Thursday

Why Models?

A new post is up at my site on leadership and change models. Heres' the link:

http://www.drurywriting.com/david/07.WhyModels.htm

Feel free to comment below and dialogue with me and others on this issue.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Blogger doug messer said...

Dave...
Good thoughts and ones that made me think about the ways in which I think I'm avoiding the use of models in leadership...when in actuallity, I'm just choosing which models to emulate over and against others.

When you wrote: "So a model is a theory that has stood the test of time in other situations," my first thought was that this is not true enough of the time. We, especially in the church, are far to quick to jump on fad models and/or movements...and this not just in terms of leadership. We love a good program that gets the turnstyles rolling and tongues wagging. We jump on ones that have not been tested, tried, and proved over the long haul. Or, as you make the good point, we try to take models from one organization and transfer them whole sale into our specific contexts...which rarely if ever works. That then is not the model's fault, but ours. We're too lazy often times to do the leg work of exegeting our culture and the culture from which the model first developed to make the necessary tweaking. I think you made that point already...

Anyway, I like to try and filter any leadership model or idea through Henri Nouwen's views on leadership, expressed in his book IN THE NAME OF JESUS. His, is of course, also a model, but it's one that is tough to simply categorize or classify.

Also, Wendell Berry has a good article called "IN DISTRUST OF MOVEMENTS," that isn't completely related to your topic, and in fact much more related to economics and environment, but I think is good to for processing our own views on life, love, ministry, politics, etc. Here's a link to it:
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/berry198.htm

16 March, 2007  
Blogger David Drury said...

The Nouwen book is gold on leadership. My fave Nouwen is Return of the Prodigla Son. NOw that Nouwen is gone I have Eugene Peterson's books as my subsitute on leadership/ministry. They do similar things to my leadership soul.

DOn't know of the other book yet. Im interested. I've always had a distrust of current movements, a historical facination with past movements that lost steam, and a deep desire to see and be involved in a new movement. So I must read that one.

Good reconnecting with you last week, Doug.

-David

19 March, 2007  
Blogger Ben Robinson said...

I like the way in which you have articulated the potential benefit of using leadership models. Considering both your leadership knowledge and the knowledge of your colleagues I think you're a great person to teach such a course.

As you may know I tend to be one of those who "bristle at the idea of adopting or transferring leadership or change models into the church." I suppose more than anything I'm suspicious of organizing a church based upon secular models because most often those models are based in philosophies or culturally excepted values that may be antithetical to those which undergird the Church. My frustration is exacerbated when an appeal is made to the practicality of the model. "These models, although secular, do work in the Church. We've seen positive results from using them hence we will continue to do so."

In my opinion this amounts to nothing more than pragmatic evangelicalism (basing our theology and ministry practice on what works). The problem with this is that rarely is Christianity founded pragmatically. It seems to me that Christian obedience is anything but practical. What is demanded by the cross in faithful Christian obedience cannot be qualitatively evaluated based upon whether or not it accomplishes what we have predetermined ought to be the telos of such action. Yes, perhaps these models accomplish goals we have set up (i.e. church growth, record-number conversions, respect from the surrounding community, renown at even secular leadership conferences, etc.), but the nasty little corollary is that many of our goals have been formed by a consumeristic and modernistic culture that more often than not are found in direct contrast with purely Christian goals. And that is one of my central concerns in utilizing many of the leadership models which we do (a concern further aggravated by the Willow conference this summer; the ideas promulgated by those very respectable persons were ostensibly accepted uncritically.)

However, I am not comfortable with attempting to completely detach the Church from secular culture. Often there are things from the secular that can give us insight into our own narrative, or help us critique our assimilation of secular culture (here I'm thinking of the postmodern critique of modernity). But it seems to me that more often we unquestionably use leadership models without pausing to first evaluate them based upon Christian faith and not pragmatism.

SO....after that long-windedness I would like to ask you, my good friend, to solve my problem for me. :) Ha. But honestly I would be interested in hearing how you personally go about deciding which models are appropriate for use and which ones may need to be discarded; not because they don't work, but because to implement them would undermine the integrity of the Church. Perhaps that would take pages upon pages of ideas....but you love to write, and after this summer I know well that of all the pastors on staff you have the least to do. *smirk*

Love reading your stuff Dave. Even when I don't comment I'm lurking.

21 March, 2007  
Blogger David Drury said...

Hey Ben.

Thanks for commenting. Glad I finally got your dander up enough to have you come out of the shadows! :-)

Well, as you were inferring with your statement--I cannot clear up your "problem" very simply. I can start a dialogue on it, however.

There are three kinds of content in church leadership and the Christian community of change that might bring clarity to this discussion I think:

1) Prophetic Content
2) Counter-Cultural Content
3) Pragmatic Content

Sometimes God calls us to quite simply say something or do something (often the Prophet is told to do BOTH as a sign in scripture) that shouldn't be seen as a slow process of convincing people. A prophet is not likely to adopt Kotter's "stage two" component of "Creating a Guiding Coalition of Change." And perhaps they SHOULDN'T. Sometimes a prophet is just called to testify the word of God and recruit no one to help. They are a voice crying from the wilderness.

Then sometimes, in fact I would say most of the time, God is calling us to be a counter-cultural community within the world... and we as leaders of the church are to do things, like create a guiding coalition of influential people, to actually create change in the church and in the community around it. For instance, if God is calling our people to serve the poor in our area (and I think you'll agree with me that He IS!) then I should be thinking about more than just preaching on the subject. I should form a team of good leaders to think about creative ways to help our "stuck-in-the-mud" members who look down on the poor to change their mind-set and start doing something about it. If I think preaching alone (where most prophetic content is delivered) will solve the problem of the poor I'm mistaken.

And then there is simple pragmatic content to the gospel of Christ. You address this as the "it works" fad. Well, I would say that much of scripture is simply pragmatic principles that work in everyday life. Many of them are not counter-cultural at all--they may just be good advice. The effect of the Gospel is revolutionary--but some of it's content is pragmatic. Proverbs is perhaps the best example.

So, how does it break down in percentages? Well, I don't know. I do know that those of us that lean towards only the pragmatic should consider how much we are really building a counter-cultural commumity, and how much of the prophetic voice might spark it. And those of us who think we'll solve all the problems in the church with more prophetic preaching should probably take classes in leading change, and maybe pick up some skills in how to pull it off.

Now--you pick a bone on what "IT" is (bigger buildings, more attendance, more budget) and I agree with you fully on those terms. Success is defined far too culturally in the churhc today. But that is another problem. I believe Jesus himself did things like cast vision, recruited key leaders, and generated short-term wins (miracles, teaching crowds) that inspired them for the future.

The means don't justify the ends... but if you have the right end in mind and the means are neutral--then I say go for it.

21 March, 2007  
Blogger Dan said...

Great thoughts, everyone. I love the discussion.

A few questions came to mind as I read, because I felt as though my grid for understanding this dialogue was a bit different that others may be, particularly Ben's.

I feel like perhaps some examples of "leadership theories" would help get everyone on the same page. Much of the discussion, in my eyes, revolves around semantics, rather than a clear understanding of the issues.

I think if people had a better understanding of what you (Dave) mean by leadership theory there may not be such strong pushback.

For example, John Kotter, in Leading Change, outlines a model for leading change, which you mentioned. He, in essence, just says, "if you're leading change - any kind of change, you have to communicate the need for change along with a sense of urgency".

I don't understand how that could be considered a "secular" or "Christian" principle. It is technically classified as leadership theory, but in my estimation the litmus test of such a theory is whether it is true of leadership in general. In other words, "Is this theory as true for Jesus as it was for Bill Hybels, and for Napoleon or Hitler?" In other words, goals aside, leadership theory and practice should be true regardless of purpose, values, religious affiliation, etc. Those things all influence where the leader is going, the means by which they get there, and so on, but they do not change basic leadership dynamics.

So I guess I would tend to park on the last argument you make - that theory focuses on the universals, not the particulars.

That being said, I think where the rub is for most people is that they have identified that there is some attempt to simply transfer certain principles - anecdotal theft - and simply squeeze them into ministry settings.

Great example - as pastor reads a Jack Welch book because he heard Bill Hybels reference it. He likes Welch's idea of getting rid of the bottom third of producers, so he takes out the axe and starts firing staff... and even volunteers. Bad situation, obviously. Bad adaptation of a principle. In my mind though, that is an anecdotal principle, rather than tried and true leadership theory.

So I agree that we ought to assess principles for their biblical alignment and moral implications, and should run as far as we can from rashly assuming what works anecdotally for a business would work in ministry (which happens WAY too often), or even what works in one church will work in another church.

But let's not throw out the baby too. There is some incredible scholarship, along with great practical wisdom, on leadership theory that is of great benefit to minsitry leadership.

-Dan Ward

22 March, 2007  
Blogger Keith Drury said...

The best and clearest explanation I've read of the usefulness of leadership models in the church without running after the direct-to-the-implementation. Thanks!

Wherever models are "true" about the humans in the church we should be interested in them as God's truth I suppose. The church is more than human so sometimes they don't "come over" but they often tell us truths about people and to that extent I'm interested in them. I find my students often want to answer every question on a leadership test with "Just pray" and that is true..but it is not all the truth in dealing with knotty problems.

Nice post and great thoughtful responses here.

26 March, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David,

I will start my comment with a quote.

"I’ve come across many students who bristle at the idea of adopting or transferring leadership or change models into the church. "

Well..duh. Sell me on the idea (which I agree with) without breaking it down into a million parts and telling me to read another book.

- Justin J. Nierer

29 March, 2007  
Blogger David Drury said...

Justin - which "idea" do you need sold on? The "idea of transferring leadership or change models into the church."?

But then you say you already agree with that--so why do you need to be "sold on it."

-David

PS: I'm not selling anything. This site is free.

30 March, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey man! just heard through Jimmy V about your move to Marion and had to ferret out the reason behind the move! Good on ya, and I hope it feels like a TRUE homecoming, bro.

Regarding models, for what it's worth, I shaped out a document a little while back after reading a list of comparative traits between church models that are currently in practice. Here's the article and the link to a PDF is in BLUE near the bottom of the post:
http://www.ericnentrup.com/?p=167

20 July, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Nouwen book is gold on leadership. My fave Nouwen is Return of the Prodigla Son. NOw that Nouwen is gone I have Eugene Peterson's books as my subsitute on leadership/ministry. They do similar things to my leadership soul.

23 April, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good reconnecting with you last week, Doug.

23 April, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home