Leadership and Followership
Where is the leadership in the ECUSA ? The ordained clergy of course: bishops, priests, and deacons. The earliest records (Acts 6) have the (male) community selecting and elevating their deacons from their very midst. Today, bishops are elected by the diocese, see the Oklahoma Diocesan search page here. The presiding bishop is also selected. Not so with priests and deacons however.
Today, the pendulum has swung all the way over to the opposite side of the continuum. Rather than selection and elevation from the community, the interested person self-selects, saying "Hey, I want to be a [priest/deacon]". The community has nominal input through the parish aspirancy committee process, but the bishop's voice is the (only?) one that matters. He has not only a veto, but also the ability to over-ride the disqualification of a deficienct applicant.
On a different topic, where do we see servant leadership ? Isn't that an oxymoron ? How can you be a servant and a leader at the same time ? It's either Martha or Mary, and a quick trip to a diagnosis of schizophrenia if you try to do both. A follower can lead others, by example, in how to be a follower. And a leader can serve others, as a leader. This is nothing but symantic games.
Even more important, what about followership ? Leadership without followership is a stuffed shirt talking to him/herself alone in an empty room. In the America of today, if you don't like something, just walk down the street. There will be two or two dozen other options, all with smiles on their faces ready to welcome you in. If you can walk down the street, are you a real follower or more of a follow-of-the-moment-until-such-time-as-I-feel-like-walking. I get bored, I get mad, I get curious, I get tired - there are two dozen different reasons to walk.
So where does that leave us ? There are no leaders in the desert. There are no followers in the desert. Maybe real life is more like the desert than I thought.
Today, the pendulum has swung all the way over to the opposite side of the continuum. Rather than selection and elevation from the community, the interested person self-selects, saying "Hey, I want to be a [priest/deacon]". The community has nominal input through the parish aspirancy committee process, but the bishop's voice is the (only?) one that matters. He has not only a veto, but also the ability to over-ride the disqualification of a deficienct applicant.
On a different topic, where do we see servant leadership ? Isn't that an oxymoron ? How can you be a servant and a leader at the same time ? It's either Martha or Mary, and a quick trip to a diagnosis of schizophrenia if you try to do both. A follower can lead others, by example, in how to be a follower. And a leader can serve others, as a leader. This is nothing but symantic games.
Even more important, what about followership ? Leadership without followership is a stuffed shirt talking to him/herself alone in an empty room. In the America of today, if you don't like something, just walk down the street. There will be two or two dozen other options, all with smiles on their faces ready to welcome you in. If you can walk down the street, are you a real follower or more of a follow-of-the-moment-until-such-time-as-I-feel-like-walking. I get bored, I get mad, I get curious, I get tired - there are two dozen different reasons to walk.
So where does that leave us ? There are no leaders in the desert. There are no followers in the desert. Maybe real life is more like the desert than I thought.
posted by Eric Blazek | 11:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home