Leadership Upgrade
Posted December 15th, 2008 by Keith Howard
Leadership is the most critical, strategic dimension of the future of The United Church of Canada. Fair or not, theologically precise or not, it remains true.
One of the comments we hear most frequently from leaders is that they feel ill-equipped to deal with the challenges and opportunities before us.
Some blame their training; some blame the church; some blame themselves; some check all of the above.
The truth is though that even if we were able to provide a means for leaders to go online and download the latest leadership skills and thinking we would still be more than a step away from utopia and conflict free congregations.
These are uncertain times. Various images are used in their description.
Many days I identify with that proposed by Ron Heifitz and Sharon Parks - we are in the swamp, that murky, unstable place where the next step feels far from certain.
OK, these are challenging times, now what?
As befitting postmodern times no single answer emerges; rather a cluster of possibilities arise.
On a personal level, it is clear that individual leaders have to take responsibility for their own skill and knowledge level. Whining is out! Seminary or congregational training has prepared you more or less well for the realities of the front line. Are you now ready for the congregational challenge? I am reminded of the conversation of God with Moses at the Burning Bush. OK, whatever, you have some valid concerns, now get on with it.
Clearly the discovery and upgrading of skills and knowledge is ongoing and is part of the rationale for the three-week study leave and $1000 support mandated for paid, accountable staff.
Living in these post-denominational times means the denomination is no longer capable or expected to deliver all support and education. No new program will save the day. That said, another level of responsibility does lie with the larger church.
The model of mission with which we operate is not that of isolated cells left on their own until activated. We, as the Body of Christ, have responsibility to care for other parts of the Body. Leaders need structural support.
The good news I see is that increasingly responsibility is being taken in many quarters. People are finding courses and mentors and sharing those nourishing experiences with colleagues. Books are being found and read, DVDs watched. And many parts of the church are offering opportunities designed to deepen leadership capacity.
Do we need more? Probably, but certainly part of a faithful response in this extraordinary time is a reexamination of leadership, including who is responsible for what. Those leaders with great sense of entitlement will find the times ahead most difficult; those with the greatest sense of curiosity will fare the best.
- Keith Howard's blog
- Login to post comments
This work's Creative Commons licenseMore info about Creative Commons Licensing
Comments
Aren't you forgetting a "dimension", Rev. Dr. Howard?
You agonize over the trials and tribulations of leadership. You say it needs an "upgrade". It is not surprising that one of the methods of upgrading is to spend more of United Church's dwindling financial resources on "a 3-weeek study leave and $1000 for paid, accountable staff".
Nowhere in your blog do I hear concern for the needs of those who faithfully supply the money through M&S giving to finance this 3-week leadership "study leave".
I will give you an important piece of leadership advice for free: Respect the people you are "leading" if you want us take you seriously.
Before you protest that you do, let's examine Anna Christie's admiring comment on your response to Connie denBok's Observer column:
This is what she wrote about Rev denBok's criticism of your Emerging
Spirit project:
"You'd think this sort of non-factual criicism would at the very least be contained to congregational members complaining about their ministrs, but when the clergy start dissing the ministries of the church, drawing wild conclusions based on little or evidence, is there any hope for us all."
You actually THANKED her for this making this comment, Dr. Howard. . Where is your "discernment" (a favorite United Church word), as you read Anna's dismissive remarks about those whom you lead? She expects little in the way of intelligence or ethical behavior from those at the congregational members' level (like me); she has higher expectations of clergy like Rev. denBok to appreciate and follow unquestioningly the wisdom of the General Council "ministries". Like much of General Council ideology, there is little respect for, or interest in the opinions of the individuals who make up the membership of this once great United Church of Canada, and who pay the salary of the "leaders".
I urge you to re-read Anna Christie's comments, and re-consider your "thank-you". I happen to agree with Rev. denBok's assessment of the E.S campaign, and see a troubling double standard in Anna's expectations of UCC membership.
I see in her smug judgmental comment, and your undiscerning approval what it is that ails the leadership of our beloved United Church of Canada.
Lois Hashimoto
Vision
Lois,
You sound very disempowered. I am glad to see you are taking the opportunity to try and regain some power. I hope these posts lead you to constructive actions through the courts of the Church.
I, like you am lay, so no expert on policy, but I am 90% sure the study leave Keith refers to has been part of ministers standard terms of employment for many, many years. I hope your ministers have study leave available to them.
Calling Anna and Keith to task I think is appropriate, although I think your comment should have been in the same thread as Keith and Anna’s. It is a bit insulting suggesting that the leaders should be smarter than the congregants. I think the double standard is kind of nice though, as once someone (staff) weighs in on the study leave issue that you and I (lay) have raised here one of us is going to be glad our mistake can be easily forgiven. (Someone please check the Manual for me!)
Our paid accountable leaders in the UCC have a very tough job, kind of like a government. We elect them, or at least vote on the policies that inform their work, and guide those responsible for hiring them. We do not have an opposition though. If we wish to challenge the direction of the church we have to start again at the grass roots and re-shape the policy.
We the church have set the ES program in place. And we the church have the right to question the program, and if we choose re-shape or discard it at the next opportunity. It sounds like you and Connie are advocating for this.
My concern though is this. It sounds like you are passionate about the church. You speak with respect for intelligent young people who won’t be swayed by a bobble headed Jesus. But I don’t see how the UCC will survive if we don’t realize that we are going to die, and soon, if we don’t get out of this rut we are in.
My Dad turned 61 yesterday. He is hugely involved in his congregation. I fully expect he will be dead in less than 30 years. He is one of the young people in his congregation. There will be no congregation in 20 years, and this is a large (currently) urban congregation. I grew up in it and still live 1 block from it.
I, 35, drive across the city to a different UCC. It is not like any of the dozen I pass on the way. It embraces me, and my family. It is welcoming to 30-45’s and I have a peer group there.
If we say the ES program is a waste of money, that the ads won’t attract “our” kind of people, what is the vision of the UCC that we are left with?
Please, suggest something. We are the lay people setting the vision. If you’ve got one let me know, because I want to be part of it.
Bassic (I'm Arthur McLeod in case you are wondering, I just use Bassic on ES and Wondercafe. All the hip internet types do it, so I figured I could too. Call me what you are most comfortable with.)
Study leave
The following is an excerpt of "The Manual"
039 Study Leave. Ministry Personnel and others in Presbytery Accountable Ministries are entitled to and are expected to take advantage of three (3) weeks study leave per year. This study time is to be arranged in consultation with the Ministry and Personnel Committee of the Official Board or Church Board or Church Council and the appropriate Presbytery and Conference. Funding for such leave shall be a shared responsibility of the Pastoral Charge or employer and the individual. Funding for continuing education shall be included in the terms of each call, settlement, or appointment of Ministry Personnel.
end quote
It is my understanding this is funded entirely locally, M&S is not involved, unless the pastoral charge is receiving M&S funding through some other means.
I stand corrected
Yes, Arthur, you are absolutely correct, and I apologize. I was still thinking and feeling outraged by Rev. Howard's response to Connie denBok's criticism of his Emerging Spirit campaign and his postscript comments to Anna about leadership. I lashed out without really understanding what he was saying in his new column. I apologize to Dr. Howard, and I thank you, Arthur, for showing me how I myself contribute to ill feelings and misunderstandings.
I am totally supportive of paid study leaves for our congregational ministers. I know at first hand how deserving our hardworking pastors are of the support-- financial, emotional, and spiritual--that we are able to give them, and know that it's never enough. We hope that the love we feel for them help to make up the shortfall.
Arthur, I wish I knew how to fill our churches again. In my own United Church, demographics play a large part in our diminishing numbers. In the early '60s there were over 200 children in our Sunday School. The church pews were mostly filled with the very age group E.S. is now seeking. But our church is located in the province of Quebec, in Laval, a city of mostly French speaking citizens. Most of our children left the province after the separatist Parti Quebcois came to power in 1976.
Had they stayed in Quebec, would they and their children be coming to church? Not likely. Their Sundays would have been spent driving their kids to Hockey and Ringuette games in the winter and soccer and dance classes the rest of the year.
So Arthur, when I slam the ES campaign, it's not because I think I am wiser: it's because I don't think it takes a doctorate in theology to know in my heart that Christianity isn't about welcoming gays and lesbians --it is a GIVEN that God loves us all.
And $10.5 million is a lot of money to throw away. I cannot help wishing the money had been used to keep the invaluable United Church history in the Archives where it had been safely and lovingly kept for almost 70 years: in Victoria College, at the University of Toronto, in the academic setting where it belongs, instead of in the office of the United Church General Council, for whom I have lost all confidence.
Whoa!
I haven't been on here in a while (since my comments on the article) mainly because I was so outraged about it.
HOWEVER, I in no way intended my comments to draw a distinction between clergy and laity. I simply take it as fact that [SOME] congregational members constantly and chronically criticize ministers and don't base their criticism on fact. This is what I hear from every single one of my colleagues. This doesn't mean that clergy don't do the same thing in their respective circles. We are no better than anyone else, clergy or lay, and I never meant to imply that! I sure hate to be called "smug and judgmental"...geesh!
My point was that often we clergy are worn out with the constant criticism from our congregations and ON TOP OF THAT now clergy are criticizing each other. That's what I meant. My whole point was since we can't take it (it seems) we shouldn't be dishing it out. I think we should be supportive of each other.
I think the laity have the right to criticize the programs of the church. But those of us who work for the church should be a little more supportive, I think. Maybe not. I'm open to discussion on it.
My whole point in my RANT... (and it was a rant - the article really burned my chili)... was that all criticism should be FACT-BASED.
Anna S. Christie
www.evokingchange.com