FUTURE LEADER | THEOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP

Reviewed by Thomas Scarborough

PREFACE

The unwriteable seminary assignment has become a legend in our time. A student is given an assignment which, for reasons of personal conviction, just cannot be done. I received such an assignment during the course of my current MA studies in the USA. Thankfully I obtained permission from my professor to convert it to satire instead.

The assignment was to apply the methods of a writer on Church leadership, Viv Thomas, to my local Church. The chief difficulty, broadly described, was that I found Thomas to be largely alien to the culture of the Church of the Global South which I myself inhabit -- insofar as one may speak at all, of course, of a “Global South”.

Although it is a satirical response, I consider that every point would represent a substantive difference between the Church in the Global North and the Church in the Global South. Of course, this is just one Global Southerner’s perspective. However, having had close contact with both worlds in recent years, I believe it would be fairly representative.

ASSIGNMENT

SYNTHESISE OBSERVATIONS IN VIV THOMAS WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE FUTURE ORGA­NISATION OF CHURCHES, AND SUGGEST SPECIFIC WAYS IN WHICH HIS METHODS MIGHT BE INCOR­PO­RATED INTO YOUR OWN MINISTRY.

Our Church is one which shows worrying trends of identifying with the burgeoning Church of the Global South -- therefore this assignment would pres­ent a timely opportunity to imagine how it might return to more sober priorities and perspectives of the Global North. Here Viv Thomas indicates the way forward. Seven shifts of emphasis are suggested:

1. Our Church would abandon the naive belief that the Lord Himself imparts clarity of vision and freedom of spirit, and would consider instead that “leaders are in a confusing place” (:130), that the Church is filled with “complexity and ambiguity” (:132), with “be­trayal” (:144), and with “considerable difficulty and blurring of focus” (:133). It should hope instead for “survival” (:134).

2. Our Church would abandon its irresponsible approach to ministry, which pro­ceeds largely without self-analysis or self-recrimination. Instead it would give “consi­derable attention . . . to everything taking place” (:133), and “assessment” would be “a constant process” (:137). The Church would presumably be on tenterhooks, since “timing, creativity and discipline are crucial skills” (:138).

3. Our Church would abandon its belief that its existing peaceful, profitable rela­tionships are born of a living relationship with Jesus Christ, and fixate on human relationships instead. Viv Thomas takes Paul’s second epistle to Timothy as a case in point: “The startling fact . . . is that the whole text is a response to peo­ple” (:140). Those who point to fifty-odd references to Paul’s response to God in the text should pay closer attention here. It is “primarily relational” (:143).

4. Our Church would abandon the uninhibited view that change in the Church is God-given through the Word and the Spirit, and consider in­stead that it is ultimately the pastor who “create[s] the culture of the group” (:158). With this in mind, it comes down to “the skill of being able to motivate and challenge people to grow and change” (:146). Thus our Church would finally understand the significance of human persuasion and coercion.

5. Our Church leadership would need to rethink the notion that troubles and betrayals are a part of the life-giving, sanctifying work of God, and consider instead “the example that Paul has”, namely the Lord Himself (:144). In short, “pain [is] to be endured” as a “leadership reality”. We would set aside such phrases as “Bless you Lord”, replacing them instead with the dogged Viv Thomas mantra: “Lord have mercy” (:135).

6. Our own Church would revisit the notion that one-third of its members are currently engaged in com­munity and social work because they have been renewed by the liberating gos­pel of salvation, and focus again on the real heart of the matter, namely the works them­selves: cli­nics, housing, lite­racy work, and so on (:165). In keeping with Viv Thomas’ example, the Church would expunge the words “make disciples” from the Great Com­mission (:165).

7. Finally, in this irresponsibly busy world, the suggestion that leaders should “only read half of [our] email” (:151) would be a timely tip from the Global North to lighten our burden. The cultural scandal that this would cause in parts of the Global South could easily be ignored. In fact, we might further listen to half our members, and assist half those in crisis.

CONCLUSION

It is not all bad, however. There are important aspects of Viv Thomas with which there would be basic commonality. These include, among others, his emphasis on the need to “release the potential of those [we] are called on to lead” (:147), and his emphasis on “teaching and blessing the nations” in tangible ways (:166).

A study colleague summarised Viv Thomas more positively: “Leaders can create cultures that either protect themselves or that bring about questions which allow for growth through the facing of assumptions and our own ignorance and arrogance. Viv Thomas definitely touched on some important aspects.”

However, this in itself further highlights the divide -- in fact might typify it. According to this summary, it is leaders who “create cultures”. Such a view would seem to reflect an inordinate emphasis on human agency, a deep-dyed rationalism, and what one might describe as a blurring of the distinction between faith and values, all of which would seem so distinctive of the Church in the Global North.

CITATION OF REFERENCE

Thomas, Viv. Future Leader. Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 1999 .