I was listening to the football (Australian Rules) commentary on the radio the other day. During the prematch dribble to fill in time there was a big tirade by one of our more well-known dribblers in Sam Newman. Ironically, what he said made me think of leadership in the Church.

He was talking about how the problem with umpires at the moment is that they were too friendly with the players. We now have our umpires wearing microphones and you clearly hear how they call the players by their first names and sometimes by their nick names. Sam felt that this type of familiarity was breeding a lack of respect between the players and the umpires. Personally, I feel it is because the umpires keep paying free kicks against Collingwood but I digress.

The reason Sam made me think about Church and leadership is that I have often thought of how different the leadership by Ministers of the last two generations seem to compare to my style or even to my peers in ministry. For instance, at nccc we have three retired ministers at the Church. It is very common for them to be refered to as Mr…. Never, have I been refered to like this (not that I wish for it!). These ministers are two generations removed from me and I only observe them from their interaction with the Church now and by stories of their ministries but I definitely see a leadership that is marked by a distance between the minister and the congregation. Their position seems to set them aside in significant ways. The symbols of power and respect are their booming dramatic voices and their extensive use of the pulpit. Even elderly people, some who have known them for over forty or fifty years still refer to them by their Surnames.

The immediate generation of ministers before me I observe as being distant in a different way. In this case, the usually are not called by their surnames but are often distant in the way they engage with people at their Church. This generation seemed to have been trained or perhaps learnt by experience to be distant in the way they perform their ministry. Some make very few close friends at the Church that they serve and seem to keep their distance from intimacy of community.

I have also notice that there is a difference in the way minister’s spouses are engaged too. With the generation of now retired minister - the minister’s wife (and it was always this), was engaged very much. Churches usually got a two for one deal with the minister and his spouse - often the wife would go on pastoral vistation as well. The next generation seemed to rebel against this expectation that the spouse would be involved and retreated from involvement. As I look as the generation of ministers ahead of me, I see many of their spouses not engaged in the Church at all - holding no role etc. My generation is different again - with the spouse demanding a equal role in their own right in the Church and not to be seen as an attachment nor a extra employee.

Maybe I am mistaken but I think that my generation of ministers are engaged very differently with their community that they serve. First names are common and close friendships are also formed by this generation as a normal part of ministry. I am a product of this approach and wouldn’t have it any other way. But, what are the ramifications?

Am I mistaken? What shifts have you seen?

This entry was posted on Monday, July 26th, 2004 at 6:27 pm by phil and is filed under challenges for the church. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.