poserorprophet: For Nathan (on "leadership")

Dan (

poserorprophet) wrote,
@ 2007-08-22 12:23:00

For Nathan (on "leadership")
Hey Nathan,

Thanks for the email (regarding the conversation that was happening on your blog -- http://www.nathancolquhoun.com/blog/index.php/2007/08/19/drawing_someone_else_s_line#comments). I hope you don't mind me taking the time to write all this out here, truth be told, I'm curious to hear what others might have to say about all this.

Like you, I was raised in a family and a church that pushed the notion of "leadership" -- and pushed it onto me, specifically. I've been encouraged to situate myself in places of "leadership" since way back, and my situation in those places took my through highschool and my undergrad (with, I will admit, a great deal of pride). I imagine that our stories are fairly similar in this regard (although maybe you weren't as arrogant as I was).

However, a number of factors have caused me to rethink and question all this in the last four or five years, as I have pursued alternate models of Christian living (after all, questioning, and rethinking, don't mean much apart from a new form of embodiment or praxis).

In particular, much of the Christian discourse about leadership seems to be flawed, and fatally so, in two regards: (1) in its focus on the individual; and (2) in its understanding of power. This, I think, is largely due to churches looking to outside models when it comes down to issues of polity and structure. By and large, a business paradigm has come to dominate the church (and, I might add, the social services -- think of the pervasiveness of the role of the "manager" as that is described in MacIntyre's After Virtue). Consequently, leaders, Christian or otherwise, are understood as powerful and influential individuals who can "get results." A successful Christian leader is the sort who has a full church, heck, a growing church, and, perhaps most importantly, a tithing church... blah, blah, blah (in social work, a successful Christian leader is the sort who can produce glowing stats and has the connections and voice necessary to bring in abundant donations).

It is interesting to compare this focus on (1) power, (2) influence, and (3) success with Jesus and the prophets. Jesus and the prophets were mostly powerless, mostly insignificant, and mostly failures when judged by the criteria established by the business paradigm.

However, I'm drifting off topic. I should get back to the issues of individualism and power.

Over against, the radical individualism of our culture -- that finds particularly strong expression in the discourse on leadership -- Christians are called to prioritise the corporate aspect of their identity as members of the people of God. Example: I am not, first and foremost, Dan, the individual; rather, I am, first and foremost, Dan, a member of the body of Christ.

Some time ago on my blog, I asked people to summarise, in one sentence, how they defined themselves (cf. http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/59156.html) and I then responded by arguing that I (and all of us) should be defined in this way: "I am a Spirit-filled member of the body of Christ and a beloved child of God" (cf. http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/59792.html). Some of my commentators responded that such a way of defining myself was far too vague (it could be applied to anybody!), but that was precisely my point: let's get beyond defining ourselves over and against everybody else, and let's begin by defining ourselves alongside of everybody else.

Consequently, when we bring this corporate understanding of self to the issue of "leadership" the question shifts from "How am I to lead?" to "How are we, as God's people, to live missionally within God's world?" Note that another shift has also taken place: I have moved from the language of leadership to the language of mission. This, I think, is a crucial shift. After all, as Christians, our goal is, ultimately, not to wield power and influence in order to create the results that we desire; rather, as Christians our goal is to live as a part of a community that is an agent of God's new creation within a world that is groaning under the sway of powers that refuse to acknowledge that they have been defeated (that, after all, is the point of Rev 12: the devil, the dragon, has been defeated and thrown down from heaven. Therefore, the especial violence, and the violence against the saints, that we see now is not because the dragon is so powerful but because the dragon is doomed). Therefore, our model for living missionally is not the model that is found within the business paradigm, it is the model that we find in Jesus.

This, then, leads quite naturally to the issue of power. It is the way in which the discourse on "leadership" is intrinsically linked to a form of power that, more than anything else, leads me to pursue alternate models. As far as I can tell, leadership is inextricably linked to notions of influence and power that are defined by the ability to forcefully impact the bodies, minds, and lives of others. Essentially, the leader is at the peak of a particular hierarchy and power flows from the top down Of course, those who have spoken of "servant leadership" have tried to reverse this flow but, IMHO, they have failed to the extent that they have retained the language of "leadership." Time after time, I have observed the language of "servant leadership" employed as a mask over fiercely hierarchical, top-down, flows of power.

So, rather than attempting to be servant leaders, I would like to suggest that it is better for us to simply define ourselves as servants. This is, after all, one of the primary ways in which Paul defines the people of God: slaves of Christ (Douloi Christou), and slaves of one another. In this way, we begin to realise the truly "radical" nature of our call to follow Jesus on the road of the cross. Rather than exerting force on others, we are those who are willing to have force exerted upon us. We do this with the hope that, as on the cross, so also in our lives, that force will be exhausted and shattered even as it overwhelms us.

Think, in this regard, of how Paul describes the apostles in 1 Cor 4.8-13:

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have become kings -- and that without us! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you! For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men. We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are strong! You are honored, we are dishonored! To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.

This, I think, is an appropriate Christian response to the contemporary discourse on "leadership." Mostly the contemporary models of Christian leadership are akin to the model established by the "Super-Apostles" in Corinth (the Super-Apostles who, by the way, were leading the church astray). Like Paul, I think we need to be adamant that our focus should be upon a missional crucifomity and it should not be upon leading with power.

At the end of the day, I think it is best that we focus less on being "teachers" and "lords," and focus more on washing one another's feet (cf. Jn 13.1-14; notice how, when washing the disciples' feet, Jesus claims the titles "Teacher" and "Lord" and does not suggest that his disciples will also become "teachers" and "lords" [i.e. "servant leaders"] if they go on to wash each other's feet. Rather, he simply tells them that they should follow his example. The disciples remain only "servants"; Jesus alone is the "master").

(Post a new comment)

	Avoiding leadership (Anonymous) 2007-08-23 11:06 am UTC (link)
	Indeed. I also think that Matthew 23 has been overlooked. To me it seems that Jesus actually forbids hierarchical titles like (in our context) "leader". Would you agree on this reading of Matthew 23? Every member of the Messiah´s body has a (servant) role, and they are different, but we need no leaders except Jesus and his Spirit. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Avoiding leadership poserorprophet 2007-08-24 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	Hello Anon, Interesting reading of Mt 23. I had, indeed, overlooked it here. I like where you're going with this, but I'll need to turn it around in my mind a little more. Grace and peace, Dan (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Avoiding leadership (Anonymous) 2007-08-24 06:21 pm UTC (link)
	Cool. Didn´t meen to be "Anon". My name is Jonas Lundstrom (Sweden), I have commented some before... (Reply to this)(Parent)

Yes but...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-23 03:27 pm UTC (link)

Hey Dan,
Another great piece. I'm so challenged by it.
My questions from this are, what does one do when one gets thrust into a leadership position? What should a person do who doesn't want to lead or to be in power but is very clearly gifted and has people follow them?
I never once wanted to be a leader. I never asked for it nor did I crave it. I did not want to have power. Yet from the time of my high school days when voted president of my graduating class to when I was 27 and given the task of leading the drop-in and shelter, I have always been shocked to be considered for these positions.
How do we who find ourselves leading and gifted to lead, even though we didn't want it, find that balance that you speak of in your piece?

It's interesting. In the past few years after being told 100's of times how good a leader I was, I began to finally think of myself as one. I even took 'leadership training' courses. I think it was at that point I may have become slightly less effective than I had before.

Yet another tension in the Christian walk I guess.

Dion

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Yes but...

poserorprophet
2007-08-24 12:58 pm UTC (link)

Dion,

Good to hear from you, as always. I hadn't really thought about what this post sounded like to people in positions like yours -- that certainly does complicate things (I am, after all, not in any sort of "leadership" position at the moment).

I would suggest that one of the key elements in your story is that you genuinely didn't want leadership. What is interesting when one looks at the selection of bishops in the early church is just how many of those bishops were forced into their positions against their will (Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa and so on). Things get even more interesting when we look to Paul's letters and notice how hesitant he is to specify local leaders within his congregations. Rather, Paul seems to hint that those who serve the community the most might be the most fit to lead. Applying that to a church today would be akin to saying something like this: "Hey, maybe your volunteer janitor actually deserves more attention than the seminary trained professional that you've got standing in your pulpit" (that certainly challenges me a great deal!) In sum, I am suspicious of "leadership" in general, but doubly-suspicious of those who want to be "leaders" (which is why I am inclined to personally disavow leadership).

Really, at this stage, all I can think is that somebody in your position really ought to read Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Have you read it? If not, I highly recommend it (it's actually pretty short and readable!). The question, for someone in your position (as far as I can tell, and I'm willing to be wrong), is this: "how can I help those around me to discover that which will liberate both them and me?" Rather than seeing yourself as one who brings liberation to those around you, what about viewing them as the agents of liberation -- their own and yours as well! After all, I believe that only they possess the latent power to free you from "leadership" and free you for "servanthood."

Anyway, that's all I've got. I'm just thinking out loud and if you've gotten the impression that, as I have thought these things, I have somehow thought less of you, then please see that as a mistaken impression. I admire you, and what you do, a great deal.

Grace and peace,

Dan

Oh, and I had a good chuckle when I read your comment on "leadership training" courses. It sort of reminds me of a lot of training that we get in social work. You know, "be friendly but don't be their friends" and all that bullshit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Yes but...
(Anonymous)
2007-08-26 03:11 pm UTC (link)

Hey Dan,
I'm not narcisistic(sp?) enough yet to think you were thinking of me when you wrote this. And I know how you feel about me so no worries on any fronts there.
It's just that when I read challenging stuff like this I do internalize it and ask myself hard questions. I'll look for the book you've suggested (as long as it's truly readable. I'm not an academic)
There is a fair amount of leadership talk in scripture and it even appears in the odd gift list here and there so it's up to us to figure out what it should look like I guess.
See you in a few months.
Dion

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-23 06:54 pm UTC (link)

Good thoughts. I particularly like the suggestion that we just refer to ourselves as "servants", not "servant leaders". But as ever, I'm mindful that terminology has a way of being co-opted. "Minister" just means "servant", but somehow it has morphed into a title with status.

I'm also aware that leadership matters, however uncomfortable we may be with it. Jesus was a leader, even if he washed his disciples' feet. So was St. Paul, and Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and St. Francis, and Martin Niemoller, and Mother Theresa. So were Hitler and Pol Pot and Gandhi and John Lennon and the Buddha and Marx and Lenin.

The point is, leaders do have a way of altering the course of events for better or worse. So leadership matters: we need good ones. I think it's actually a failing of our generation that so many good people are shy about exerting (the right kind of) leadership.

*sigh*

You make me feel like such a conventional person, Dan. Which is unusual — mostly I'm aware of how little I fit in with people. But you make me feel like The Man has me firmly in his death grip!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-08-23 06:56 pm UTC (link)
	Oops, I forgot to log in. That was, of course, your servant, Stephen (aka Q) (aka itsmypulp) (Reply to this)(Parent)

poserorprophet
2007-08-24 01:33 pm UTC (link)

Stephen,

Yes, you are right, terminology is always open to being co-opted and always will be co-opted. There may have been a time when the terms "servant leader" and "minister" were understood more along the lines of servanthood that I develop here, but those times have passed. This is why we need a change both in our language and in our actions (and may very well need another change further down the road). Our actions have a way of regressing under the cover of our (formerly) radical language. Were we actually able to live as servants for a sustained period fo time then I think that we could continue to use the language of "servants" but I suspect that that is not a realistic possibility.

As for the "need" for leaders, I'll just repeat what I said to Dion and suggest that, if we "need" leaders then the best candidates may be those who genuinely don't wan't to be leaders. Jesus, after all, is a pretty good example of this. He spent most of his ministry trying not to be "the messiah," and it's quite possible that, if scholars like Richard Horsley are correct, he actually mocked the whole notion of "messiahship" at some key points in his ministry (like the so-called "triumphal entry"). So was Jesus a "leader"? Sort of/not really. If he was, he would have hardly fit any of the categories of leadership available to him in first century Palestine.

So, can it then be said that I would support the same sort of "leaders" today? Maybe, but I don't want to say that because I am too suspicious of all the baggage that comes along with "leadership" language. Consequently, I tend to think that "(the right kind of) leadership" isn't "leadership" at all -- it's servanthood.

By saying this, however, I am not arguing that we should abolish all structures of "authority" or "discipline" within the Christian community (indeed, I agree with you in seeing this as one of the major failings of our generation). Rather, as servants of one another, we should be quick to grant our brothers and sisters, and especially the community as a whole, an authority over ourselves.

Truth be told, my two main mentors (a prof in Toronto, and a prof out here) used to frustrate me to no end because they refused to "lead" me in the more traditional way. I wanted these people to tell me what to do and what not to do, and all that, but they categorically refused. Why? I suspect it was because they had sufficient faith in the Spirit leading me down a path of transformation, and sufficient humility to doubt their own desires to impose a certain trajectory upon me (of course, they asked me lots of questions, and discussed things with me, but getting them to "flop their cards" was impossible).

As for being a "conventional person," well, I only write the way I do because I am so aware of how firmly The Man has his death grip on me. I think we're pretty much in the same (sinking?) ship. However, even though we don't really know if the boat will sink or not, you've decided to start bailing, and I've decided to try and build some sort of crazy raft. I also tend to think that the captain scuttled the ship, whereas you seem to think that he's not that bad of a guy. Regardless, we're both on the same boat (okay, I don't know how accurate that analogy is but I sure had fun making it up!).

Grace and peace,

Dan

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

itsmypulp.wordpress.com
2007-08-24 03:40 pm UTC (link)

I like your analogy well enough.

The trouble with escaping to the crazy raft is that I don't trust it any better than the boat. People are people, inside and outside the Church; in the boat and in the life raft, too.

One society is as deeply flawed as the next because people's flaws travel with them wherever they escape to, together. The only real alternative is to sail your crazy life raft to a desert island, then sink it. Usually we can tolerate our own stink OK.

You'll be relieved to know that this comment is partly tongue-in-cheek. In my cynical moments, I'm inclined to rewrite the old saying: "I love people; it's communities I can't stand."

I wasn't exactly cut out to be a clergyman.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	poserorprophet 2007-08-25 09:19 am UTC (link)
	Here's the catch: the raft isn't an escape -- at least not the sort of escape that sails away from the ship to a desert island, or anywhere else for that matter. The really crazy thing about the raft is that it is never launched. No matter how high the water rises, it stays on the ship. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-24 06:17 am UTC (link)

I wrote this post almost two years ago.
http://www.nathancolquhoun.com/blog/index.php/2005/11/06/authority_authoritative_vs_influential

"This word ‘obey,’ takes on completely to meaning all of sudden. It puts responsibility not just in the person who needs to do the obeying, but in the person who is being obeyed. They need to live a life worth believing about. They need to live a persuasive life; they need to be trustworthy. It is up to the one with ‘rule’ to live a influencing, persuasive life. A persuasive life doesn’t need to demand anything, they don’t need to tell people what to do and boss people around. All they need to do is be a leader, lead by example and live a life worth following."

I think I'm on the same lines of you and am going to try to develop this a bit more.

-Nathan Colquhoun-

(Reply to this)(Thread)

poserorprophet
2007-08-24 01:54 pm UTC (link)

Hey Nathan,

I'm actually not entirely sure that we are on the same page with all of this. If war is a "continuation of politics by other means" (von Clausewitz) then I wonder if, in our contemporary discourse, influencing is "leadership by other means." After all, the language of "influencing" is quote popular within the business paradigm (think, for example, of the popularity of Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People).

To put this another way, allow me to appeal to Foucault. In exploring the networks of power that were born in the modern era, Foucault notes the way in which the authority of the monarch and the State become less violent, and less brutal, yet was at the same time able to produce a more docile general population. How was this achieved? By imposing a system of surveillance that allowed power structures to be internalised by the public (hence his famous appeal to the Panopticon). Therefore, instead of the State using external force to discipline the public, a force internal to the public was created so that they disciplined themselves! In the same way, "leaders" tend to impose an external force that meets with some degree of success; "influencers" tend to create an internal force within those that they influence, and they thereby attain a much greater degree of success. However, regardless of the success of the these models, I'm not convinced that they are the best avenues of exploration.

What do you think?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-24 02:40 pm UTC (link)

Dan,

A thought from a lurker: when you say "'influencers' tend to create an internal force within those that they influence", I couldn't help but think of Jesus giving Himself in the Spirit; the love of Christ compels us and all that.

Is the real issue perhaps the way leadership is exercised (manipulatively, coercively, selfishly), rather than whether we are "servants" or "servant-leaders" or "influencers", etc. etc.?

-Andrew Fulford
puritas.blogspot.com

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

poserorprophet
2007-08-25 07:32 am UTC (link)

Hey Andrew,

Thanks for stopping by, and welcome to the blog. I do believe that, if you are who I think you are, George Sweetman has mentioned you to me once or twice.

In response to your question I would have to say that my answer is both yes and no. I would be more comfortable saying that the real issue is the way in which power is exercised. Empowered as we are by the eschatological Spirit, do we then go on to try and wield power in the same way as the Super-Apostles or do we recognise that such power is only wielded in cruciformity? (In this regard, it is worth recalling Michael Gorman's argument that Phil 2 is Paul's "master story" -- the narrative that guides all of his thinking and doing [cf. Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross.) Thus, the reason why I am so adamant in my attack upon "leadership," "servant leaders," and "influence" is because this terminology ties up our understanding of power within the framework established by a certain discourse. That is to say: the words that we use to speak of things are just as important of the way in which those things are exercised.

Why is that?

Well, we must first be clear that this is not because the signifier is to be confused with the signified or anything like that. The sign, as Umberto Eco reminds us, is not a model of equivalency, and meaning is not a form of synonymy. Rather, it is better to understand the sign as an inferential process within a culturally determined code (cf. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language, although Eco is basically just following the trajectory established by Wittgenstein).

So, if words only have whatever meaning we choose to ascribe to them, why this continual assault on terminology? Precisely because meaning takes place within a code that is culturally determined. That code is determined with certain ends and goals in mind and so the thing to realise is that language is rarely neutral. Just as Neil Postman reminds us that certain media are incapable of engaging in certain types of discourse (cf. Amusing Ourselves to Death), so also Foucault reminds us that certain discourses have certain agendas and "natural" inclinations.

Consequently, when we try to take the Christian discourse on power, which is expressed in the language of "cruciform missionality" and "servanthood," and translate that into the language of "leadership" and "influence," then I think we lose more than we gain. Christians must be more committed to speaking an odd language for, as George Lindbeck once said: "[t]o the degree that religions are like languages and cultures, they can no more be taught by means of translation than can Chinese or French" (cf. The Nature of Doctrine).

In sum, the language of "leadership" and "influence" is the way in which our culture encodes power within a certain discourse. The language of "cruciform missionality" and "servanthood" should be the way in which the Church encodes power within an alternate discourse.

Grace and peace,

Dan

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-26 03:27 am UTC (link)

I'm totally with you on the fact that the meaning of language is its use, and that language is always used within cultures which always are ethically directed and biased (i.e., not neutral in the gods they serve), I'm just a bit hesitant to go so far as to say "servant-leadership" or "influence" has only one meaning. That is, I think these words have polyvalent meanings, and can take on different implications used in different contexts. The language of "servant-leadership" in a class for RA's and Student Council members at a Christian University, for example, does not take on the connotations it might if someone like the Grand Inquisitor was using it about himself. Context determines meaning, but there isn't just one context for these words, and in the midst of an inter-Christian dialogue I'm not sure I could go quite as far as you in criticizing these words and concepts. But, I'm pretty sure that there might be some deeper differences between us on the nature of church government (in fact, as I write this sentence, I wonder if you would consider that theological phrase as carrying the same negative connotations that "influence" does), so I don't want to reduce this issue to semantics.

Though, on the other hand, it's hard to know the specific abuses that are being targeted in this discussion (or, to phrase it more accurately, what behaviours are being evaluated as abuses), so I might be misinterpreting you. I'm not sure what professing Christian would want to disagree, on the level of words (if they understood them), that we should be "servants engaged in missional cruciformity", but what does that practically mean? What specific acts is ruling out and in? That's probably the more interesting, and important question.

Thanks for continuing to blog; you always have provocative and challenging things to say, and as a brother in Christ I appreciate that, despite any disagreements we might have.

(BTW, I am the same person George Sweetman has talked about, I think)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Andrew: Follow-up Part I

poserorprophet
2007-08-26 09:16 am UTC (link)

Hey Andrew,

Thanks for your response. If it's alright you with I'll take one more crack at this. I hope you'll bear with me.

In his discussion of the approach to language adopted by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (in the Capitalism and Schizophrenia series), Brian Massumi writes the following:

Linguistics should be a pragmatics that opens language to the vagaries of "context," indexing grammar to relations of power and patterns of social change.

In order to understand what Massumi is saying, we need to realise that "meaning," according to Deleuze and Guattari, is something this is created at the point where two forces come into contact. Meaning is not, as we have said, inherent to any given word; rather, it is something created when one particular force succeeds in imposing its form of meaning onto a word. Thus, Deleuze and Guattari speak of language as the "order-word" (with "order" being taken in both senses: the statement gives an order [commands] and establishes an order [structures] -- or, stated with standard philosophical clarity, the "order-word" is the "unsaid doing of a saying"). Therefore, following this trajectory, Massumi argues that it is the task of linguistics to explore how various forces, within particular contexts and grammars, have imposed particular meanings into words. Consequently, in fulfilling this task, linguistics opens language up to a great deal of other potentialities, and this, concomitantly, opens the door for social change.

Now then, I think that this is a good place to begin my response to you, because, as far as I can tell, this is precisely what you and I are both attempting to do in our discussion of the language of "leadership." Here is my rough summary of what we have been doing:

On the one hand, I have become aware of the forces that operate within the language of "leadership" and so I am looking for other words to employ within the Christian linguistic coding of power; on the other hand, you have also become aware of the forces that operate within the language of "leadership" but, rather than discarding that language, you seek to retain that language by injecting it with a new meaning.

Therefore, I'd like to try and spend a bit of time commenting on why I think your approach is inadequate (please note that, although I try to argue convincingly, I don't mean anything that I write to be a personal attack on you -- I really do enjoy the dialogue a great deal!).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that your essential point is this: because words have polyvalent meanings, it is context that ultimately dictates the meaning of a word. Therefore, provided the right context (i.e. "inter-Christian dialogue") the language of "leadership" could be used well (hence your example of how that language might be used in a class for "student leaders" at a Christian university, versus the way in which that language might be used by the Grand Inquisitor).

I would like to suggest that (1) you have not adequately explored the depth of the power struggle that is involved here; (2) nor have you adequately recognised the extent of the victory won by the coding of power that exists within our culture. Let me go into more detail on both points.

[cont.]

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Andrew: Follow-up Part II

poserorprophet
2007-08-26 09:18 am UTC (link)

(1) My first point is a response to what you said about polyvalence. What you seem to suggest is that words are empty forms, shells containing a void, and so we can inject into them whatever meaning we desire in order to fill that void (analogy: meaning-making as creatio ex nihilo). However, what Deleuze & Co. suggest to us, is that words are not nearly so empty -- rather they are places of continual struggle between the fields of reference imposed by conflicting forces, and meaning only results when one of those forces is able to impose its order over the others (analogy: meaning-making as the structuring of primordial chaos). Instead of seeing words as voids that we can fill as we choose, I think that it is better to view words as points of an ongoing conflict.

Okay, you might say (if you're feeling gracious), but so what? Well, I think this becomes important as we think about the issue of context, which leads me to my second point.

(2) In the example that you provide, you seem to suggest that the student leaders and the Grand Inquisitor are in two completely different contexts. Similarly, you seem to suggest that the context of inter-Christian dialogue on "leadership" is an entirely different context than, say, the context of secular dialogue on that same topic. Now, if indeed this was the case, then surely one could retain the language of "leadership" without seeing the fears that I have expressed come to fruition.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the case. Take, for example, your reference to the student leaders at a Christian university. These students do not move into a course on "servant leadership" from some sort of vacuum. They come from a background that has already conditioned them to think of things like "leadership" in a certain way. Families, previous schools, television, film, news, volunteering, extracurricular activities, jobs, and even churches, have all worked together to ensure that these student leaders are more or less aligned with the dominant cultural views on "leadership." Thus, the word "leader" is not simply an empty form that we can pull off of the shelf and provide with any meaning we desire. It is, as I said in my prior point, a place of conflict, and a place where a certain network of power has been victorious. We are not speaking of two different contexts when we speak of society and institutions like Christian universities. There is only one context for us, and in that context a particular form of power is encoded in the language of "leadership" (referring back to the previous discussion). The Christian university is but a subcontext contained within the broader context of our society.

Now let's imagine that you grant me this point but still want to hold on to the language of "leadership." "Okay," you say, "the language of 'leadership' exists in the state that you describe -- however, instead of discarding it, shouldn't we then enter into the conflict and seek to impose a new meaning over the old?" I don't think so, and here's why. In order to succeed in this task we would have to totally transform how society understands "leadership" -- something we will never be able to do. Consequently, when we try to speak to the World about these things (I assume that the Church should speak to the World about such things) we will continually find ourselves explaining things like this:

"Look, when I talk about 'A' I don't really mean 'A'. I actually mean 'B', which is 'not-A'."

This is confused, and confusing. I say that it is best if we just talk about 'B' from the get-go (where 'A' represents 'influential leadership' and 'B' represents 'cruciform missionality').

Furthermore, to simply decide to retain the language of "leadership," intended in a new way, within inter-Christian dialogue -- apart from now appearing pointless -- will do more harm than good, precisely because we can never be said to exist in a distinct Christian context. Even if some Christians get to a place where they are able to use the language of "leadership" in a way free from other influences, they cannot assume that the Christians with whom they converse have arrived at the same place.

And that, as they say, is a wrap. Grace and peace,

Dan

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Andrew: Follow-up Part II
(Anonymous)
2007-08-27 02:35 am UTC (link)

Just a few quick points in reply, because I don't want to drag on this discussion endlessly:

1) You say: "What you seem to suggest is that words are empty forms, shells containing a void, and so we can inject into them whatever meaning we desire in order to fill that void (analogy: meaning-making as creatio ex nihilo)."

I did not intend to say this; rather, I just meant to say words don't have one meaning, but have different shades of meaning analogous to each other in different contexts.

2) You say: "Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the case. Take, for example, your reference to the student leaders at a Christian university. These students do not move into a course on "servant leadership" from some sort of vacuum. They come from a background that has already conditioned them to think of things like "leadership" in a certain way. Families, previous schools, television, film, news, volunteering, extracurricular activities, jobs, and even churches, have all worked together to ensure that these student leaders are more or less aligned with the dominant cultural views on "leadership.""

I have to say I'm surprised at this; I would have figured, with your strong views on the fact that the church is an alternate society, you would have accepted that the church and the world are two different cultural-linguistic contexts. But perhaps you believe the church is severely compromised right now. I'm not sure we'd quite agree on that in this issue, but you might be right anyway.

Our differences here seem to come down to the fact that you see the church as hopelessly infected with worldly values about leadership, to the point where even using the word "leadership" is impossible without conveying a worldly understanding about how it functions. I don't think the understanding of leadership in the abstract is anywhere so clear in general, across the entire Western church, to warrant avoiding the use of that language as a whole.

My personal policy would be to retain the wording, but expand upon what it means to be a Christian leader so that no mistake would be made about it's meaning (or at least, I would try to reduce the chance of that as much as possible).

I'll leave it at that, and let you have the last word if you so wish. Thanks for the discussion, it has been quite stimulating! :-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Andrew: Follow-up Part II

poserorprophet
2007-08-27 03:01 am UTC (link)

Hey Andrew,

Thanks for this, I've enjoyed the discussion. I am content to wrap things up here with two points of clarification.

(1) Re: I would have figured, with your strong views on the fact that the church is an alternate society, you would have accepted that the church and the world are two different cultural-linguistic contexts.

To be clear, I do believe that the Church and the World are (or at least should be!) two different cultural-linguistic contexts, but I take this to mean, in part, that the Church and the World, to a significant degree, speak different languages -- which is why I speak about power in terms of "cruciform missionality," and not in terms of "influential leadership" (for more of my thoughts on why Christians need to keep speaking "Christianly" you can see an article I wrote that was published here: http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/STIM%2014_1%20Babel.pdf).

(2) Re: Our differences here seem to come down to the fact that you see the church as hopelessly infected with worldly values about leadership, to the point where even using the word "leadership" is impossible without conveying a worldly understanding about how it functions...

I'm not convinced that this is where our difference lies. I think that I am engaging in a slightly different conversation than you and Nathan and, to a certain extent, we have been talking past each other (speaking different languages? Playing different language-games?). I would rephrase your sentence to say this: our difference here seems to come down to the fact that I see the Church's understanding of power as dangerously infected with worldly notions of "influential leadership," rather than the Christian notion of "cruciform missionality," whereas you seem to be intent on arguing that the church is not hopelessly infected with worldly values about leadership, and can, therefore, continue to retain that language (so long as it is carefully defined). This, I think, shows the extent to which we have, and have not, been talking past each other.

Grace and peace,

Dan

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-24 06:25 pm UTC (link)

I responded on my blog, but here is the gist of it

I still think there is a place for leadership in the kingdom that can work. Miroslav Volf talks about the relationship between givers and receivers in his book Free of Charge and how almost always their relationship becomes skewed. He says that “many maintain that the act of giving puts the giver in a position of wealth and power, whereas the act of receiving puts a person in a position of poverty and weakness.” He goes on to say later than when this exchange is done in love “gifts neither establish the superiority of the giver, nor rigger rivalry between the giver and receiver.” I wonder if the relationship between a leader and a follower can follow this same pattern. Where leadership almost always comes in power, selfish influence and distorts the relationship that humans are to have with one another. Yet when done in love, maybe there is some redeemable factor of the relationship.

I don’t think I can throw out all ideas of leadership. There is something inside of it that still rings true with me. I think there can be a leader/follower relationship that is healthy and not degrading to either side. It needs to be reinvented, of course, but I don’t think it needs to be thrown out or looked past. I think this is where my language of influence starts coming in. I don’t mean influence as something used as a tool to convince people to follow, but I mean influence as a by-product of who you are. Influence can’t be sought after and achieved unselfishly. It should come unbeknownst and then I would consider that grounds for the beginnings of a true leader

Nathan Colquhoun (http://www.nathancolquhoun.com)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

poserorprophet
2007-08-25 09:11 am UTC (link)

Nathan,

It is interesting that you mention Free of Charge, since Volf also criticises the way in which Carnegie, by employing the notion of "influence," fundamentally compromises our understanding of giving (pp 89-91). I am inclined to agree.

Be that as it may, I think Volf's implicit dialogue partner in that section of Free of Charge is Derrida (cf. esp. Given Time: I. Counterfeit Money). It is Derrida, not Foucault, who posits an aporia at the heart of giving and of all our acts of, in his language, "hostipitality" (a combination of "hostility" and "hospitality"). However, stated in an overly simplistic manner, Derrida is (mostly) focused upon the deconstruction of logocentricism; Foucault is (mostly) focused upon the deconstruction of particular networks, and discourses, of power. Therefore, I think we should be careful about moving too rapidly from the notions of "giving" and "receiving" to the notions of "leading" and "following."

After all, what is the ultimate Christian model of "giving"? Surely it is the perichoretic union of the members of the Trinity. Can we impose notions of "leading" and "following" into the mutual giving and receiving, the mutual indwelling, of the Father, Son, and Spirit? I don't think so.

Consequently, I think it is better to see the discourse of "giving/receiving" and the discourse of "leading/following" not as two parallel discourses, but as two discourses pursuing altogether different trajectories, trajectories that only get further and further apart (an illustration: not "//" but "\/").

To my mind, "giving/receiving" when understood in the proper way that Volf describes (contra Carnegie) is best understood as a subcategory of power encoded in cruciform missionality. When "giving/receiving" is made a subcategory, or parallel, of influential leadership, then I think we end up with Carnegie (contra Volf).

Therefore, as I suggested to Andrew, what is at stake here is the sort of terminology that we use to encode power (actually, a large part of what I said to Andrew also doubles as a response to your recent post). You see, you don't want to "throw out all ideas of leadership," but I am comfortable doing so precisely because I think that the issue is not "leadership" but how we respond to power. "Leadership" locates power within the powerful. "Cruciformity" locates power within the powerless.

Finally, as a bit of a postscript, let me refer to a recent exchange on your blog. A commentator asked you if "you've ever experienced positive examples of Leadership," and you responded by offering yourself (and your two friends and co-leaders) as the positive example. I want to tread lightly here, so let me just say that I find this response to be very interesting.

Grace and peace,

Dan

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-08-25 09:11 pm UTC (link)

Hey Dan.

I'm with you in that I think terminology is coming to play here and it is part of the battle for me in coming to grips with this. Because leadership has such a heavy burden tagged along with it, especially with ideas of power it makes it almost impossible to talk about outside of the power umbrella. I think though what I'm trying to get at, and answer, is that can leaders/followers exist outside of abuses and bad responses to power? However, I love your last sentance in that paragraph. ""Leadership" locates power within the powerful. "Cruciformity" locates power within the powerless." Which I think helps me understand better where your coming from. Funny how one sentence does more for me than two blog posts.

This idea of giving/receiving amongst the Trinity confuses me, let alone trying to grasp why they can give/receive but not lead/follow. You said you don't think it could happen, but I'm curious as to why, especially if we are able to take those terms outside of our negative "power" terms.

Glad you brought up your postscript. I guess when I was referring to myself I wasn't thinking of myself a leader as in Darryl, Joe and I are leading theStory. I was more referring to the relationship that us three have with each other in that I find we all lead/follow given circumstance, gifts and timing. I wasn't exactly saying that I think the way we are leading theStory is right and should be modeled instead the way our relationships work together I think is positive, a lot more positive than other experiences I've had in other groups, friendships or congregations.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…