I want to end this first section on the basics of leaders and leadership by underscoring something seldom mentioned in presentations on leadership but is always present in a community of faith. This is the relationship between authority and leadership. Why is this seldom discussed?
The first reason is that authority remains mostly assumed. Church leadership is made most aware of this when something goes wrong even though a congregation is surrounded by the symbols of authority in the vestments we wear, the scriptures we read, the creeds we profess, and the titles we use.
The second reason is the negative connotation given authority by authoritarian leaders. Authority does not mean the same thing, but it is often confused in the context of the egalitarian nature of American Church culture, even in a denomination with the name “Episcopal.”
I remember dealing with a conflicted vestry and at one point in the emotional tension of the meeting, I tried to lower tension level by saying, “I think if Bishop Payne were here, he would say that the really important thing….” That is as far as I got before I was interrupted by a red-faced angry man who banged the table and said, “What right does Bishop Payne have to tell us what we should do?” At that point, I looked around and most of the leaders including the rector sat staring at the table. I respond with, “What part of Episcopal did you not understand when you joined this church?” This reference to our authority vested in the diocesan bishop actually empowered some of the vestry to speak up in the face of this attempt at emotional intimidation. As some reason returned to the room, the emotional temperature cooled down. Later I learned that the angry vestry member never returned. That was a good thing for their leadership. Attempting to control things by emotional intimidation is always unhealthy.
To acknowledge this usually unspoken dynamic, I often use the terms “ordained leader” and “lay leaders.” Let me elaborate. Because of our Episcopal and historic Anglican identity, the ordained leader (rector or vicar) has a special role among the leadership. For example, the canons state the right of the rector to preside at vestry meetings. While many episcopal leaders do not know this, the vestry cannot meet without the rector present unless the rector gives permission for that to happen. Some rectors delegate to a warden the job of presiding at vestry meetings. When that has been the custom, I always recommend that before the rector leaves the parish, he or she reclaim that right so that the vestry members are clear that the new rector may choose to function as chair of the meetings. In mission congregations, the above also applies to vicars and bishop’s committees.
Add to this that nothing ends the honeymoon phase of a new rectorship faster than the senior warden informing the new cleric, “In this parish, I chair the vestry meetings!” That is why, by the way, one of the chief functions of an interim is to restore normal operating procedures. All rectors have their quirks, and the transition time is when those should be eliminated and replaced by our regular canonical procedures.
A few times over the years, I have worked with a church where the rector is not a leader and does not take on the “ordained leadership role.” You can guess correctly that such congregations are already dysfunctional by definition. Usually what has happened is that the Rector lost an early struggle with some powerful lay leader or leaders but did not resign. Sadly, the rector accepted a passive role functioning as a kind of chaplain to the community. That leaves the clergy person a not much respected figurehead who functions more like the vicar of a family chapel subject to doing what the “real” leaders want done, like a character out of a bad 18th century English novel.
On the other hand, when the ordained leader assumes a “father or mother knows best” directive style of leadership, this is authoritarian leadership. Its effect is to create dependency in the congregation and to silence any lay leaders who simply object to a rector’s decisions. Again, this creates dysfunctionality.
When an ordained leader functions in a healthy manner, two good things happen. First, the whole congregation, including the lay leaders, are reminded that the local congregation represents the wider Church and the mission of Jesus in the local community. Second, the ordained leader is the one who holds the policy and procedures of the congregation in place and negates bad behavior on the part of dysfunctional leaders and members. In other words, the ordained leader is most responsible for maintaining clear boundaries.
This authority can also be seen in important functional ways. For example, when I have worked with vestries in writing mission statements, I always interject near the end of the process this guidance, “The Rector gets the last draft of the statement.” When asked why, I point out that the rector will be the one who reminds the congregation of its mission, shares this mission with potential and new members, and l mentions this from time to time in preaching and teaching. I then remind the vestry that if the Rector has to stop to open the bulletin and read the mission statement, it isn’t yet the real mission. The rector has to say it and believe it in a naturally congruent manner.
When ordained leaders function in a healthy manner, the leadership operates in a healthy way. The canons say it this way. The rector and the vestry are responsible together for the mission of the local congregation and are accountable for its organization life and operations. The line that I have heard some rectors inclined toward autocratic behavior wrongly use is, “I am in charge of all things spiritual, and the vestry is responsible for mowing the grass and funding the budget.” Such an attitude undermines the very nature of an “Apostolic Community” in which Jesus is the head and all leaders are servants.
Let me end by observing that authority becomes most apparent when there is a change and subsequent transition in the ordained leadership. As the team of lay leaders develops their relationship with the new ordained leader, shared responsibility and ownership can become a healthy mark of a healthy congregation.
Note that in communities, authorities are often seen as good or bad. These descriptive words make sense given humanity’s long history of this dynamic. However, they should not be used for leadership. Leadership is either effective or ineffective. In my next posts, I will be turning to what makes for an effective leader.
No comments:
Post a Comment