Bullseye: The Current State of Leadership

“Many pastors back off from the tough acts of leadership because they do not want to experience the pain” (p.110).

As previously discussed, the Bible and Spirit of Prophesy do not endorse many if not most of the “tough acts of leadership” that Borden advocates, but in a larger sense he has a point. In a religious context particularly, there is the tendency to slip into the comfortable belief that all must be happiness and warm-fuzziness, and that anything which isn’t should not be part of the religious experience. All professions have their share of unpleasant but proper and necessary tasks, and the professional is remiss if they ignore these responsibilities simply because they are unpleasant. (We are going to leave this subject dangling for the moment because we are devoting this post to a description of the current state of leadership in the church. Our next post will consider the responsibilities and privileges of church leaders.)

“Most had never led a congregation to growth and health (this was one reason they were in judicatory or denominational work) and they were ignorant of most of the voices who are writing about congregational health, congregational growth, changing organizations, or missional thinking” (p.41).

“Along with other consultants I was confrontational with pastors and congregational leaders about Jesus’ mandate to go and make disciples. I pointed out that this was not happening in our congregations and as a result we were being disobedient and failing to meet the very purpose for the church’s existence. I then tried to show the values, and in turn behaviors, that had led to this predicament. Through the consultation process we then offered a better way of acting which would demand a change in values for the congregation” (p.72).

As much as we would like to, we can’t dispute that the Adventist Church often participates in the practice of dealing with ineffective ministers by “kicking them upstairs.” This brings us back to a couple of subjects we have already covered, specifically that 1) being a pastor is as much a profession as any other career and if the pastor isn’t being effective in their job they should not be allowed to continue to hold it, and 2) in religious contexts there is a tendency to shy away from unpleasant but proper and necessary tasks. We could also argue that this touches on the “protection” mentality among clergy, but in any case the end result is a tolerance of mediocrity in job performance which should not exist.

The other issue raised by these statements is that of what pastors are doing with their time (and what they should be doing, but again we are straying into the material of another post). Borden identifies two things that pastors are not doing, 1) studying what others have to say about congregational health and growth, changing organizations, and missional thinking, and 2) following the Great Commission. As we stated in the original post of this series, the need to get serious about the Great Commission is one of the things about which we agree with Borden. We also find it oddly appropriate to define the activities of our pastoral leadership in terms of what they are not doing since in too many cases one can find little evidence of activity beyond weekly occupation of the pulpit. (Don’t get us wrong, preparing and delivering sermons is an important part of the pastor’s job, but it’s not the entire job.) We are less sympathetic with Borden’s complaint that pastors aren’t keeping up with the trendy thinking on organizational philosophy. “There is need of systematic labor; but where some of you are so long in devising, and planning, and getting ready for the work, Satan preoccupies the field with bewitching fables, and the attention of men becomes absorbed in the delusions of the master deceiver” (Review and Herald, March 13, 1888). In other words, spend less time worrying about how others think you should do your job, and more time actually doing it, because if you wait until you are thoroughly versed in the latest popular theory you will never get around to doing anything.

“The elder ministers should be qualified to so educate the younger men that they may become able ministers, who will feel the responsibility of the work, and will build upon the sure foundation. There are many who neglect their duties outside the desk, and the condition of the churches testifies to the character of their work. Doubts, unbelief, backsliding, formality, exist in a marked degree. Oh! how much men of God are needed, who will faithfully warn the people of their sins. …Talents are now buried in earthly, temporal pursuits, that should be used in saving souls from perdition. When the church stand as God's chosen people should, they will be a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There will be no slackness, no concord with Belial. Oh that we could realize what God's people might now be, had they kept themselves in his love, without any compromise with evil, and had retained the peculiar character that distinguished them, and separated them from the world! In experience, in wisdom, in true holiness, they would be years in advance of what they now are. But as a people our obedience, our devotion, our spiritual attainments, are very far from being in proportion to our privileges, and to our sacred obligation to walk as children of the light” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 22).

Borden blames the majority of the evils he sees in the current state of church leadership on the fact that congregations and denominational hierarchies focus governing power in committees or boards. As we have already discussed, the solution he advocates for this perceived problem is to eliminate committees and boards and give all that power to individuals, specifically pastors.

“In most religious settings we find it almost impossible to confront an individual in order to tell that person he or she is performing poorly in conducting ministry. It is even more difficult to confront a group and inform the people in the group that they have failed to conduct ministry well” (p.128).

“The marriage of authority, responsibility, and accountability is best done with individuals, not groups. First, give an individual the authority and responsibility for a task. Then establish how this individual will be held accountable for results. Then let that individual select whomever she or he desires to help them. This person, however, clearly understands that he or she will be held accountable, not the people selected to minister with them” (p.128).

This system may be, as Borden describes it, “efficient,” but it fails to take into account the fallibility of humans. The best, most efficient system of government on earth is a benevolent monarchy. The problem is that there is no way of ensuring the “benevolent” part. Likewise, the government of heaven will likely resemble the philosophies of communism, but communism on earth is a dismal failure because it depends on the goodness of people. On the other hand, capitalism and democracy assume and encourage the opportunistic aspects of human nature, but they also provide checks and balances to counteract that behavior when it becomes harmful, which is why they work so well in this fallen world. Since we are still in this fallen world, we need to place power where it is the safest—under the guardianship of the collective wisdom.

“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).

“There is much for men in responsible positions to learn. When men feel that their ideas are without a flaw, it is time for them to change their position from president to that of a learner. When they think that their ideas, their judgment, should be accepted without question, they show that they are unfit for their position. God sees not as man sees. Whatever position a man may be called to fill, his judgment is not to be regarded as unerring. His entrusted responsibility makes it far more needful than it otherwise would be for him to be free from all egotism, and willing to receive counsel” (Manuscript 55, June 3, 1897, "Development of Workers").

We included the following statement earlier in this series, but it is equally applicable to this subject and bears repeating.

“Notwithstanding the fact that Paul was personally taught by God, he had no strained ideas of individual responsibility. While looking to God for direct guidance, he was ever ready to recognize the authority vested in the body of believers united in church fellowship. He felt the need of counsel, and when matters of importance arose, he was glad to lay these before the church and to unite with his brethren in seeking God for wisdom to make right decisions. Even ‘the spirits of the prophets,’ he declared, ‘are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.’ 1 Corinthians 14:32, 33. With Peter, he taught that all united in church capacity should be ‘subject one to another.’ 1 Peter 5:5” (Acts of the Apostles, p.200).