Leadership in a New Era

We can't deny the shift that has been happening in our world over the last two decades or so. It is beyond just being technological, or political, or economical, although these are all ripples in the tidal wave that is this era of postmodernism. I won't waste your time by explaining that term to you if you don't know it, but if you wish, you can go here (simple) or here (more complex) or here (audio discussion) to read/hear more background. In a nutshell, the new era moves away from large faceless and ethics-less corporations and institutions, away from authority figures that tell us what to think or feel, away from static ways of being. We move into an era of constant deconstructing revision, social momentum that moves organically from the bottom-up, and an acknowledgment that there is no right way of interpreting anything (although that is up for debate!).

The change is evident, but it is not instant. We are in this awkward intersection of old modern ways of being with post-modern ways of being. Kind of like turning left at a light that is about to change from yellow to red, but wondering with fear if that mack truck heading your direction is racing to beat the light, or simply slowing to a stop. Our modern institutions which thrived under the old way (General Motors, any mainline denominational church, the stock market) struggle to recognize, first of all, that this is happening, and then struggle to radically be transformed. I use radical transformation to mean being transformed to the roots (think "radish," comes from Latin "radix"). I make this distinction because sometimes there are transformations that occur, but they are superficial. The changes that occur in superficial transformation seek to do so in order to maintain the control, power, and structures that are definitive of the modern era. Superficiality in transformation amounts to a change in a company's name, or a new product or service that is to appeal to a new line of consumers, or a new way of disseminating the same old information.

Successful modern leaders are ambitious and aggressive with sights set on bottom line figures for growth--and their subordinates are accountable to these figures and little else. Leadership in the new era requires not leading people to a better way of doing an old thing, or attempting to attract people as a desperate grab for more power/money/resources. I believe leadership in the postmodern era requires submission*. A positive interpretation of the word "Submission" can mean to voluntarily lower one's self, which is difficult for leaders of the modern era, or those schooled in it, to do. Lowering of one's self means more than being seen with those who come from low places, like a politician begging cameras to follow him to the bar where miners drink for a half hour photo op. It means being sent (missio, -mission, to be sent) lower (sub-). The mission is to be lower, not to appear to be lower. Leaders of the new era submit themselves fully to the new way of being, that is, moving to the ground level, acknowledging that they do not have the answers. Postmodern leaders seek gifts in others, not to be exploited for the bottom line, but so that they can enter into honest relationship. I believe that the post-modern way of being will be centered on relationship-building, not institution building.

But what about those of us who are called to revive institutions that function according to modern rules (structure, hierarchy, protocol) into postmodern vibrancy and thriving? Can it happen at all? After all, one of the tenets of postmodernism is deconstruction of firmly constructed norms. I believe that those who are willing to lead shrinking institutions to postmodern thriving by deconstructing the existing institution are courageous risk takers who aren't afraid to offend (particularly in institutions that are made of people who are stuck in modernity) or to fail. Those who try to lead shrinking institutions to vibrancy by the superficial methods described above, are simply putting a happy face on the eventual death of the institution. I don't know which one I am--but I know who I want to be. The good news for procrastinators is that, since the world is still in that awkward intersection between modern and postmodern, modern institutions may be able to survive for a few more decades!

Honestly, new, organic creations that exist outside of the intersection have work to do, but have far less deconstruction work to do. For example, in a new church plant in Chicago, the focus of leadership for development didn't revolve around the question of "How do we create a worship environment that will attract a whole bunch of people?" The leadership spent over a year building relationships with new people, and even after the "launch" of the church (after about a year and three months), the focus has always been about creating and deepening authentic relationship (note the lack of the word "maintaining")- and since this has been the focus from the beginning, the number of those who acknowledge a seeking after something different flock to new relationships here. Worship then flows organically from the relationships already formed.

Authentic, down and dirty leadership surrounds itself with authentic, down, and dirty people. The postmodern way of being is authentic, down, and dirty, emerging from the rubble left by the end-products of modernity (e.g., both capitalism and communism, mind you).

"Authentic, down, and dirty" sound familiar? Aside from "authentic" being a buzzword for postmodernism, Jesus was about as authentic, down, and dirty, as they came. And folks in the newest generations who are familiar with the guy, love Jesus. But they are, for the most part, "disenchanted" with the church - and really, all forms of institutional discourse that have traditionally separated Me from You, Us from Them, Clean from Dirty. The newest generation is the first to live in a world that is tilting fully toward the postmodern way of being, as opposed to just being lectured about its coming (even if hardly anyone can name it).

The postmodern church needs leaders who embody submission, releasing ourselves from stories of the way things ought to have been, and engage with people, no longer asking folks to come to this place to fill the empty hole that only church can fill, and, incidentally, fill the empty holes that remain in our seats/pews and our institutional budgets. Instead, they seek first to build relationships that are not consumer-based, but giver-receiver-based, receiver-giver-based, and ultimately based in authentic, down, and dirty relationships.

*Submission is a word that carries much baggage with it: abuse of this word has led to the abuse of people. I hope that we can set aside notions of submission that are forced upon anyone because of their gender, race, nationality, ability, or orientation.

Coaching...

This past Saturday there was a Western District United Methodist event at a Salem church (Trinity). It was called "Take Two," calling to mind the advice we were given by Adam Hamilton at Annual Conference. He said that if we feel overwhelmed with all the information we have been given over the day, that we should just "take two" ideas home with us to try out. So, Saturday's event offered three foci, two of which we could attend and try out. I chose "empowering the laity" and "the coaching relationship." I appreciated both, and some of the concepts in the laity workshop are particularly helpful in my context of pastoring two churches.

Right now, I want to talk about the value of coaching. I have been in a coaching relationship for just under a year now with two different coaches. My first was Dan Glover, who is an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church from Ohio, who, along with Claudia Lavy, heads up "Deepening Your Effectiveness." DYE is a consulting and coaching firm which is based on a model for developing a discipleship pathway for the local church. My second coach has been Gwen Drake, who is the pastor of the Hillsboro UMC just down the road from Cornelius, who is training as a life coach through the Coaches Training Institute.


Coaching is all the rage now isn't it? It certainly has gained a lot steam in the church over the past decade. And while it seems like a new fad, or the "latest and greatest" in leadership techniques, it really isn't a new concept at all. Though the term has been more widely used lately, there seems to be some confusion about what coaches actually do, which is both surprising and understandable. That is exactly why an athletic analogy is appropriate (while we don't all like sports, we all get sports). Who is the greatest player in the game of golf? Despite his problems of late, probably Tiger Woods still. But even Tiger has a coach. Do you know who that is? Probably not. His name is Sean Foley (incidentally, the third coach in his career after Butch Harmon and Hank Haney). Is Sean Foley a better golfer than Tiger Woods? No, because Sean would then be the best golfer in the world. He's not the best golfer in the world, although I imagine he's pretty decent. But being a coach is not about being better or worse. In addition to being a decent golfer in his own right, Sean is simply someone who is gifted at seeing what is going on with another golfer's swing and helping the golfer to achieve his or her goals. Tiger could be still be a darn good golfer without a coach. He is naturally good enough that he might even be a top twenty golfer in the world. But utilizing his talent, lots of practice, and the outsider perspective of the coach, he has become the number one.

In athletics, there is always room for improvement no matter how talented and/or knowledgeable one is. Consider that little leaguers, major leaguers, and everyone-in-between have coaches. So, if Tiger, who is quite literally at the top of his game, uses a coach to improve by fine-tuning his already-amazing swing, then someone like me, who still has soooooo much to learn about ministry and leadership, and quite frankly, life, could make leaps and bounds of progress toward my goals with a coach helping me to use what is already present within me.


For athletes, musicians, and actors the goals are pretty straightforward. To achieve at the highest level one possibly can in order to win the game or give a mesmerizing performance. Those of us who don't have such immediately identifiable goals in our professional fields may not even realize that we have goals, nonetheless. And when we don't have goals or can't name our goals, we may find ourselves feeling stuck or directionless, meandering through our lives, or busying ourselves with activities that we know are not in line with what is important to us. Coaches can help us to name what is important to us. And when we can name the important things in our lives, goals seem to flow naturally out of us, like springs of refreshing water. This is the beginning of the coaching relationship. And once we can name our goals, which is powerful in itself, then coaches help us to remain focused, and help us to acknowledge when there are roadblocks or personal breakdowns that get in the way of us achieving those goals.


If you find yourself stuck, spinning your wheels and going nowhere fast, or if you know that you've got loads of potential to work toward your goals, then I encourage you to find a coach you know you can trust. I believe that you will be surprised what you will find that already exists within you.