Warning signs of the degeneration of a movement
I am reading Leadership Next at the moment by Eddie Gibbs (a definite must read for church leaders by the way) and he passes on six early-warning signs of the degeneration of a movement - identified my Max De Pree - which are very much applicable to the church. He says that teams fail to provide direction and maintain momentum within a movement when they begin to:
- Make trade-offs
- Prefer comfort to ambiguity
- Look for control rather than challenge
- Trust job assignments rather than respecting individual gifts
- Allow rules to dominate decision-making
- Become unable or unwilling to hold the group accountable
What do you think? And has anyone got any stories or experiences to share which support these?
January 25th, 2006 at 12:46 am
I haven’t read the book but I think some of the points in the list need careful thought and context, and do not necessarily result in failure.
1. Prefer comfort to ambiguity.
These two are equally dangerous, both can lead to failure. The Word is never ambiguous. Genuine, strong leadership can never be ambiguous. It might not give all the answers but by its very nature should challenge through example in a positive way, which ambiguity does not do.
I can think of a perfect example of both in the same project which was introduced in the church I attend - an outreach into the community working with local youth. It was important that the whole church owned the project and that those members who were ‘comfortable’ were on board whilst at the same time challenged. The project initially failed to gain support because of the poorly defined and ambiguous way in which it was introduced. It eventually took off, after many months of much hurt and anger, and is now quite successful, although it could have been so much more if a little more care and thought had been given to its original presentation.
2. Trust job assignments rather than respecting individual gifts.
Jesus gave the disciples assignments whilst also (I assume) respecting their individual gifts. It is important to utilise individual gifts for good of the whole, therefore some structure is necessary to enable coordination.
3. Allow rules to dominate decision-making.
Jesus gave us rules to live by which should dominate our decision making.
Finally, how can you have accountability with ambiguity? Politicians are a great example of ambigous people who we have great difficulty keeping accountable!
I notice that Dan Kimball says, in a review of Leadership Next, “No matter what time period or culture we are in, there is always a need for leadership. However, how we lead does change depending on the people, the place, and the culture and values……..”
Good leadership is fundamental to any aspect of society. Maybe that’s why the church and society is in such a mess! Maybe if we had had stronger leadership in the church we might be in less of a mess in society!
January 25th, 2006 at 6:09 am
I’ve definitely seen these three hold back a movement…
Look for control rather than challenge
Allow rules to dominate decision-making
Become unable or unwilling to hold the group accountable
——
On memorizing… thanks for pointing us toward memorizing Romans 8:1-17. It’s an amazing passage as I spend time memorizing it. I’ve got verses 1 through 4 pretty much learned… and 5 and 6 are close. How are you doing on it?
Hope God uses you in a mighty way today…
January 25th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Some good points you raise, Pete. And I can see how both comfort and ambiguity can be dangerous. Perhaps “prefer comfort to change” might be more accurate in degenerating a movement?
I can see why trusting job assignment rather than individual gifts can cause problems though as there is only so long people will persevere in doing something that just doesn’t fit with who they are. They danger of course is that with everyone persuing their ideal, no one does some of the dirty work that has to be done. There needs to be a balance between people serving in the area of their gifting and serving with the assignments that just need to be done.
The Pharasees allowed rules to so dominate their decision making that they lost the ability to love through the law. Would the woman caught in adultery still be alive if Jesus hadn’t found a way to love through the law? He could have followed the rules and stoned her.
Thanks for your comments, let’s keep the discussion going…
January 25th, 2006 at 8:32 am
hi Allen, I’m up to about the same…verse 5 I think. It’s definitely a very rich passage. Once we’ve got it committed to memory, we should start sharing thought, insights, etc.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
On ambiguity: there are definitely people in the world who demand too much structure. They need to learn to be ok with ambiguity and not necessarily knowing where God is taking a movement. I should know: I’m an administrator! Nobody gets irked by change or demands systems like an administrator.
On job assignments: I’ve seen trusting job assignments rather than individual gifts become problematic, too, but in the opposite way: people continuing to carry out their jobs in the same old way, despite the fact that they are not necessarily gifted at one particular aspect of the job description and it is affecting the overall output of the team; and resenting the well-intentioned offers of assistance from people are gifted in the arena because they see it as “stepping on their toes” or an attempt to undermine their authority.
It takes a strong person to admit that they are not as good at something as their subordinate is; and it takes a sensitive leader above that individual to tell them that they need to accept the help of a subordinate who is more talented than them in a particular area, without entirely wounding and alienating the individual.
As far as what Jesus did, he gave tasks, but it seems to me that they were always tasks that each and every one of the disciples would need to know how to accomplish later (distributing food when there was not enough; healing; casting out spirits). Within those tasks, there was plenty of room for the disciples to use their own talents and develop their own working styles. And he sent them out in twos so that if one was weak in an area, say they were a little bit shy or something, they would presumably have a less shy person to work with– or, if they were both shy, they could at least bolster each others’ courage up!
Says the introvert. It takes a blend, I think, of trusting both job description and gifting.
January 25th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I think that’s the bottom line really - ‘it takes a blend’ - in all things.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Maybe that’s the leader’s real job: to know what to emphasize and when.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
interesting … i may need to add it to my ever-growing list of books to read!