A moment of revelation on Monday while chatting with an incumbent of a church in the diocese and his about-to-expand-significantly ministry team. We were talking about the support that would be required from the incumbent for the 4 new ministers plus another in training as their ministry was developing.
As most leaders will acknowledge, a really key aspect of maintaining direction and momentum of change is the ongoing dialogue between the overall leader and the team which makes up the leadership structure. And it is a dialogue – the leader engages in a conversation with the leadership team and through that debate and exchange of ideas and hopes and fears, a direction emerges and the team moves as one with its leader. Depending on the relative strength of the personalities and skills on either side of the dialogue, the team may move more in the direction that the leader originally envisioned or maybe in a slightly different direction but hopefully that process of communication creates some concensus and shared understanding.
Consider now the difficulites faced by many of our incumbents who, instead of having one leadership team, have inadvertently created (or inherited) three: their ‘Leadership Team’ often a group of six people who lead the areas of interest of the church (worship, mission, buildings, small groups etc); the PCC, who have legal responsibility for all aspects of church life; and the ministry team, a group of people whose roles are increasingly moving beyond ‘preaching and leading worship’ into leadership of many aspects of church life. The degree of overlap between these three leadership groups varies enormously, church by church. In some, for example, lay ministers are discouraged from being part of the PCC and the leaders of the various ‘Leadership Teams’ may or may not be on the PCC. In some places the only person who has a role in each of these three teams is the Incumbent.
Which brings us to the moment of revelation. Into my head popped a picture of that ancient torture where a person’s limbs are each strapped to a different team of horses. Each team is then whipped and sets off in a different direction – the resulting carnage gives a whole new potency to the image of ‘managing tension’. Isn’t this what many of our incumbents end up doing? Trying to hold together three different teams, all of whom have a slightly different idea of the direction that the church should be going, each of whom feels aggrieved when they are not ‘in the loop’ of a decision made in another leadership team in the church. And all of the tension between the different leadership groups has only one way to go – straight through the person in the middle trying to hold it all together. Thought about this way, is there any wonder many of our incumbents are feeling torn limb from limb half the time?
The answer is not an easy one – how to re-organise the reporting and accountability structures, the dialogue groups, so that the flow of tension is managed better. But maybe this metaphor gives us something to play with – is it possible to map the ‘tension flows’ in your church to see who is bearing the brunt of it all?
