GC2020: Tree Gazing and Leadership

Frank Holbrook 4 GC 2020 , Uncategorized

A few weeks ago I was at the Pre-Conference Briefing organized and conducted by United Methodist Communications.  I wrote a short post here but shortly after returning from the briefing I came down with the flu and life got in the way of additional posts.  This is a follow on post.

Most of the time, I tend to focus on specifics and analyze specific items.  However, sometimes I write about larger themes. This is one of those times.  This is purely an opinion post that is largely impressionistic.  You may disagree with the opinions, but if it causes you to reflect then it has done its intended job.

One thing that struck me during the pre-conference briefing was the tree gazing focus of the briefing and by extrapolation, the probability that the business sessions of General Conference will also largely be tree gazing.  When I say “tree gazing” I’m using the term in the context of “You can’t see the forest for the trees”.   A while back, in response to one of my blog posts, Phil Hannum tweeted , in part: “Frank, I have followed you since your first “Plane Grace” post & I expected that your Idealism would take a few jolts at GC.”  I think Phil probably overestimates my idealism but I understand his point.  This post isn’t really about idealism or a jolt I received, it’s about a large issue that seems to be going unrecognized.  It clearly isn’t about a specific topic for GC 2020.

One of the areas that I began to think about based on the pre-conference briefing is the concept of leadership.  At every level of the church, I often hear the sentiment expressed that we can, or should, or have given a leadership role to a person, group, organization or interest group.  That seemed to be an overarching topic and sentiment at the Pre-Conference briefing.  I think this is tree gazing.

As the United States continues to have a very large influence over the United Methodist Church, I think the concept of what makes a leader is being influenced by the growing tendency in secular Western Civilization to conflate leadership with credentials.  One can read a lot about credentialism but this short definition is a decent summary: Credentialism is a number of related processes involving increased demands for formal educational qualifications for advancement.  In Western society, there has been increasing reliance on formal qualifications or certification for jobs and for advancement in organizations; this is the effect of credentialism.

If one is thinks clearly about the issue, one has to admit that the church is a bastion of credentialism.  It is a large part of the church’s DNA.  Ordained clergy are given credentials.  They are set apart and identified as leaders by these credentials.  In his book Old or New School Methodism, Kevin Watson quotes Bishop Matthew Simpson in his Lectures on Preaching:”You perceive that I believe in the divine election of ministers. So far you can count me a Calvinist.” Old or New School Methodism at p. 67.  I have no way of knowing how many clergy adhere to this view or something similar.  But inherent in the concept of “responding to the call” is the idea of divine selection. Divine calling is the ultimate credential, isn’t it?

I suspect part of the tension that exists between the clergy and the laity is a differing view of leadership based on credentials.  The analogy that I think explains the phenomenon is a legal one; to those who routinely read this site there is no surprise there.  The legal analogy is that of the evidentiary presumption.

When a case is tried the fact finder must base their decision on evidence.  However, fact finders can be aided by a presumption.  A presumption is a conclusion based upon a particular set of facts, combined with established laws, logic or reasoning. A presumption is a rule that allows a fact finder to assume a fact is true.  Presumptions can be conclusive – meaning you can’t prove that the assumed fact is not true.  A prime example of a conclusive presumption is “all people know what the law is”.  In your defense, you can’t prove you didn’t know about the law.  A rebuttable presumption is one that can be disproved by other evidence.  An example of a rebuttable presumption is that a child born in wedlock is the biological child of the father; this presumption may be disproven by evidence, such as DNA evidence.  Once the rebuttable presumption is disproved it carries no weight.

So what does the idea of presumptions have to do with leadership and the tension between clergy and laity?  Based on my experience, it seems that often clergy understand their credentials to be a conclusive  presumption concerning their leadership; i.e. their leadership cannot be questioned.  Why shouldn’t they think this way?  They have been divinely called.  On the other hand, in the Protestant tradition laity probably think of credentials as a rebuttable presumption; laity will presume that clergy with credentials are leaders but the evidence can ultimately prove otherwise.  If my analysis is correct, there lies a fundamental disconnect about how clergy and laity view the leadership role of clergy.

My main point in all of this is that focusing on “the trees” of designating leaders, whether clergy or in the institutional church, using credentialism essentially overlooks the “forest” concerning the true nature of leadership.  Effective leaders are not made by credentials; they exist because people choose to follow them.  Where God has chosen leaders such as Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon or the ultimate leader, Jesus, people follow.

I suspect at GC 2020 I’ll hear a lot about who the church should designate as leaders.  People, boards, agencies and various interest groups will clamor to be designated leaders. This view is essentially if the church confers the tile of leader then leadership exists. However, it might be helpful if someone took one step back and confronted the question of how one becomes a leader and what are the marks of leadership that provide evidence of leadership.  Conferring a position of authority doesn’t necessarily make one a leader; it may create a presumption but the presumption is rebuttable.  Is it credentials, a designation or is it something else that actually makes a leader?

Years ago I read Richard Foster’s Celebration of Leadership.  Although it’s not widely read anymore, one of its observations makes what I believe is an important point concerning leadership worth remembering:

As the cross is the sign of submission, so the towel is the sign of service. When Jesus gathered his disciples for the Last Supper they were having trouble deciding who was the greatest. This was no new issue for them. “And an argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest” (Luke 9:46). Whenever there is trouble over who is the greatest, there is trouble over who is the least.

That is the crux of the matter for us, isn’t it? Most of us know we will never be the greatest; just don’t let us be the least. Gathered at the Passover feast, the disciples were keenly aware that someone needed to wash the others’ feet. The problem was that the only people who washed feet were the least. So there they sat, feet caked with dirt. It was such a sore point that they were not even going to talk about it. No one wanted to be considered the least. Then Jesus took a towel and a basin and redefined greatness.

Having lived out servanthood before them, he called them to the way of service: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:14, 15). In some ways we would prefer to hear Jesus’ call to deny father and mother, houses and land for the sake of the gospel than his word to wash feet. Radical self-denial gives the feel of adventure. If we forsake all, we even have the chance of glorious martyrdom. But in service we must experience the many little deaths of going beyond ourselves. Service banishes us to the mundane, the ordinary, the trivial.

Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline pp. 126-7.

I hope the time you spent reading to this point was worthwhile.  Thanks for investing your time.

Come Holy Spirit.