I certainly don't want to give the impression that churches don't need leaders. Leadership is essential. The problem is that I believe the churches are facing a crisis of leadership. When leadership is understood as a privilege rather than as a responsibility; it will inevitably result in poorly informed decision making.
This crisis reflects a more general crisis in leadership in the wider world. Education generally focuses on the detail of subject areas rather than on the practicality of making good decisions. Well informed decisions require more than superficial knowledge of a subject area, although this can be helpful it also requires deep listening.
Reactive learning is, according to Presence, about habitual thinking, seeing the world through habitual categories. It is odd that this is so common in the churches. Prayer, whilst in part an inner journey, is completed when attention is drawn outwards. Good leaders make decisions. They are not constrained by what others think but take time to consider prayerfully before making decisions.
Good leadership means that those who are led have a stake in decision making but do not necessarily determine the outcome. The Quakers are clear that they do not make decisions by consensus. They listen for the spirit of the meeting. Where there is a controversial issue, people will naturally turn up to a meeting with their view clear in their own minds. The aim is allow these to be spoken but then to listen for the deeper truth behind all these presented truths. This can be done by a single leader or collectively as the Quakers do. However, the single leader must not make decisions alone and where sufficient are experienced, it is perhaps best that decisions are made collectively.
Whether leadership is focused on one person or shared collectively, the implications for ecumenism are profound. Decision making cannot be effective if it is cut off from local churches. The likely implications of decision-making are so profound for the Christian practice of the adherents to the various traditions, that it is hard to see how conversations between senior people can ever be effective. The problem is of course that collective decision making is also much more difficult. Is there any way that everyone can have a realistic stake in ecumenical conversations? Is it even desirable?
Comments