he had actually met him.
3. Leadership in one culture will not be the same in another. If you just look at my description of Elijah above, you can see his sense of leadership would not be advised in a North American church. Because Jesus ministered at a different time and place, it is not even clear that he gives us the paradigm for leadership in our time in terms of specifics.
4. Biblical narratives do not seem to be exact videotapes. These characters in real life were almost certainly more complex than in the biblical narratives.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Bobby Clinton's Leadership Emergence Theory
Let me just say that the way Bobby Clinton formulated his "Leadership Emergence Theory" back in the 80s really grates on me. Lots of important elements of leadership development. But he presents it in a Calvinist framework of "I fell down the stairs," what is God trying to teach me today. And of course I'm sure the Bible professors at Fuller used to make fun of him for having no clue how to read the Bible in its socio-cultural contexts.
Here's a sample:
Integrity checks: “An integrity check is a test that God uses to evaluate intentions in order to shape character” (58). A biblical text that embodies for Clinton this sort of check is the story of Daniel 1 where Daniel has to decide whether to keep Israel’s food purity laws or to participate in the food of Babylon. In Clinton’s view, “God won’t use a leader who lacks integrity” (63).
Clinton has several assumptions here. For example, there is the question of whether God micro-manages our development in such an orchestrated way or whether we should more think of these kinds of events as opportunities for development as leaders that we are bound to face. Another question is Clinton’s penchant to see things as almost having to occur in a particular order.
Further, if God can use the Babylonians and Persians (e.g., Hab. 1:6; Isa. 45:1), then surely God can use anyone, even a leader who lacks integrity. Indeed, Christians reached this conclusion in the 300s during the Donatist controversy, where the church concluded that God's work in a church was not dependent on the integrity of the minister. Obviously God would rather use a leader with integrity. Presumably the days of a leader without integrity are numbered. On the other hand, some of the most wicked kings of Israel and Judah had the longest reigns and died peacefully in their beds (e.g., Jeroboam II and Manasseh).
None of these questions are meant to deny that our integrity as leaders will be checked, that it is important and formative for us to pass these checks with integrity, or that God will not use those checks to help us grow.
Here's a sample:
Integrity checks: “An integrity check is a test that God uses to evaluate intentions in order to shape character” (58). A biblical text that embodies for Clinton this sort of check is the story of Daniel 1 where Daniel has to decide whether to keep Israel’s food purity laws or to participate in the food of Babylon. In Clinton’s view, “God won’t use a leader who lacks integrity” (63).
Clinton has several assumptions here. For example, there is the question of whether God micro-manages our development in such an orchestrated way or whether we should more think of these kinds of events as opportunities for development as leaders that we are bound to face. Another question is Clinton’s penchant to see things as almost having to occur in a particular order.
Further, if God can use the Babylonians and Persians (e.g., Hab. 1:6; Isa. 45:1), then surely God can use anyone, even a leader who lacks integrity. Indeed, Christians reached this conclusion in the 300s during the Donatist controversy, where the church concluded that God's work in a church was not dependent on the integrity of the minister. Obviously God would rather use a leader with integrity. Presumably the days of a leader without integrity are numbered. On the other hand, some of the most wicked kings of Israel and Judah had the longest reigns and died peacefully in their beds (e.g., Jeroboam II and Manasseh).
None of these questions are meant to deny that our integrity as leaders will be checked, that it is important and formative for us to pass these checks with integrity, or that God will not use those checks to help us grow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
