The announcement this past week by President of the House of
Deputies, Canon Dr. Bonnie Anderson, came as a surprise to most of us deputies
and alternates and the entire Episcopal Church. We fully expected Bonnie to
continue for three more years, paralleling the nine-year term of Presiding
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Now that the initial shock has died down, it’s time to think
about the characteristics that we would include in a wish list for the next
President of the House of Deputies. We will also be voting for a Vice President
of the House of Deputies at the upcoming General Convention in July. Depending
on order, clerical or lay, of the elected President, the Vice President must be
elected from the opposite order.
The Episcopal Church is at an important crossroads as we
move towards General Convention. There are numerous, game-changing issues
facing this church and the whole panoply of Christian churches in the Western
hemisphere that also coincide with major demographic, economic, and political changes
in the secular world. The powers that be and the dominant culture’s
stranglehold on controlling the media messages have been battered by the
grassroots, thanks to the explosion of social media. Access to social media has
helped the Occupy and Arab Spring movements to flourish as well as the plethora
of instantaneous petition and letter-writing campaigns responding to all types
of political issues.
In this context, it seems to me that we need to elect a
leader for the next three years (and possibly more years if such elected leader
is deemed the right one and is reelected in 2015) who is a departure from the
way we’ve always done things. As a member of the Executive Council in this past
triennium, I have had a front row seat in observing our President of the House
of Deputies, who is also the Vice President of Council, and the challenges
faced by her. We need a leader who isn’t married to the way we’ve always done
things, while also having an appreciation of our history, traditions, and how
we got where we are today.
So, without further ado, here’s my wish list, not
necessarily in any order of priority.
1. We
need a leader who has multiple visions of what The Episcopal Church might look
like in three, six, nine, twelve, or fifteen years. Being single-minded
and having a singular vision is a thing of the past. The world is moving at
light-speed, and we must embrace visions of our future that encompass multiple
possibilities. Of course, the singular core value and guide must be our
Gospel-centered, baptismal identity. However, the expressions of our being
church as we move forward will be multiple and varied, depending on the local
context, demographics, and culture. We need a leader who has the capacity to
hold multiple visions in mind as possibilities while continually adjusting and
communicating an evolving vision that points ahead and includes newcomers and
their ideas. More than ever, the icon of the Anglican umbrella of
comprehensiveness becomes important not merely symbolically, but in actual
praxis.
2. We
need a leader who has a high tolerance and comfort with ambiguity. If
the expressions of our being church will be multiple and varied, we need
leadership with a posture of openness that can embrace, lift up, and support
multiple and varied models of ministry at the provincial, diocesan, and
congregational levels. One size has never fit all, but now, more than ever,
leadership must acknowledge, encourage, and support the different expressions
of ministry. This is not easy work nor is it typically within the range of
leadership and management styles found in the institutional church. Leadership
must get past getting stuck in feelings of rejection when new models of being
church bubble up from the grassroots, learn to be open-minded even when it’s
uncomfortable, and adopt a sense of time that extends past a budget cycle or a
3 to 5-year plan.
3. We
need a leader who is adept at receiving, incorporating, and integrating 21st
century information, technology, and social media. As an aging (some
would argue, “dying”) church, The Episcopal Church cannot afford to invest in a
leader who is behind the times. Yes, we will value the wisdom and advice of our
elders, but perhaps their time to lead has passed, and it is time for new
leaders. Brain science is telling us that the electronic age has rewired many
of us to multi-task, process, and integrate information from multiple sources
and media in ways that are mystifying to those who haven’t kept up. Rather than
be judgmental about the role of technology and social media, we need to step up
proactively to include increasing amounts of resources and space for the new
technology and social media. Whether we choose to live in the future or not,
the future will not be stopped.
4. We
need a leader who is a consummate, passionate communicator and listener. More
than anything else, the way forward will involve enormous amounts of listening
and conversation in multiple formats. There is anxiety in the church system.
That anxiety needs to be heard. There are myriad ideas for ways forward. Those
myriad ideas need to be heard. We need a leader who has the multicultural,
technological, and social media skills and the sincerity of heart, mind, and
soul, to listen deeply to people of all political, cultural, and demographic
persuasions so that they know they have been heard.
5. We need a leader who values collaboration and is a skillful
collaborator. A leader does not lead in a vacuum. A leader needs people
in various roles with whom to work and on whom to rely. Collaboration is a
skill that must be honed and honored. Thus, a leader must be self-aware of his
or her skills, strengths and weaknesses, have a willingness to acknowledge
such, and have the humility to ask for and accept help. Collaboration across
different communities – with fellow leaders, staff, volunteers, community
representatives, ecumenical partners, etc. – builds organizational health, webs
of relationship, and infrastructure. We need a leader who sees and seeks to
understand the value that exists in each of those different communities and is
open to the possibility of incorporating ideas and practices from those
different communities.
6. We need a leader who will enthusiastically embrace a demanding schedule
of hard work, involvement with a multitude of communities, and constant travel.
It is well and good to acknowledge the importance of balance, self-care,
and Sabbath. However, the reality of the times we are entering is that we will
need a leader who can find self-renewal, positive challenge, and energy in the
crucible of structural, demographic, and economic change. The type of leader
who can lead in times of transition is not the same type of leader who is
needed in times of stability, including times of stable, progressive growth. We
need a leader who will be fueled and fed by the constant input of dynamic times
rather than feel overwhelmed and fatigued by the constant motion. We need a
leader whose sense of abundance derives from the overflowing cup of grace that
comes from the Creator.
7. We need a leader who is whole enough to withstand the onslaught of bad
behavior, unjust criticism, and blame that will be directed at her or him. In
an ideal world where we all live into our baptismal identity, our leaders
would not be subjected to personal attacks and under-the-microscope scrutiny,
but we do not live in an ideal world. So, we need a leader who is not among the
walking wounded, does not carry a chip on the shoulder, and is not overly
sensitive to the barbs and snipes that will surely be aimed her or his way. I
think this also means that we need a leader who has the faithfulness and
fortitude of spirit to be self-disciplined about turning the other cheek,
forbearing pettiness and ill will, and exercising patience in listening and in
teaching.
8. We need a leader who genuinely, wholeheartedly, loves God’s people, in
addition to loving the church. I think that a leader who genuinely
loves God’s people, including those with whom the leader disagrees and those
who abuse the leader, is absolutely needed in times of great change. It is not
enough to love the institution and to want what’s best for the institutional
church. A leader must also love the people of the church and the people whom
the church serves, so intensely and so widely and deeply that the people know
it and will respond to that love in kind. Perhaps this is the purest kind of
charisma there is, a charisma that is a channeling of the love received from
God and shared out in abundance with one’s fellow humans.
9. We need a leader who is willing to sacrifice, to compromise, and to be
decisive. I group these three characteristics together purposely. I do
not believe that a leader should hold onto any idea or point so strongly that
she or he is unwilling to sacrifice it for the good of the whole – the whole
people, the whole institution, the whole relationship, the whole future.
Compromise has its place; there must be a give and take that is grounded in
continually growing and unfolding relationships. Decisiveness is necessary;
there will never be enough data, analysis, or time. Choices must be made, and
sometimes, leaders will make the wrong choice. Part of the responsibility of
leadership is to bear the burden of making the wrong choices and the knowledge
that the cost of wrong choices falls on the beloved community. What ameliorates
the sacrifice, the compromise, and the decisions is the communication and
collaboration that a good leader embraces consistently and continually.
10. We need a leader who knows when to retire. I believe that God
calls us each for a season for the tasks that God puts before us. We need a
leader who has the humility and the wisdom to know when his or her season is at
an end, and who steps aside graciously when that season has ended. The
institutional church is too full of people who love the institution too much,
to the point where they have overstayed their seasons. Leadership is a lot like
parenting. We raise our children to leave us. We step out of their way when
they are grown. So, too, must we as leaders raise new leaders to step out of
our shadow, and then, we must step aside to make room for their leadership
season.
From
my perspective, it should be possible to hold an over-arching vision of a
church that is dynamic and vibrant at the grassroots, congregational level, and
yet allow for variations of how congregations and dioceses are organized.
Dioceses that may favor more mutual and team ministry models should not be
stereotyped as departures from the norm, but rather, the new norm should be
that there is no norm.
Needless
to say, leading in an environment of great diversity and tolerance for
difference is exceptionally challenging and not what most traditional leaders
are prepared for. The traditional mode of a leader imprinting his or her
personal vision and leadership style upon an organizational unit doesn’t work
well in an environment where people and ideas are moving in from the margins
and changing the balance.
6 comments:
And have a big trust fund to support her/himself as it is an unpaid position.
The office of the PHOD may not be a paid position, but it certainly needs the support of the people it serves. It was a little disappointing when in Columbus (GC 2006) we acquiesced so easily and allowed the PHOD's budget line item to be slashed the way it was. Given the grace and efficiency with which Mrs. Anderson has handled the Office -- the ministry of presence (extensive travel) she has exhibited, the moral support she gave to beleaguered continuing dioceses, the new communication tool (deputy online forum) she implemented, etc., I plead that this time around we will advocate better budgetary support for that office.
Sure, I am aware of the groundswell for structural change, but until the change is agreed upon, we must do the work as we discern it.
Or perhaps we merely need a person who presides efficiently over the HOD and plays a collaborative role as a member of statutory boards and agencies, but retreats from the modern assumed role of leader and quasi prime minister of a political body. This would be a step towards the devolution of authority the modern church needs to rediscover.
Here's where we disagree: I don't think we need someone with 'multiple visions'. I think we need someone who can synthesize and articulate the multiple vision of the church which s/he hears/sees from within the elected deputies s/he meets.
Having someone with the qualities of Bonnie Anderson would be wonderful - not probable but wonderful. The bylaws say that the next POHD needs to be an ordained person. We certainly have our work cut out for us.
Elizabeth,
I don't think we're actually in disagreement. I would accept your articulation of "someone who can synthesize and articulate the multiple vision of the church which s/he hears/sees from within the elected deputies s/he meets."
That's what I was trying to say with "We need a leader who has the capacity to hold multiple visions in mind as possibilities while continually adjusting and communicating an evolving vision that points ahead and includes newcomers and their ideas."
Title I, Canon 1.1.(b) on page 11 of the 2009 Final Constitution and Canons says "The House of Deputies shall elect from its membership, by a majority of separate ballots, a President and a Vice-President, who shall be of different orders." While our past practice has suggested a rotation between clergy and lay orders, that is not dictated by our canons.
Lelanda
How about someone who focuses on Jesus will for His church!
Post a Comment