Knowledge in other fields
So I'm currently working at LE@DD (Leadership Education at Duke Divinity). LE@DD is looking to borrow knowledge from other fields of study (business, government, social sciences, etc). So I'm not too interested in the abstract question about the boundaries on this kind of project. Rather, I'm interested to know when and where you've found something helpful for your ministry outside of a theological "source."
Here's a first one from me: I was watching the movie The Story of Us. Not a great movie but there was a scene at the dinner table where everyone went around and said what was the high point of their day and what was the low point. I think those two questions have produced a lot of conversation in various settings for me. My wife even led a girls small group around them.
So what knowledge or resource did you pick up and use for leadership that wasn't specifically theological in nature?
Here's a first one from me: I was watching the movie The Story of Us. Not a great movie but there was a scene at the dinner table where everyone went around and said what was the high point of their day and what was the low point. I think those two questions have produced a lot of conversation in various settings for me. My wife even led a girls small group around them.
So what knowledge or resource did you pick up and use for leadership that wasn't specifically theological in nature?
posted by Tom Arthur at 9:30 AM
12 Comments:
Can I turn this into a debate about leadership training as such? I mean, i find a focus on leadership quite troublesome. Leadership is scripture is all about people not wanting anything to do with it and so having no training at all and falling into it, it's not about skill or charisma or training or tools or resources.
I feel like the only reason there is any focus on it (by LGreg) is that he got funding for it. The church needs training in the works of mercy so that we can be holy and lead by holiness.
Pastors don't need to be taught how to lead, they need to be taught how to be holy and humble and how not to fool around in the choir loft.
Wilson,
I have a nagging suspicion sometimes that leadership training is done by dying institutions. Sometimes much of what I read in the church sector smacks of a lot of navel gazing. How can we not keep from dying?
At another level, though, I'm getting a lot of great ideas from books I'm reading about leadership from the business or public sectors. And these aren't books written to be navel gazing. For example, I'm currently reading Marshall Goldsmith's What Got You Here Won't Get You There. His premise is that as leaders move up in the hierarchy, technical knowledge becomes increasingly more irrelevant to success. Rather what becomes important is one's people skills. Related to the church, as we move from the theological world of the university to the leadership role of the local church, our technical grasp of theology will take a backseat to our ability to engage people fruitfully. Now this is not to relegate theology to unimportance. I think theology helps define the telos of "fruitfulness." But great theology packaged in lousy people skills won't ever have a chance to blossom (assuming God really does use us and doesn't always work in spite of us).
Wilson, your question is a good one. And I appreciate your focus on being holy and humble. Much of what I read requires massive amounts of "translation" to take this into account. But also, much of what LE@DD is engaging aren't even the things in the "leadership" section of the bookstore. You'll see some of what I mean when LE@DD launches its website later this month.
One last thought about your comment. You're assuming that what LE@DD is doing is developing new leaders. Actually, LE@DD is focused on the institutional leaders already in the church and helping them do what they do better ("better" being heavily informed theologically). These are the folks who ahve already fallen into leadership whether they wanted to be there or not (bishops, district superintendents, etc.).
Tom,
If you only look at existing leaders the most important model for your program is figuring out who those existing leaders are. This is a loaded decision and an incredibly status quo invested decision. Thus, it rubs the marxist in me the wrong way. There can't be any true change if the point of the system is to maintain the system (or just improve the system within the logic of said system).
Are institutional leaders just bishops? and DS's? or are they megachurch pastors who are "successful" at leadership (i'm thinking of Adam Hamilton here and his trip to Duke last fall).
I just hope you don't give out certificates or anything like that. Leadership has a lot to do with navel-gazing, but, like so many issues within the church, it seems to hold a solution exterior to the church, dangling and waiting.
Oh, and your current reading about how people skills take the forefront as you move up a hierarchy assumes a non-theological hierarchy wherein hierarchy functions only as an organizational system of efficient management. What it misses is how hierarchy (in a church) functions secondarily as a management position in need of great people skills, people skills which are far more culturally inculcated than pedagogically. If bishop's and DS's are just managers who need good people skills (which i don't know how theology could inform that since people skills is just another way to say political skills which is just another way to say lier), then the UMC is in worse straights than it seems.
When did "people skills" become synonymous with lying?
Wilson,
Yes, institutional leaders are defined roughly as bishops and DS's and their equivalents across various churches. It also includes churches of a particular size. It also includes administration at various organizations such as hospitals, nursing homes, seminaries etc.
If you don't think that these folks play some kind of significant role that is worth helping them to do better ("better" being defined theologically which is not necessarily equivalent to "efficently") then it seems to me you're speaking about some kind of radical free-church model that doesn't recognize any kind of defined leadership position. I am vested in an episcopal polity and I think that the episcopacy is something that can be done well or done poorly, just like being a pastor of a small rural church can be done well and be done poorly. This is not to say that one role (the small rural pastor or the bishop) is more important than the other.
So it would seem, Wilson, that you're suggesting that knowledge borrowed from any other field cannot be appropriated in the church except to the detriment of theological ends. How does one achieve such purity of theological thinking and action? It feels like a dis-embodied or dis-encultrated Christianity.
Also, I'm not sure I followed how people skills ended up being about lying. Please flesh that one out a bit more. And I never used the word "just" in referring to people skills. That's your own insertion ("If bishop's and DS's are just managers who need good people skills") into my observation.
Lastly, Wilson, you're very good at tearing down. How about building something constructive in this conversation? Show me some appropriate appropriation of knowledge that didn't come from a book of theology. Paint me a more beautiful picture than I'm painting myself. I'm willing to listen.
And the passive-aggressive Tom Arthur finally rears his head.
The lying thing was crass, I admit, and it is probably just a personal issue. Most people I have met with "people skills" rub me the wrong way and so I lashed out a bit. I have never met a "leader" whom I've felt spoke with any sincerity or ever stood up for something against their self-interest. And true, there are a lot of people in this world I have not met, my experiences have only made me cynical about positions of authority.
I am not against drawing knowledge from other fields. The issue is whether "leadership" qualifies as a field of knowledge. What part of truth is the study of leadership seeking? Why does the tradition of the Church lack the resources in teaching leadership that modern business texts are needed (i'm sure their are other texts you use, that is just an example)?
I am not totally negative about this and I didn't mean to just tear things down. The church needs to be the church, as Stanley often says. I think the disciplines of the Holy Life, of the Works of Mercy, of Charity and Patience are what's needed in pastors and leaders of the Church and are what is lacking in pastors and leaders of the Church. I know you will agree with me on this, Tom, but I think that taking the focus away from those disciplines is just unfortunate.
And my greatest fear, I will admit, is that 'leadership' is just a way to insert business practices into the church, to try to make the church efficient and (in some sense) profitable (how ever that profit may be assessed). I could be completely mistaken by this (and I am open to being mistaken). I just wanted to let you know what I am pushing against so that it might clear up what I am trying to say.
And briefly, isn't the New Testament of leadership total servanthood to all? As in deferring to the other to the detriment of oneself. If two people are waiting to go through a door, and each defers to the other, maybe they don't need to go through that door.
Or, leadership is to seek out the good of everyone else in the church but the leader and have faith that God looks after you because when you seek the good of another you seek God.
Dear Wilson,
I'm not sure it was passive. Just aggressive. :)
I think you're jumping the gun assuming that what LE@DD is up to is all about efficiency. Rather, it might be though of as seminary for bishops (and other leaders, but I'll use "bishops" just for simplicity sake). If we value seminary for pastors, why not some kind of training for bishops on how best to be a bishop? What would that kind of a curriculum look like? What books would they read (theological, business, medical, novels, history, etc.)? What professors would they want to talk to? What "professionals" would they want to talk to?
So if by "efficient" we mean "be a better bishop" then I think we can talk to some extent about helping them be efficient. But I wouldn't use the word "efficient" to describe it. I'd say that a education for bishops is about helping them be more faithful at being a being bishop. This will have some issues of "efficiency" in it ("efficiency" in a business sense) because being a bishop has to do with playing some part in helping run an organization (payroll, taxes, etc.) but it would be by no means all about efficiency. It would also be about how one fits spiritual disciplines in one's life as a bishop, how one teaches as a bishop, how one preaches as a bishop, how one gets to know other bishops, how one identifies places of hope within one's charge (and outside of one's charge), how one reaches out in mission and service, how one helps the church to fulfill the great commission, and how one helps the church be the church. I think the bishop and any other new role of leadership that one steps into in the church will have unique (and familiar) issues that can be addressed by some kind of educational and formational experience.
Or, as you put it Wilson, how does one serve others as a bishop? You didn't use the word "servant leadership" but I think you're alluding to it. I'm not against this concept (I think its pretty good in its right place), but I'd like to bring up that that phrase is a relatively new phrase which was coined in 1970 by Robert K. Greenleaf. You can read about it here: http://www.greenleaf.org. Thus, the emphasis on servant leadership is a relatively new one. Was Ambrose being a "servant leader" when he excommunicated Theodosius?
Didn't most bishops already go to seminary? Don't most bishops already have Dmins which means they went back?
I did admit that i could be jumping the gun, Tom. I'm not claiming complete knowledge on this. That is why I wanted to point out my fears and what I was striving against in this.
If this isn't trying to give Bishops the tools of business, then I am for it. If this is trying to tell bishop's to try and be more like St. Francis, to travel to more churches and preach more often, then I am for it. If this de-emphasises payroll, and pensions, and teaches bishops how to ignore pay-grade during appointments, then I am for it.
And yes, Ambrose was being a leader by excommunicating the Emperor. If this trained Bishops to excommunicate more people, i will be for it, too.
If this can teach bishop's to be more like Ambrose and St. Francis and less like Jack Welsh or Bill Gates, than I am for it.
As for the M.Div, I think the education we got at Duke with the M.Div would only be a foundation for what a Bishop has to do. We did jump over all that stuff in the Book of Discipline in Methodism.
I don't know much about D.Min's. My pastor got one back home and I did participate with him a bit on it. It wasn't what I would say was helpful for a bishop. But perhaps some school has a D.Min that would be. Although, did they get their D.Min while a bishop or while a pastor? I think they're fairly distinct roles and callings.
I hear your fear about Jack Welsh. I read his book, Winning, and mostly grimaced through the whole thing. And yet, I think there is appropriate engagement with the Fuqua School of Business (as well as any other school on campus).
I too am curious how this thing at LE@DD will work out. I don't yet see the whole picture. I'm the lowly research associate. The website will be live in a week or two and that will give a fairly good indication of what things will look like. But note entirely. And they're also learning on the go. There really isn't anything out there like what they're doing (which is probably why they got the grant, but which also means they're setting the pattern so give it a little time to shift and solidify).
So back to my question, is there any other field of knowledge that can help inform ministry? How bout music? Did you learn to play the guitar in a theology class? How does that skill that you probably learned somewhere else inform ministry and/or theology?
Tom,
I keep answering your questions and yet you ask them again. I don't mind knowledge from other fields. I am an Augustinian who sees any search for truth as a search for God. I see God mostly through music, that is not disputed.
The issue is what truth is leadership searching for? I already asked you that and you skipped over it. What aspect of truth was ignored until the mighty field of leadership came along. Which is another way to put that I don't think leadership is a field of knowledge. I think music is, history, literature, physics, geology, a lot of things.
With the D.Min. thing, I was just continuing my elitism about how many bishops call themselves Dr and got Dmin's somewhere doing correspondence work for three years.
Wilson,
Sorry for skipping over your question. What truth is leadership seeking after? I'd say its a study of what the gift of leadership is that Paul uses in his list of spiritual gifts: "We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us...If it is to lead, do it diligently." What and how does one lead diligently? That's what I'd say its a study of. At least what I'd say right now.
As for my own question, I was looking for a specific and very concrete example. I wasn't looking so much for an abstract conversation (not that "abstract" is bad). Maybe you've given an example and I missed it.
I agree about the D.Min. My experience of the D.Min. is that it's a pretty soft "doctorate". Not that it necessarily has to be or always is. But to put it in the same class as a PhD or ThD by calling them all "doctorates" is misleading at best and something else at worst.
Post a Comment
<< Home