There is no shortage of articles, blogs and podcasts to dissect, analyse and rake over the entrails of Christian leadership scandals.
The podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill was a compelling account of Mark Driscoll’s rise to fame and influence, and how his narcissism and arrogance led to a dramatic fall. It challenged the wider church about our tendency to value charisma over character.
Prevention
Blogs, podcasts and social media have a role to play, especially in giving a voice to those who have suffered. The blog God Loves Women has been particularly effective in challenging the way the church has responded to the Mike Pilavachi situation.
But I find myself increasingly interested in what actually will make a difference to prevent future scandals of this type. This is not an issue just related to ‘high profile’ leaders. Time and again I have seen the cost of similar problems on a local level.
What concrete things can be done to improve the culture of leadership?
The most important factor
I have concluded that the single most important factor for healthy leadership is authentic accountability. Gifts of charisma, intellect and communication must never compromise the need to be accountable to others. Ability must be anchored to accountability.
And ensuring effective accountability is a key task of governance.
Governance is the basis of authority for an organisation: the element that ensures the right things happen and takes action when it doesn’t. Governance is what should hold senior leaders to account. But in too many parts of the church it barely exists.
Ineffective interventions
Often, investigations into scandals reveal a litany of ineffective interventions: informal conversations, cosy chats or the ‘seeking of assurances’ about future behaviour. But time and again these approaches are ineffective.
Too often, they are hallmarked by ‘cheap grace’, a comfortable form of intervention which skirt around a problem and is satisfied with surface resolution. This is what Jeremiah (6:14) spoke of:
“They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace.”
Repentance and change
What would have happened if Mike Pilavachi had been properly challenged when any glimpses of inappropriate behaviour first emerged?
We will never know. But receiving a formal warning back then could have been a transformative moment, an opportunity for proper repentance and change.
Good governance
The point is that intervening in such situations is good governance. All organisations need people in authority who are prepared to speak the truth and follow through.
If those with power do not use it appropriately, then others will use it inappropriately.
Christian organisations need to believe that effective governance is the practical implementation of good theology. However skilled or talented a leader is, we are all weak, damaged and inadequate in different ways. And, these tendencies are not just individual; fallenness and sin becomes compounded in organisational systems and culture.
Therefore, all organisations need just structures which are effective in encouraging and enabling our strengths whilst managing and mitigating our weaknesses. No person or institution remains healthy without these forms of grace and truth.
A practical idea
Over the summer, I reflected on what could be a more direct way of encouraging better accountability within churches and organisations.
I came up with the idea of a Charter for Accountable Leadership. This is a simple document which could be used by a charity or church to clarify expectations around accountability. It sets out some simple principles for both the executive leader and those in governance roles.
It is designed to help create an intentional culture of healthy communication, mutuality and partnership between executive leaders and those they are accountable to.
I am not naïve enough to assume it would solve all problems. But I believe it could make a positive difference by making explicit what creates good accountability.
Feedback needed!
I would hugely appreciate your feedback on this Charter so I can improve it. I would be especially interested in:
- What you think of the concept: would it make any difference?
- How could it be improved? What could be added or changed?
- Could you share with the trustee or leadership teams you are involved in. In principle, would they sign it?
Below is the draft Charter text or you can download a version suitable to print & sign:
Charter for Accountable Leadership
Leadership and accountability
Good Leadership is vital to the success all forms of organisations; businesses, charities, churches, clubs or movements.
But alongside this, accountability is critical to ensure sustained effectiveness and healthy relationships. Accountability ensures that the abilities of a leader are channeled in the right direction and it protects leaders from their worst tendencies. A talented but unaccountable leader can be dangerous.
Providing accountability to those in executive leadership is a key task for those with governance responsibility.
What is this Charter designed to do?
This Charter is designed to encourage good governance in leadership. It aims to help create an intentional culture of healthy communication, mutuality and partnership between executive leaders and those they are accountable to.
The first section are a set of commitments for the executive leader and the second section are commitments to be made by those with governance responsibility.
As a leader, I commit to the following:
- To be accountable about my decisions and about my activities and the resources of the organisation to those with governance responsibility.
- To report fully in governance meetings in a format and timescale agreed with those I am accountable to. I am committed to communicating in a way the governance group find most helpful.
- To proactively flag to the governance group any issues which may cause reputational issues to the organisation.
- To seek to be non-defensive in response to questions and queries whether in formal meetings or between via email or other communications.
- To help create and maintain a safe and supportive working environment for all in which poor performance is addressed and unacceptable behaviour is challenged.
- To submit myself to an regular process of appraisal led by those with governance responsibility which involves feedback from those I am responsible for. And to use this feedback to help inform my priorities in how I lead.
As those with governance responsibility, we commit ourselves to the following:
- To take seriously our role to hold those with executive responsibility to account.
- To commit to reading papers or reports in advance of meetings and attending the meetings we have committed to as part of our governance responsibilities.
- To commit to asking thorough questions about culture, strategy, finance and how resources and risks are managed. Asking such questions is evidence of taking governance responsibilities seriously.
- To commit to not allowing defensive reactions to appropriate questions to deter us from ensuring proper accountability. We believe that encouraging and supporting the executive leadership is compatible with offering challenge and asking tough questions.
- To commit to overseeing a regular process of appraisal which includes feedback from the team working under the leader.
- To commit to ensuring effective governance which works positively and professionally with our executive staff to enhance, uphold and protect the work of our organisation.
Discover more from Grace + Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Grace + Truth 
A safeguard policy open source and accountable to external scrutiny is the only strategy to restore trust in the church and it’s leadership.
LikeLike
thanks Keith. But almost all churches have had safeguarding policies and the problems continue. Do we not need something new?
LikeLike
Thanks Jon. A couple of comments:
“But time and again these approaches are effective” – I think you mean ineffective?
Whilst I agree with the main thrust of your blog and really like the idea of the charter for accountable leadership (perhaps we need to add it to our Governance resources at HIA?) I do wonder whether it would really address the issues that have affected most of the examples you quote above. It’s unlikely that an executive leader will report to their Board that they have been taking advantage of their position and/or charisma in ways which are unrelated directly to their work activities. I’m guessing these issues surely arise not only from lack of accountability but from loneliness, lack of support, feelings of personal inadequacy, drifting away from a strong personal relationship with Jesus whilst continuing to go through the motions in public, a lack of personal leadership over their own lives, etc. etc. and then become a source of shame. Perhaps an insistence that leaders engage with a spiritual advisor / director / counsellor where they are encouraged to be honest and vulnerable in an environment of acceptance and love, rather than in the context of a Governance Board where they might expect judgement and so be closed and unlikely to share things of a personal nature (temptations or inappropriate action), would be more likely to be successful? Perhaps it’s a case of both?
I’ll certainly give the Charter for Accountable Leadership some more thought in the coming days and send you my reflections… I do think it’s a great idea.
LikeLike
thanks Stephen. Thanks for spotting that typo – have now sorted that!
And your other comments are extremely helpful and wise. I am particularly struck by the comment about neediness – I think this is a key root of so many of the inappropriate behaviours that go on. Please mull on this more and if you had suggestions for extra points which would sum these points up then send them over! thanks
LikeLike
Thanks Jon. I grieve over the way in which people who begin with a heart for God end up having a heart for themselves, and yet it is human nature to default to self, and, as you say, vigilance, if not from the person in question, must at least be from those around that person. Sadly, this is often not so. Maybe it is often so as well, but we don’t hear of those cases because it’s effective to help a leader stay on track.
I like the look of your Charter; it has one failing which is not of your making. I have found in around 40 years of observing and working with leaders that there is a peculiar intoxication that takes place in people’s lives that they can find ways to live in cognitive dissonance. By this I mean that they will give enthusiastic assent to all that is written there, and excuse themselves from actually doing it. This happens by degrees, rather than all at once.
I have been broken hearted to know a leader who was having an adulterous affair with one of his staff. He told his wife and his elders that he was attracted to her and that if they ever saw anything that wasn’t quite right, to pull him back into accountability. In this way, he deflected any suspicion from himself and the woman. All the time, over a two year period, they were sleeping together.
There are many stories which I have had to listen to which involve outright lying to cover this kind of sin. In the end, accountability, which needs also be combined with transparency, is volitional and we’re not very good at calling someone on their wrong when they vehemently deny it.
In addition, many boards and decision makers have so much riding on the gifted individual that they decide to turn a blind eye to their pecadillos, because it appears that God is still at work using that person.
It’s heartbreaking.
LikeLike
Thanks Bev for sharing those insights. ‘The heart is deceitful above all things” springs to mind – and I know how easy it can be to insulate yourself away from truths that you know are important but which you feel justified in sidelining due to other needs or pressures.
I think yours and Stephen’s point above, show the need for ‘inner work’ – and I will reflect on how this can be incorporated.
I know this proposed charter cannot work wonders, but I wonder if outing the need for accountability more it will help air these issues?
LikeLike
Yes, it definitely shows the need for inner work, which we all need to do continually. The problem is when we ‘know’ it all: know all about forgiveness and can preach it, but don’t forgive, know all about the deceitful heart but we deceive ourselves and others, talk accountability while ensuring that we hide the things we don’t want people to see.
And from the viewpoint of those to whom these issues become known, to have the courage to call them out. One bad report of a person may be spurious, very often is. However, 3 reports of the same thing needs to be paid attention to, and consistent reports is a definite alarm signal.
The problem is that ambition and status is often as alive and well inside the Church as outside, and to have a ‘celebrity’ in your stable is exhilarating. I’ve known leaders who will not call the person out in case they take their giftings elsewhere. The struggle is real. There’s a certain amount of reflected glory that comes to an organisation or a senior leader when they have an extremely gifted person in their midst and at times people turn a blind eye rather than deal with it.
The other thing is that back in the day, when these reports began to surface about various ‘celebrities’, church culture and culture in general, had a tendency to overlook the wrongdoing in favour of the gifting. Men over women/adults over children/rich over poor/white over black… it ought not be in the church but it has thrived.
LikeLike
Thank you so much Jon for acknowledging the church needs to address the issue of lack of accountability and the way forward when so many Christian leaders have kept quiet. God loves Women have done a brilliant job too in keeping everyone up-to-date.
Referring to Bev’s last paragraph so much is riding on the gifted individual, including, I feel, sadly the fact that their name brings in the money. So the temptation to turn a blind eye must be very strong. In my opinion, this is why the charter is much needed as it would also keep the trustees held to account.
Stephen’s suggestion about a support group/spiritual director is very important and any leader worth his salt would surely welcome that.
Once again, thanks for addressing this positively.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Pat for your encouragement – I think addressing these difficult areas ‘positively’ is important – not to pretend they are not important but also to come up with ideas which could improve the situation – perhaps help the talented people who are in their early 20s now avoid the problems we have seen time and again in older generations (like mine!)
LikeLike
Thanks for this Jon – I’ve been thinking about a lot of similar issues recently, so this is very timely and I think there’s some real wisdom here. I think it’s a valuable contribution to learning some really important lessons for churches. Some initial reflections :
Seeing accountability as integral to discernment and planning, not as a necessary but sometimes tedious add-on. So not just about accountability for what has been done (or not done), but also for planning. This can also be over-spiritualised – when we talk about vision and praying for wisdom, do we actually view scrutiny, legality, ethics as an important part of the discernment? Especially important I think when someone is convinced that God has told them to do something.
Responsibility for this accountability and governance is a two-way process: for leaders to be open and honest and not to see scrutiny as an attempt to frustrate; but also for those holding them to account not to use governance/accountability processes as a tool to block things they don’t like. Needs to be shared sense of mission, but of different skills and (importantly) different roles in achieving that mission. This is where a clear understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities is really important – all too often I’ve seen leaders frustrated by governance bodies asking questions because there is a lack of appreciation of the responsibilities on them (legally in some cases) to ask the probing questions and ensure things are done properly.
I also think there’s an important point about who you get involved in the accountability and governance structures and processes: are you bringing in the skills and perspectives you need, or just people you know and like, or who are similar to you? Do we proactively value diversity and difference of opinion in our scrutiny? And do we involve people outside of our usual power/authority structures – have you for example got people involved who are able/comfortable to challenge a senior leader like a bishop for example?
I thinks there’s also something about the recognising the more nuanced ways people can be sidelined for asking questions or critiquing – not sure what this means for the charter, but it’s important that people aren’t ‘punished’ for scrutinising, nor ‘rewarded’ for agreeing.
Really look forward to seeing how this develops!
LikeLike
thanks Jon for all these thoughtful comments and further questions. I think the idea of accountability being two-way and mutual is so important and not ‘master and servant’!
LikeLike
I can’t speak for church leaders in the US or elsewhere but from a church leader’s point of view in the UK there are some significant issue with safeguarding.
Firstly, it is only as robust as the safeguarding officer and their team seems an obvious point but without robust mandatory training from umbrella organisations there is a significant risk of church safeguarding normalising abusive o and importantly manipulating behaviours in church leadership
Secondly, safeguarding is often pointed towards children and vulnerable adults and not the church as a whole. Spiritual abuse is often not pointed at kids, the elderly nor disabled but at maintaining power over the church as a whole and can be used to manipulate everyone including other leaders. Proper complaints could be pointed through a denomination though it would be harder with independent churches.
Thirdly one of the biggest issues is that abusive or controlling leaders tend to keep areas of the church that will challenge them weak which makes stopping abuse harder.
For leaders like Mike Pilavachi, Mark Driscoll or Bill Hybels the fact that they planted the church and developed the model of leadership and structure makes it harder to spot issues or challenge them to repentance.
LikeLike
thanks for sharing Rob. It is interesting how linked the issues of safeguarding and accountability are.
LikeLike
Smaller churches, less money, shorter sermons (
LikeLike
cheers Scott – I think something happened to the rest of your comment! Hope you are well mate!
LikeLike
Not sure what happened, but it seems I was forced to practice what I was preaching. Well done.
LikeLike
Haha! Well done the internet!!
LikeLike
Thanks for this Jon, it needs to be said and I like your plan. A couple of thoughts if I may. All that some very powerful men have learnt in the last few years is the language of ‘governance’ and ‘accountability’ but they still control everything just in deeper camouflage. Also the real power to control is the power of inclusion in the inner ring or exclusion from the tribe. Find who has that power and you find the problem.
LikeLike
thanks Daniel – yes, completely agree. I can see the jury is very much out on whether this charter would make any difference – but my question is: What would help expose unhealthy leadership of the type you refer to? What are some of the proposals that could make a difference?
LikeLike
I’m not sure! But two things come to mind. I all the recent scandals while perpetrators have lost their jobs, the people who have run the cultures in which they operated and who as a result have enjoyed immense power have simply stayed put. The Fletcher Review actually called for it happen but instead powerful men ignored it and proved how untouchable they are. If those who benefit from running cultures had to take responsibility when disaster happens by losing their jobs the next generation would know they couldn’t risk not policing the culture.
The other thing is simply courage. It takes massive guts to even begin to challenge the powerful or support survivors when any challenge, however fair and mild is treated as an existential threat. Those who show real courage should be regarded as heroes/heroines but the simply never are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would love to put this to my board. I love the fact that this focuses on individual responsibility, rather than a set of ,sometimes, sterile policies that are easier to write than to live out. I think this not only calls out the charismatic leader but the leader who doesn’t like conflict. I know of one leader, still in a position of responsibility who groomed a young girl. The messenger was shot (and vilified) But the charismatic leader still managed to get into another key role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hallelujah! Thanks Juli – this is the kind of response I wanted. You are the first person to mention actually using it with your governance group.
And I am so pleased you drew out the need to not avoid conflict – handling disagreement well is SO critical. There are too many merchants of ‘cheap grace’ who want to keep a false peace rather than root out what is really happening.
LikeLike
Thanks John. I think this is a very helpful article and gives sound and solid wisdom compared to the superficial media storm around these issues (both when they emerged, and now they’re further revealed).
I think the Charter is simple, and that it could be a useful additional layer of commitment from Executive Leaders and Trustees alike. I agree that the ‘holding to account’ needs to be accompanied by appropriate support and understanding. Leadership is a hard path when you desire to walk it well. Experience, prayer, and empathy to a long way in the governance support offered. As well as the Leader needing to seek wider support/help for them to grow in their leadership, it’s also good to out in a commitment from Governance not to use inappropriate or coercive control over the Leader/staff. This can be an abuse of power as well, and undermines the authority being delegated to the Leadership. It is a difficult balance to strike.
The other factor that strikes me as important is for us to move away from the ‘individual’/pole position/figure head leader, to something more akin to how Jesus modelled leadership. The servant-hearted leader, and one who sees the need for a team approach, where everyone gets to play. That genuine culture of honour and preferring one another is the most counter-cultural approach and is very hard to achieve in reality, despite the rhetoric sounding right. I would go so far as to say it is humanly impossible, but not divinely impossible. Trying to run relationships without Christ truly at the centre, and as the Head, is always going to come up short. Principles can never provide what the Person of Jesus can.
Finally, there’s a paragraph in the charter that needs rewording as it doesn’t make sense:
“ We believe in that encouraging and supporting the executive leadership compatible with offering challenge and asking tough questions.”
Thanks again, and I’ll ponder how we may try and incorporate this once you’ve finalised the Charter. I really like the idea.
LikeLike
thanks David – much appreciate your thoughtfulness and your attention to detail! I have amended that sentence and thanks for spotting it.
I like your focus on Jesus and his example. I really like the way this is shown in the series ‘The Chosen’ as he encourages and challenges his followers.
LikeLike
Yes me too Jon – The Chosen really brings this to life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really good to read such a thoughtful response.
I wonder if the trustees’ side of the charter needs something specific about committing to listening fully and without prejudice to anyone who raises a concern about the leader’s behaviour, along with further commitment to clear actions and consequences (including reporting to the police and the local Safeguarding Hub) and in what circumstances that is appropriate/needed?
I know your emphasis is to prevent abuse and poor behaviour in leaders but if victims have little confidence in being believed or protected, or if the route to doing so is unclear or difficult, it holds the door open for wrongdoing.
I think the idea of compulsory spiritual direction for all church leaders is a good one. And those in management positions really need to be given the training, time, and expectations to meet regularly individual leaders for supervision. Having worked in healthcare for many years, I’ve always been horrified by the lack of supervision/line management for ministers – both for their sake and their congregations’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks so much for this thoughtful feedback – really helpful. Yes, I too am really concerned about the lack of meaningful supervision and management within the church. It is almost impossible for ministers to provide what they have never been given.
You might be interested in this related article: https://gracetruth.blog/2020/03/06/why-churches-manage-people-badly-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/
LikeLike
I like the charter idea . However , perhaps it should not just be between leaders and governance teams. There should be a section for others in the organisation. I am not the leader , I am not the trustee , I am say a member of a congregation, I am the friend of someone who’s had a problem – what’s my role/ responsibility/ what should I know or do ?
LikeLike
thanks Karen. I think I am thinking about how wider culture change can start at the leadership level and then filter down. I know the weaknesses of this ‘trickle down’ idea but I guess I am concerned that a charter can be nebulous and fluffy. But I 100% agree that this culture needs to permeate all layers. This is also where whistleblowing and safeguarding policies and culture are relevant.
LikeLike
Hi Jon
I love what you have written and think it will be very useful to a lot of churches. I think I will suggest it in ours (I chair the trustees). Having spent 33 years as a General Counsel and Company Secretary in four listed companies and a large, charitable housing association I have a strong belief in the need for simple statements like this to help change and establish culture, remind people, and make it harder for people to get it wrong. But it cannot be a guarantee: we can only set a few safety factors in place to make it harder for things to go wrong.
It only works if there is a culture where anybody feels empowered to challenge a key leader or to raise a concern.
I think Karen is right in her comment that there has to be a place for the ordinary member. In my view it is important for everyone to feel able to raise a concern with someone who will take it seriously and weigh up objectively and dispassionately whether it needs to be pursued.
Our church governance structure now has
– a charismatic key leader who has transformed a small church into a large hub of a network of churches over 20 years
– a leadership team who know they have the right to raise concerns and challenge the key leader
– a body of elders who have no decision-making role but are people of spiritual maturity and authority
– a trustee body with the usual financial and legal responsibilities
– members who mostly know they can raise issues or concerns with any member of the above.
It is not perfect and we cannot guarantee there will be no problems. But this structure is in place and the ability of anyone to raise concerns is sometimes referred to as a way of re-emphasising we aspire to a culture of openness and accountability.
LikeLike
Hi Jon,
I’ve been thinking about this subject in relation to police firearms officers. They are considered the ‘elite’ – well trained, brave, necessary for public security, high status in demand etc. But as regards accountability, many it appears would rather not do the job than have their actions scutinised in a way that could make them feel more stressed and would impact upon their mental health, relationships and freedom. Many have reportedly handed in their guns as a result of one of their number being charged with murder and politicians are worried enough about public security to call in the army. It does seem to be that the level of accountability need to prevent serious wrongdoing requires a willingness to ‘let something die’. If rarely gifted, talented people who are doing important work that others aren’t able or willing to do, won’t be properly accountable we have to be willing to accept the consequences which themselves will be painful. The organisation, charity, church whatever may have to die in order to be re-born with a healthier culture, although in a sinful world this pattern is likely to have to be repeated.
LikeLike
thanks Martin and its an interesting link with the armed police. I am left thinking though about what is reasonable – clearly the police handing in their weapons don’t believe the process that has led to the prosecution of their colleague is reasonable. And I think some ‘successful’ leaders who have done things that few can, also feel it is unreasonable for ‘lesser people’ to question them. I think you are right that everyone needs to accept things will go slower, be less whizzy, less dramatic – but potentially more faithful and real – when people are properly accountable.
LikeLike
Yes it’s interesting that I think the officers have backed down now. I think this shows courage is needed to enforce accountability and we have to be willing to risk people throwing their toys out of the pram.
LikeLike
A large part of the reason for so much abuse of power within the Church is that the Church as a whole has been in hock to male status anxiety for far too long. The need to be seen to be significant, to be accepted by those deemed important, is at the root of many examples of really unChristian behaviour from leaders, in Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox traditions. We have to rid ourselves of our tendency to talk up influence/power/status/success: also ensuring that half of all church posts are held by women would help avoid the kind of abuse that comes from uptight men in Conservative Evangelical circles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks for comment – I agree that status anxiety is massive in the church and I think many of the ways we go about things – bigging up the solo preach, focusing on platforms, conferences and books sales all add to this in unhealthy ways.
LikeLike
Thanks Jon for your post and the questions you raise. Given the weight of structured governance in other organisations it is surprising it is so lacking in churches. However, I’d hesitate in suggesting governance as commonly practiced as a solution.
I’m really fascinated by accountability, but in public sector leadership – quite different to churches – and have discovered it’s a slippery thing to work with, especially in dynamic relational systems. Static governance arrangements often seem to lead to frustrating, transactional working with power abuses still occurring anyway.
One approach I’m interested in is asking those holding power/authority ‘how have you made yourself accountable today?’ I have a hunch that leaders who willingly make themselves open to account will probably be the kind of leaders we actually need. There’s also a really fascinating literature in psychology around the ‘felt’ accountability of decision making and the intricate dynamic web of accountabilities that continually moderate our choices and behaviour.
I just started what I hope will be a series of facilitated conversations about accountability and would love to hear from anyone interested in taking part. I’m in the process of writing up the first one. I also wrote about accountability, leadership and “excellence” here https://medium.com/@amanda.c.woolley/whose-standard-is-it-anyway-co-creating-excellence-through-system-leadership-b98acda00f33
Finally I’d really recommend reading ‘the call to follow: hearing Jesus in a culture obsessed by leadership’ by Richard Langer and Joanne Jung. They discuss similar questions and argue for more thought, intentionality and commitment to the role of following, including holding those with power to account!
Thanks again, Amanda
LikeLiked by 1 person
thanks Amanda. I really appreciate the nuance of avoiding bringing in ‘corporate expectations’ into environments where that is never going to realistically happen.
Could you share more about how those ‘how have you been accountable today?’ conversations could happen in a church or small charity context?
LikeLike
Thanks Jon. How could those conversations happen? That is certainly the question! I’m really interested in others thoughts on this. My thinking is certainly far from complete
You need a community around those in leadership willing and able to ask that question. Counter intuitively, we might improve church leadership by focussing instead on developing the relationships in our community of followers. This is why Langer & Jung’s book is such an interesting perspective.
There will be lots of practical mechanisms, but I think to really work they need to be developed by and belong to the group they serve rather than implemented as a ‘best practice’. Some ideas though are: meetings planned with enough time to really engage with challenge and reservations. Ways for more people to be involved in a conversation – from surveys to open conversation spaces. Designing consultation in search of difference rather than manipulating people into consensus.
I’d want to see people taking on leadership positions developing facilitation and conflict resolution skills and growing knowledge of participatory and collective models of organising.
Who can question the ‘leader’ in your setting? If the answer is no-one that is a red flag. If only some people can, how could you widen that circle? If I hold a lot of power in this space (doesn’t necessarily have to be the minister or CEO!), how and where am I putting myself in a position to be challenged and humbled?
LikeLike
I think the idea of accountability has legs but will not take root I fear because:
Some leaders/elders regard themselves as undisputed leaders in all matters. And sometimes that is just one man. The Scripture in my long-ago background that was used to justify this is “Let the elders who rule well” 1Tim 5.17 with the emphasis on “rule” and “double honour”
The concomitant to this is that Trustees are treated as rubber-stampers to satisfy the Charity Commission. To be more than that would be to delegate eldership upwards, obviously something that the elders would resist. It also presupposes that the Trustees collectively would be “better”. In my experience that is not always the case. Oh, and the Trustees are selected by the leaders!!
In my view there are several reasons why prominent leaders (and others we don’t hear about) stumble, and I draw from my church experience on this, are:
The evangelical church historically has put a massive emphasis on justification by faith alone at the expense of spiritual formation – i.e. becoming a disciple (or as John Mark Comer would have it, “apprentice”) of Jesus. To them this borders on salvation through works – a complete misunderstanding in my view.
Leaders themselves become victims of this lack of preaching emphasis, quite possibly in part because deep, rooted (radical) discipleship has not been foundational in their own lives.
Sadly, some leaders rise to the top in churches for the same sort of reasons that Trump and Corbyn do. Insecurity, narcissism compensated for by acquisition of positions of power.
Church members are brought up in a culture of not speaking out the truth (truth telling is something as you know that Jorden Peterson homes in on consistently) because of a misunderstanding about what loyalty, respect and love look like.
LikeLike
I agree with a lot of the concerns about how to get things into the open and the idea that leadership rests ultimately with the church leader. I think there is a real lack of willingness from church leaders to accept feedback and asking how their behaviour makes people feel. If we could encourage an atmosphere where that was normal, it might help to nurture self awareness and turn things before they get out of hand.
LikeLike
thanks Julia and I agree. But what would ‘encourage this atmosphere’? In a sense, this idea of a Charter is one attempt to ‘encourage’ this – and what I have found is that there are very few practical steps towards what we all want. People want the end destination of good, healthy, accountable cultures but there is a lack of ideas about the concrete steps towards that culture.
LikeLike