Calculating Ministry Dropout

Both my MTh and MA studies had much to do with ministry dropout. According to US statistics, one may expect a halving of survival in ministry every ten years -- which is pretty disastrous. Therefore, what are the chances that you (or your minister) should have survived in ministry at this point in time? Take the present year and subtract the year that you started in full-time ministry. In my case, this gives me 28. Divide by 10. Add 1. In my case, this now gives me 3.8. Call this figure y. Now calculate 2^y (your calculator should have an xy button, so you type 2 xy y =). Divide the result by 2. In my case, I now have 6.96. Call this figure z. Now calculate 100 ÷ z. That's your percentage chance of survival -- in my case about 14%. OBSERVATION: Note that statistics outside of the USA might well look better than this. Also, statistics within the USA may vary -- some better, some worse. If you borrow my Scarborough Dropout Formula, do mention this blog.

Being vs. Doing

A major discussion in Christian leadership today is being vs. doing. It was a major emphasis of my last term at Fuller Theological Seminary. Thus it is said that Christian leadership is not about what I do, it's about who I am. Part of the reason for emphasising being vs. doing is that doing has led to widespread dropout in the past (an emphasis on achievement, but character fails, or burnout ensues, and so on). However, I consider that being and doing are merely different aspects of the same. Those phrases "what I do" and "who I am" have one word in common: "I". I have called this an inordinate emphasis on self, in both cases -- whether one is speaking of doing or of being. I think this to be the real, underlying problem in dropout.

Postliberalism

Recently I was invited to highlight, on this blog, a discussion of Brian McLaren's postliberalism. However, the discussion tended to treat postliberalism as liberalism, and this, in my view, does not make a good fit. Being registered as a postgraduate student at a postliberal seminary, I’ll give the question a go: What is postliberalism (or narrative theology)? To simplify in the extreme (I’m trying to make it understood), it may be summarised in two points. 1. Postliberalism considers that the value of Christianity cannot be founded or demonstrated -- much as someone might ask you: "What do you see in that?" and you reply: "Well, it can't really be explained. Just come along and see!" Postliberalism, therefore, has been called non-foundationalism (says George Hunsinger). This is a well-known philosophy, of which the chief proponent is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Therefore 2. instead of being founded or demonstrated, the value of Christianity is discovered as one becomes absorbed in the language and practices of the Church. Again, this is like "Just come along and see!" -- then you wake up one day to realise that you have been quite taken up by it all, and now you do the same things and speak the same words as "those guys". Thus postliberalism holds that one is drawn into the narrative and formed by it (says Paul Ballard). With all this in mind, postliberalism is sometimes referred to as a neutral theory of religion (says George Lindbeck), as it doesn't ask destructive questions like the liberals, nor does it construct rational proofs like the conservatives (Lindbeck describes these as experiential-expressive religion vs. cognitive-propositional). Postliberalism is a very big movement, being espoused by major seminaries the world over. OBSERVATION: However, by stating up front that becoming a Christian is to be drawn into the narrative, one tends to reject the kind of Christianity which has been described as "an encounter with the Holy" (says George Malek). Postliberalism tends to reject the idea that faith comes "straight down from above -- through the skylight, as we might say" (says Lesslie Newbigin). Therefore on the crucial issue of conversion, it tends to see this as enculturation rather than miracle (Newbigin famously spoke of “no privatised eschatology”). It also tends to disavow an “interventionist God”. To the untrained person, postliberalism is hard to spot, as it tends to "talk the talk" – however, it has many catchwords or phrases, among them community, reign of God, shalom. My post Emergent Church is related.

Transformational: Mods to the Theory

Following on from my previous post, my academic supervisor has emphasised that my critique of transformational Christian leadership should propose constructive modifications to current theory. How, therefore, would I modify current theory if I could? High on my list, I think, would be to seek to break the causal link between influencer (the leader) and influenced (the followers), and to restore the direct influence of God on followers (an aspect which is de-emphasised in the literature). In other words, rather than the horizontal relationship between influencer and influenced (which in my view leads to a constellation of serious problems), there would be a triangular relationship between influencer and God on the one hand, and God and influenced on the other. QUESTION: Would this be in keeping with Biblical emphasis? Could leadership realistically function without the purpose of influencing others?

Transformational: What Is It Really?

Elsewhere on this blog, I suggest a definition of transformational Christian leadership. This might, however, give a different impression to what it really is. Each of the quotes which follows is drawn from a stock of many more: Transformational Christian leadership holds that leadership is personal influence. This influence is based on character (in the sense of “integrity”, but also “persistence”): “Character is foundational if a leader is to influence people ...” (Clinton J R 1988:74). The purpose of such influence if to fulfil a vision: “If you want to become a leader, vision is not an option [i.e. it is mandatory]” (Barna G 1997:47). Such vision tends to be what defines a Christian leader’s calling, and it needs to be seen through. This, however, tends to place an extraordinary burden on the Christian leader: “Perhaps the greatest trial for the transforming Christian leader is in challenging the status quo ... [i.e. is in] values and visions” (Wofford J C 1999:85,86). In the literature, there is a marked de-emphasis of the Triune God in exegetical passages, and of faith in the sense of the human response to God. This would seem to fit with transformational Christian leadership’s emphasis on personal influence. QUESTION: Assuming you are familiar with this leadership paradigm, how might the above be modified or enlarged? The picture (from Senge P M 1990:151) illustrates the “vision tension” particularly well.

NOTE: “Transformational” may have a very different meaning in Southern Africa. What is referred to here is a popular Global North leadership paradigm.

Words, Words, and Leadership

Friedrich Waismann said that “language is the knife with which we cut out facts” (Parkinson G H R ed. 1968:57). It would seem to me much the same when one considers the language that theorists choose to describe movements or organisations, and the so-called leadership that exists within them. As it happens, the model of leadership I am studying for my present thesis puts the leadership-followership distinction at the centre: “There are three basal elements of leadership: leader, followers, and situation” (Clinton J R 1988:182); “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers” (Hunter J C 1999:124). Yet there is other language one could apply. For instance, one might think of a movement e.g. as a divine operation (Banks R and Ledbetter B M 2004:37), or as a living organism (Gibbs E 2005:28). QUESTION: How necessary is the leadership-followership distinction to organisational theory? Is it possible that it is altogether the wrong terminology? What are the consequences of different language that may be envisaged?

The Tautology of Calling

What is it in Christian transformational leadership that distinguishes leaders from followers? A recurring answer is: Calling. However, “calling”, on closer examination, would appear to be a mere tautology. That is, the word merely represents a substitute for other key terms in the literature. Calling may be a substitute 1. for vision: “God-given vision” (Gibbs 2005:191) “a vision from the Lord” (Halcomb J, Hamilton D and Malmstadt H 2000:65), “a kingdom vision” (Hybels B 2002:37). It may be a substitute 2. for vision’s goals: “ambition” (Engstrom T W 1976:29), “purpose” (Boa K 2006:60), “contribution” (Banks R and Ledbetter B M 2004:92). Or it may be a substitute 3. for integrity: in contrast with a mere “role one plays” (Munroe M 2005:20), “an occupation” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:xi), “functional competencies” (Barna G 1997:25). Yet vision, vision’s goals, and integrity are already integral to Christian transformational leadership theory. The use of the word “calling” reveals nothing essentially new or different, nor would anything change if it were dropped from the literature. QUESTION: What, therefore, can it mean? Does it serve merely as a term of legitimation? Do we have a genuine problem here? Or does it matter not? The photo shows George Barna’s Leaders on Leadership, which contains one of the clearer statements on calling.

Transformational: Synonyms

This one’s for information rather than comment. It lists various synonyms for transformational leadership. Note that this does not necessarily mean that the synonyms will always apply. However, in the following instances they do. I would welcome any additions to the list:

connective leadership (Gibbs E 2005:27)
courageous leadership (Halcomb J, Hamilton D and Malmstadt H 2000:185)
relationship theory (Van Wagner K 2007:1)
spiritual leadership (Daman G 1997:1)
servant leadership (Hunter J C 2004:20)
ternary leadership (Banks R and Ledbetter B M 2004:96), and
transforming leadership (Wofford J C 1999:19)

Affirming the Consequent

“Affirming the consequent” is a fallacy that is crucial to Christian leadership theory. Here’s a simple example of the fallacy: 1. If Joe lives to be 100, then Joe ate cherries. 2. Joe has lived to be 100. 3. Therefore Joe ate cherries. This is a fallacy because the conclusion may be false even if the premisses (lines 1. and 2.) are true (Mautner T 2000:8). Even if Joe lives to be 100, and even if Joe ate cherries, and even if all persons who live to be 100 ate cherries, there is the possibility that any number of cherry-eaters will only live to be, say, 30 (the real key to longevity may lie elsewhere). The same with leadership theory. Take the previous post, which proposes that, if Joe succeeds in leadership, then Joe had mentors -- and so on. To put it simply, even if a Christian leadership theory advances much evidence in its support, this may prove little, if not dangerously little -- if the fallacy of affirming the consequent is present. QUESTION: What would a theory need in order to avoid this fallacy?

Transformational = Conflictual?

Recently Igor Kotlyar and Leonard Karakowsky wrote an interesting paper which proposes “a potential link between transformational leadership behavior and the generation of dysfunctional team conflict”. There’s a free copy at http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/167430593.html. While cognitive (ideas) conflict is usually seen to be healthy, affective (emotional) conflict is usually seen to be counter-productive. The paper states that transformational leadership, for the reason that it promotes “motive arousal”, may “strengthen the connection between cognitive and affective conflict”. Thus there is a need for “enforcement of the rules of the game -- creating parameters for generating and maintaining cognitive conflict while curtailing the transmission of affective conflict”. However, such a solution would normally fall outside the transformational leadership paradigm. QUESTION: Do you think there is truth in this, that transformational leadership may promote conflict? And have Kotlyar and Karakowsky correctly identified the source of conflict in transformational leadership?

A Leadership Fallacy

Leadership theory would frequently seem to be bedevilled by a fallacy called “begging the question” (petitio principii). Applied to leadership, it would look something like this: 1. Let us suppose that, if Joe is a man of integrity, he is a leader. 2. Joe is a man of integrity. 3. Therefore, Joe is a leader. However, there is a supposition here. It is assumed that leaders are men/women of integrity, or may be defined as men/women of integrity (they could be defined in other ways, although that’s not the focus here). So the fallacy invalidates the argument. It “begs the question”. QUESTION: What would a leadership theory need to put forward in order not to “beg the question”? In what ways would a theory need to be validated (or otherwise)?