The Role of Tomorrow’s Leaders

So today Wes Roberts, a man who acts as a mentor-type in my life, gave all of his legions of mentees some homework:

Watch and listen to these six [Harvard Business Review Future of Leadership] videos (none more than 15 minutes long…so take a breath…).  Two of them have multiple voices (like the first one…), so I will want your thoughts about each person speaking concerning what they are saying/suggesting…whether alone on the video as the one interviewed or in a short series.  Send to me via an email the 2-3 most important statements you heard that will help to inform your own developing leadership.  What struck you about their topic as a whole?  And what challenged you in your current and/or future roles as a leader?

I hate to waste perfectly good homework, so I’m going to blog these. : )  In this first one, The Role of Tomorrow’s Leaders, many things were said – some contradictory. Watch it for yourself:

 

 

Here are some one-liners that stuck out to me:

Leaders of the future…

• Need to give things away
• Have much less control in the present than in the past
• Manage across borders
• Are networking, connecting leaders – distributed leadership at all levels (Starfish)
• Are more hierarchical? Structure of management still there; Ambidextrous leadership
• Can’t be stuck in counterproductive, anachronistic mindsets
• Build connections – bridge-builders, crossing different assumed boundaries
• Are utilizing new resources in a rapidly-changing world; navigating uncertainty
• Are finding common purpose amid social, cultural, & identity difference

I have nothing profound to add to this on a lazy, hazy, returning-to-Raleigh Saturday (except that KedgeForward can help your company make the above deep-culture transitions and more!)…what are your thoughts?

Obama’s First 100 Days – My Grade: B-

So CNN is running this 100 Day Report Card of the Obama administration dealie that showed up in my Facebook. I compulsorily graded Mr. President & was done with it. But 40 FB wall comments later, I thought I’d explain my grade a little bit, in a hopefully less-incendiary, more policy-based, space. (Facebook walls can be brutal when you have lots of friends who are conservatives, and lots who are progressives!)

Overall, I think Obama is doing a great job in overall leadership & visionary categories. He came down to earth a bit in progressives’ hearts & minds with his cabinet choices – they seemed rather Clintonian. Like many Slow Food enthusiasts, I was initially disappointed in his Ag Secretary choice, Tom Vilsack, but I have hope that he might be different on organic/local food policy than his predecessors & former Monsanto cronies. (Though I am disappointed in his pro-ethanol stance)

That said, Obama’s charting his own course with sweeping reform & the stimulus package. I have a lot of empathy with him on the stimulus package, as it’s almost a lose-lose proposal – conservatives shriek socialism, and actual socialists, labor movement folks, and other progressives fret about it being pro-big-corporations. I can understand both fears, but lets face it: in the wake of the previous administrations’ war-debt fest, what’s left to do?

The Stimulus Plan, like the New Deal, is ambitious, flawed, & probably will work. I also appreciate Obama’s presence in global relations & his reconciling tone – it’s not cowardice to be friendly with former & current national ‘enemies;’ one might even say it’s a Christian virtue of quiet strength. Oh, and I LOVE that the Obamas have a pesticide-free garden on the White House lawn. It’s only symbolic, but symbols are important – we desperately need a food system overhaul in America. Oh, and I applaud the administration for setting an Iraq withdrawal, better ecological standards, and working on a light rail.

Now for what I don’t like: While I appreciate the pragmatism (& believe the good intentions) of the abortion-reduction strategy, many of Obama’s moves have been huge concessions to the pro-choice camp, even when they’ve been (in my opinion) politically unnecessary – like with embryonic stem cell research. Even Al Gore is now pointing to the viability of skin stem cells for the same breakthroughs that embryonics promised. I think this is an opportunity for the new administration to step up to the post-partisan plate.

Secondly, I’m just not sure overall if Obama’s going to make good on his promises to reverse harmful Bush administration trends toward less transparency and greater executive power – his policies on rendition, wire tapping, etc., are pretty fuzzy. I wish the new Congress would just repeal the Patriot Act.

Finally, while I think that Obama’s a kinder & gentler hawk than the Bush-Cheney crew, he’s still hawkish. I wish he’d seriously consider nonviolent alternatives to full-scale war in Afghanistan. (See Rethinking Afghanistan)

So that’s it. Here are some websites, from progressive *and* Libertarian sources, that outline some of my praises/concerns:

Huffington Post

Paul Raushenbush

American Prospect

AlterNet

House Churching: Where I’m at Now

Update: I’ve written more, in response to some thoughtful comments below. If you’ve already read my original post, scroll down…

So: I’ve been house-churching for a decade now. I thought I’d share a little bit about how I’ve gone from being an ardent member of the house church’s self-described ‘radical wing’ to something of a house church moderate. I’ll begin with a comment I left on Late Emerger’s blog:

I agree with the Stuart Murray book recommendation. I’d like to see you blog more about Reimagining Church – if the ideas aren’t ‘new’ to you due to your Brethren background, what do you find helpful (or not) about them, regardless of their relative novelty?

As a decade-long house-churcher, I wrestle with these questions a lot. (I blogged about Reimagining a bit here). In light of my recent posts, I should share where I’m headed today, albeit briefly: I still enjoy the house church emphases of the direct leadership of the Trinity in our gatherings (‘direct’ being a rather tricky word; I fully acknowledge the problem with language, immediacy, and analogy that postmodern theologians grapple with) and the priesthood of all believers for the ‘open-sourcing‘ of the Church. That said, I like the anabaptist emphasis on the political and social dimensions of the gospel, and I’ve gotta say, I’m more and more drawn to High Church smells & bells too – what’s a 21st-century friend of Jesus to do? For now, I think ‘what to do’ in my decidely low-church (basement church!) expression is to compost church expressions, give expiring institutional models the dignity to die well, and let something organic grow from its decay; liturgy is ‘the work of the people‘ after all and can work, even thrive, in an open-source setting.

Update Starts Here

Thanks for the feedback, all!

Monasticism Old & New

Kevin, you’re absolutely right. Had I written A Somewhat Less Brief Post on House Churching: Where I’m at Now, (Oops! It looks like I am!) I would have certainly included the insights from both monasticism and the new monasticism as key influencers in my sensibilities-shift. One thing I like about the ‘wing’ of the house church movement we come from is the attempt to locate ourselves historically beyond ‘the first century church.’ Through the influence of books like The Torch of the Testimony and The Pilgrim Church, hagiographies though they may be, we were  able to see (an amusing little essay I wrote ages ago) lines of spiritual continuity with many minority movements that went before us, some of them heterodox. These included Montanists, Donatists, Waldensians, Lollards, Anabaptists, Quakers, and ‘post-Brethren’ movements like the Little Flock in China. Similarly, the New Monastic folks, coming from more ‘mainstream’ evangelical backgrounds, took a look at our equally-neglected heritage of the Desert Mothers and Fathers, Catholic mystics and activists (including Oscar Romero, Liberation theologians, African and Latin American base communities, Catholic Worker houses), the rich tapestry of monastic movements, and again the Anabaptists – our two streams share them in common inspiration! So they take all of these groups and personalities for inspiration, but also feel free to retain the best of their evangelical backgrounds too, remix, and stir with a sensitivity to contemporary culture – both where it needs to be affirmed and prophetically critiqued. Hence they move the monastery back to the city, ‘relocating to the abandoned places of empire.’ I love it.

Ten-Year Itch

Marion, I understand where you’re coming from. Why, in you perception, exchange the Substance for mere types and shadows? I get it. First off, a question: How long have you been actively involved in house-churching? I only ask because a wise older brother, who had been living in an intentional house church community that I began gathering with early on, said to me – a young buck house church zealot – “Before you commit to anything for life, give it ten years. Let’s talk in ten years.” At the time I thought he was trying to be a downer, but you know what? It’s been ten years. And my perspective has changed.

Leadership: What Is It?

As to your thoughts on hierarchical leadership: I’m no fan of hierarchy per se. And in case I was unclear, what I meant by

I still enjoy the house church emphases of the direct leadership of the Trinity in our gatherings and the priesthood of all believers for the ‘open-sourcing‘ of the Church

…is that I’m still a huge supporter of participatory gatherings open to all to share. But I’ve also come to realize that leadership is not a dirty word. It’s certainly been misused and abused in some bricks-and-mortar church settings, but I think we house church folk can sometimes romanticize what ‘the headship of Jesus Christ in our midst’ means in actual practice. To be specific: I think we’ve sometimes sold ourselves a bill of goods in the idea that New Testament churches just kind of magically got together without direction or leadership, and their gatherings just ‘came together,’ magically and marvelously. In my experience, some people are just naturally more gifted at motivating the rest of us to practice our own priesthood in a variety of ways. These people either arise after awhile in a house church setting, or the overall house church experience ends up being pretty sub-par. Don’t get me wrong: I still bristle when I visit house churches that are trying to re-create Big Church Sunday Morning Worship in a living room; they’re just getting started and they seem to already have a Pastor, Worship Leader, and Greeter all picked out! It’s annoying. At the same time, I can’t throw stones. I’m way less judgmental as to how that occurs in each particular group, fellowship, or congregation.

The Work of the People

Regarding liturgy: Believe it or not, there is a growing segment of people who are now ‘doing’ liturgy without hierarchy. Many of them are on your side of the pond, in the UK. (See this section of zoecarnate.com for some extensive links, photos, videos and stories) It’s known as ‘alternative worship’ or ‘fresh expressions.’ For some, it’s following more or less a traditional liturgy, though sometimes simplified for smaller groups or acapella singing – creating a rhythm of regularity around which spontaneity can be supported. For others – like the Ikon community in Belfast, Grace in London, or the late, lamented Vaux (it’s really worth going here and here and here to see all that the Spirit wrought with the Zeitgeist in their day) – it’s a bit more community-created from the ground up, more creative and elaborate…though these groups typically meet on a monthly, rather than weekly, basis, their worship takes so much time and energy. And I don’t think most of ’em wear robes! Though I’ve gotta say, I’ve lightened up on this count too. I’ll never forget earlier this year when Jasmin and I met up with our friend Sara Miles (and Paul Fromberg) at St. Luke’s Episcopal in Atlanta. Sara and Paul were talking about various aspects of their life together at St. Gregory’s in San Francisco, including the food pantry they started from their altar. It was an informal chat with about 40 people present, and lots of interaction. Then came a transition point where they were teaching us St. Gregory’s uniquely homegrown style of alt.worship liturgy, which is a blend of Anglican and Byzantine sensibilities, open-sourced so the whole congregation can genuinely participate. It’s all a capella, with just some hand chimes and a Tibetan prayer bowl for accompaniment. But the part I won’t forget is how I was chatting with Sara and then she nonchalantly said “Excuse me a sec while I slip into something less comfortable,” and voila! Five minutes later, Sara had donned a – I don’t even know what you call it, a robe with some a tie-dyed stole. It’s wasn’t pompous, it was festive! And then we all began dancing around a table, arm in arm, hugging and kissing, and eating holy bread and wine. It was one of the most open, participatory gatherings I had been to in awhile – all in an ornate downtown Atlanta cathedral. While the setting was unfamiliar to me, I sensed the unmistakable aroma of Jesus.

I don’t know if this responds to all of your (very well-stated) concerns. I’m particularly curious to hear others weigh in on what ‘poor and ordinary’ people think of liturgies versus house church gatherings. I’ve heard anecdotal corroboration that both people from more ‘roughneck’ backgrounds appreciate the beauty and poetry of good liturgy, and that sometimes seekers feel more at home in cathedrals than in living rooms. Of course I’ve heard/seen the reverse to be true as well. Jesus was certainly ‘everyday’ in many respects, but he was also seen as a sage. His parables involved everyday objects and concepts, but turned them on their heads. Paul was a master of rhetoric (despite his protests to the contrary) and the prophets, not to mention authors in apocalyptic and Wisdom genres, were skilled poets. So I think we see every level of discourse in the Bible as well as everyday life. I agree with you, though, that sisters and brothers in Christ don’t need to be eloquent or profound to share real spiritual depth. But they also don’t have to not be those things.

Where Do We Go from Here?

I don’t think I’ve mentioned this on my blog before, but Jasmin and I are leaving our beloved house church community here in Raleigh in late March 2009. We’re moving back to the Atlanta area to be closer to family – our little girl’s grandparents in particular. What does this mean for us spiritually, and church-wise? I honestly have no idea.  We’re not quitting ‘house church’ – or as its increasingly referred to nowadays, ‘organic church’ – per se. At the same time, I’m not sure if that’s where we’re headed again immediately when we return. My wife and I are amazed by what we see the Spirit working in the ATL; it really seems like Kingdom movement if afoot in many streams and tributaries of the household of God – ‘house church’ included. I’ve told Jasmin that I’m wide open to whatever – house church, Episcopal Church, Mennonites, Quakers, Vineyard or East Orthodox or one of those start-up emerging churches – Oh my! It might just be the season of life I’m in, looking at age 30 – but I’m more concerned about our rhythms of everyday life than where and how we worship. I’m learning to see my house church heritage, like any other set of cousins in the family of God, as a particular tradition. And insofar as I continue gathering for fellowship, action, and encouragement in homes, I’m committed to seeing her as a living tradition, for her own health and well-being.

Related posts:

Open Gatherings and Life’s Wisdom

I May as Well Admit It…I’m a House-Churcher

House Church: Ready for Prime Time? Pt. 1

House Church: Ready for Prime Time? Pt. 2

My View of the Future Now

…is considerably more complex. While not dogmatic about eschatology, I tend to resonate with a perspective known as Transmillennialism, which tries to frame the Old and New Testament apocalyptic discourses in the prophetic, symbolic framework that would have been comprehensible to their original hearers. Doing this has the effect of seeing most (if not all) apocalyptic warnings and promises as being fulfilled, no later than 70 CE. This is, of course, quite different than the “Left Behind” perspective that tends to dominate our novels and video games these days…I still don’t know if my parents are aware that I’m no longer waiting for Jesus to pull an invasion of the body snatchers move!

My thoughts in eschatology tend to flow with my more general conviction regarding the future: It is an open book, and humanity has a vital role to play in it. Our decisions matter. Spiritually speaking, God does not want us to remain children forever; we are intended to grow and mature, becoming co-creators with God in every area of creation. This goes against a certain fatalism in American Christendom’s dominant guiding story, as well as our throw-away American psyche, that lives for momentary gains and little else. This is why I’m in the degree program I’m in: to meaningfully initiate change, and show others how appealing and beneficial this is.

On The Use of Influence

My friend Troy Bronsink was voted Atlanta’s 6th least-influential person by Atlanta’s Creative Loafing! Read the article; it’s tragi-funny.

What is influence? How do we use it?

On The Use of Power

Power…what is it? How do we use it? Should we use it? These are some of the questions I ponder as I read chapter 12 in The Leadership Experience. This book has been quite helpful to me in surveying the Leadership field and finding my idiosyncratic place in it. Chapter 12 is all about power and the use of power in political application—potentially one of the most incendiary chapters from a Christian perspective, particularly from the “Servant Leadership” paradigm we’ve been referencing in my 601 Leadership class. Insofar as I ever lead anything or anyone into our out of anything, I have thus far thought of myself as operating primarily from a Symbolic Frame (where everything has larger/spiritual meaning) and secondarily from a Human Resources frame (where people and relationships are of tantamount importance); however, upon reading the depictions of politicking in this chapter I somewhat ambivalently acknowledge that I do indeed employ a good deal of “politics” in my day-to-day life, whether lobbying for something with my wife, my house church community, spiritual networks or business clients.

In Praise of Gamaliel

So I’m wrapping up this 601 Leadership Course for my Strategic Foresight degree. I was discussing with a fellow student Paul’s leadership style, and my colleague suggested that Paul learned many of his leadership traits from his Pharisee tutelage under the rabbi Gamaliel.

Professional Ministry: An Oxymoron

“The idea of a distinction between clergy and laity is one of those extrabiblical human inventions that needs to be challenged and possibly even abolished altogether in believing communities. If, as the Apostle Peter claims, Christians are truly a Royal Priesthood then it seems that the very presence of a distinction between professional clergy and believing laity robs the “average” believer of his responsibility and calling to ministry in a local assembly through the use of his or her Spiritual gifts. Now I am aware that history happens and that it would be almost impossible to completely abolish any sort of “priestly” caste throughout the entire church but I am hopeful that communities within the emerging church, house church & organic church “movement” will begin to challenge this paradigm that – in my view – has vested too much power in the so-called clergy, thereby placing the burden of pastoral ministry that should be shared by an entire community on one person or a small group of persons. This over-burdening has two effects: first, it makes effective and relational ministry in churches nearly impossible because one person simply cannot embody every spiritual gift identified by Paul as beneficial and necessary for a functional Christian community. Second, it relieves “ordinary” Christians of the pastoral duties that they are called to embody by encouraging the truthless claim that the role of “pastor” should be embodied only by a formally trained and supposedly more fully gifted group of “called” and “equipped” pastoral elites.”

So says my friend and Duke seminarian Andrew Tatum in his blog today. Go here to read his entire thought-provoking post.