This past fall, I published this article on the blog as a “page” before I understood what those were for! So now I am moving it to a post. The article is itself a revision of an earlier blog post – revised for The Morning Breaks, The Shadows Flee, edited by Russell Johnson and Kara Slade – a playful festschrift for Amy Laura Hall, presented to her on October 7, 2011. The title “Leadery leaders” is an expression frequently used by Dr. Hall in her Ethics class.
The Pastor Dilemma: How are United Methodist pastors to lead without becoming “leadery leaders”?
What is a pastor? What is a pastor for? Who should or should not be a pastor? What should a pastor do? When I was a seminary student, these questions were asked by the students, but almost never examined in the classroom. For the most part, it was assumed that the answers to these questions were known – that, beyond being able to recite the definitions of the Discipline when before the board of ordained ministry, no further existential explorations along the lines of “Wherefore art thou pastor?” were required.
I imagine that things are not all that different now. Which may in part explain one critical difference between the students now at Duke Divinity and those who were students with me ten years ago: after generations of no explicit answers, today’s students are less and less feeling called to a position they cannot describe, explain, or (in some cases) even justify.
But I am not ready to do away with the position of pastor just yet. What I would like to do is re-imagine it. As one who feels called to the Order of Elder – an order in the UMC that is different from Deacon not only in the relation to the sacraments, but in being responsible for “Order”ing the church, it is about time we thought about re-ordering the Order.
As Bob Dylan sang, “It may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody.” And true to the Fall-driven disorder of the world, a lack of theologically sound direction in what pastors are to be has led the pastors to find their direction elsewhere – they gotta follow somebody. And who pastors are following are the authors of various books that purport to solve whatever leadership problem they are having – books of dubious theology, rooted in the dominant language and narratives of our national faith in such contradictory (and elusive) ideals as freedom, power, rights, and the market. Marketing is particularly enjoying ascendancy now, as anxieties about dwindling membership have burst into full bloom. (Let us not say “taken root,” as these fears took root some decades ago. It is only now that they are leading to full scale dashboarding and boards of inquisition in the various conferences.)
My father used to often describe his role as “the CEO” of the congregation. He’s not the only one. Whether they speak these words aloud, or even recognize that they see themselves this way, many pastors behave as the chief executive or their corporation. They take their ideas about leadership from the post-Reagan business world – which means that their purpose (and aren’t we enculturated to desire a “Purpose Driven Life?” Even those of us who sneered at the book and its readers?) is to come up with new and exciting ways to re-invigorate the brand, and so bring in new customers. To be a CEO is to lead the company (the pyramidical, top-down, power driven company) into a future of decreased costs and increased revenues. But this future had best be a near-future, because the analysts will be closely examining your quarterly results – that is, Charge Conference reports.
But perhaps with a new model, consciously explored and adopted, pastors would find themselves with a more God-centered life – which is to say, a less market driven life. The model I propose is the model of the anchorite, a religious order that is most familiar to seminary students through the life of Julian of Norwich, who was herself an anchorite.
Anchorites lived a monastic life. But rather than living that life in a monastery or in some remote location, the anchorite’s cell shared at least one wall with a church sanctuary. The anchorite’s life was one of worship, eucharist, and prayer – of total devotion to God. They were provided for by the congregation with which they were associated. They were available to the members of the congregation (and other visitors) to provide counsel – counsel that was understood to arise from the time they spent in communion with God.
Now granted, anchorites did not lead worship, so that is one key difference. But I am not suggesting that pastors become anchorites – only that they consider it as a model / metaphor for the pastor’s life. Shall we imagine that the congregation pays the pastor to be a CEO? To give them a next quarter better than last quarter – on the books, anyway? Or shall we imagine that they provide for the pastor’s needs in order that she may devote her time to the service of God, and that her doing so will benefit the members of the congregation (to which you are “attached,” as the cell of an anchorite was attached to the church wall) considerably – especially insofar as they seek her out?
The words of Paul are particularly instructive here: “Am I now seeking the favor of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.” Indeed, pastors spend all too much time trying to please (mostly) men in positions of “power” – the men who judge one’s ministry, whether on the Cabinet, on the SPRC, or in absurd Annual Conference proposals that adopt the standard of the number of “professions of faith” as the sole measure of the worth of a pastor. As if Satan himself cannot recite scripture when it appears expedient. The time has come for pastors to stop fearing men, and to fear God alone – because the way of serving the whims of men (you gotta serve somebody) puts us body and soul into a living hell.
But if pastors are to fear nothing but what their lives will be if they do not serve God alone, then we must not throw these fledglings out of the nest unprotected. If the past generation (or two or three) has feared the bishop, the SPRC chair, the sweet little couple on the front row who has threatened to withhold their offering check, then the seminaries must share some of the blame: the seminaries who neither warned nor prepared these young pastors for the reality of service in the local churches. (Better that Duke-stone be tied around our neck and we be thrown into the sea than that we mislead these young people.) Giving the students a model of a God-centered ministry may just give them a chance to make it as pastors – a role that requires them to be (perhaps more than any other Christian) in the world, but not of it.