Riffing on Commitment
This morning I visited a message board of some youth worker friends and saw a conversation about commitment. I thought I'd riff on it for a bit on the message board, then I wondered what the readers of my blog might think. What do you think?
i think this is often about community as well.
I have a couple theories on this, tell me what you think.
It's something of a chicken or egg thing.
Engagement and responsibility it at the core of commitment. People who aren't engaged by feeling a sense of belonging and responsibility for what happens at youth, or the church but do feel that way in other areas of their lives will be more engaged in those other activities. If I'm missing from my basketball team, or cheerleading squad then the team simply can't function as well with out me. I serve an essential function on that team, a unique role and when I'm not there, the team struggles. Whether be a point guard or the person a the base of the pyramid, i feel a sense of responsabilty to be there. In churches were leadership is taken care of, and people give up their responsibility to others, then it gives them space to no longer be engaged.
Youth, families and individuals within our church who aren't engaged in community or see themselves as responsible for their own spiritual well being and the nurture of others quite simply aren't committed to your church. The question then becomes why?
Scenario 1:
On one hand it's a followership issue. People just won't do what we want them to do, or be engaged to the level we think a healthy individual, family, etc should be engaged. In this scenario the leader talks about people outside the room a lot. The leader's job is to somehow leverage influence or to persuade youth, families, indivuals of the benefits of life in the church, or with God etc. This leader either talks like a vicitim a lot, or like a visionary. The victim wonders why everyone outside them won't align with the way things should be, at least from their perspective. The visionary attempts to conform the world to their (read: God's) vision for the church and the world. It seems that only difference between the the victim and the visionary is the amount of confidence and force. I suppose this really isn't a followership issue, it's more of a leadership isn't it? I suppose people value what we teach them to value and if our leadership style is victim or visionary then people aren't really valued in either. The victim resents the people for not going along with their idea. The visionary sees people as cogs in their plan. "Those people will be in community and love each other if it's the last thing I do! WE will be a beautiful church that loves each other and their neighbors!" What people really value, or are committed to doesn't really matter in this view, with the exception of lip service. The visionary church leader sees people as sheep, dumb and in need of serious direction.
Scenario 2:
On the other hand, it's a followership issue. For real this time. That people actually value things, and some might actually value your youth group, and your church. Just in the way's you've taught them to. People who see themselves as responsible for something have a choice. They will either hold on to that responsibilty or they will pass it off to someone else. To hold on to responsibility is be a disciple, to be human to be how we were created. To give away the power and responsibility to someone else is the act of a consumer. The parent who drops their teenager off at your activities but never talks about God might be an example of this. They have give you the power and responsibility to spiritual form their child. They have become a consumer. But before you go off on a "How consumeristic people are..." rant, it should be noted that it takes two people to make a transaction like this and that the more you talk about it, the more you sound like the victim listed about in scenario 1 above. I guess I'm just saying that you freely encourage their action by your action, and probably by your church's action.
That said. You're probably asking the how question by now right? How do we change this pattern? How do we make parent's more responsible? How do we stop enabling them? How do we make people commit or be more accountable.
Friends, How is the wrong question. At least at this point in the game.
How only leads to more of the same. Why? Read the questions I just listed. They are all victim or visionary oriented. They are about people out there, people who must be manipulated or persuaded to fall in line with what I think. More of the same. If you like where you are now, keep asking how. You will never see change, other than superficially.
It begs the question:
What is the role of leadership in the church?
What does engagement look like in the church?
I need to run, but I'm sure there will be more soon...
i think this is often about community as well.
I have a couple theories on this, tell me what you think.
It's something of a chicken or egg thing.
Engagement and responsibility it at the core of commitment. People who aren't engaged by feeling a sense of belonging and responsibility for what happens at youth, or the church but do feel that way in other areas of their lives will be more engaged in those other activities. If I'm missing from my basketball team, or cheerleading squad then the team simply can't function as well with out me. I serve an essential function on that team, a unique role and when I'm not there, the team struggles. Whether be a point guard or the person a the base of the pyramid, i feel a sense of responsabilty to be there. In churches were leadership is taken care of, and people give up their responsibility to others, then it gives them space to no longer be engaged.
Youth, families and individuals within our church who aren't engaged in community or see themselves as responsible for their own spiritual well being and the nurture of others quite simply aren't committed to your church. The question then becomes why?
Scenario 1:
On one hand it's a followership issue. People just won't do what we want them to do, or be engaged to the level we think a healthy individual, family, etc should be engaged. In this scenario the leader talks about people outside the room a lot. The leader's job is to somehow leverage influence or to persuade youth, families, indivuals of the benefits of life in the church, or with God etc. This leader either talks like a vicitim a lot, or like a visionary. The victim wonders why everyone outside them won't align with the way things should be, at least from their perspective. The visionary attempts to conform the world to their (read: God's) vision for the church and the world. It seems that only difference between the the victim and the visionary is the amount of confidence and force. I suppose this really isn't a followership issue, it's more of a leadership isn't it? I suppose people value what we teach them to value and if our leadership style is victim or visionary then people aren't really valued in either. The victim resents the people for not going along with their idea. The visionary sees people as cogs in their plan. "Those people will be in community and love each other if it's the last thing I do! WE will be a beautiful church that loves each other and their neighbors!" What people really value, or are committed to doesn't really matter in this view, with the exception of lip service. The visionary church leader sees people as sheep, dumb and in need of serious direction.
Scenario 2:
On the other hand, it's a followership issue. For real this time. That people actually value things, and some might actually value your youth group, and your church. Just in the way's you've taught them to. People who see themselves as responsible for something have a choice. They will either hold on to that responsibilty or they will pass it off to someone else. To hold on to responsibility is be a disciple, to be human to be how we were created. To give away the power and responsibility to someone else is the act of a consumer. The parent who drops their teenager off at your activities but never talks about God might be an example of this. They have give you the power and responsibility to spiritual form their child. They have become a consumer. But before you go off on a "How consumeristic people are..." rant, it should be noted that it takes two people to make a transaction like this and that the more you talk about it, the more you sound like the victim listed about in scenario 1 above. I guess I'm just saying that you freely encourage their action by your action, and probably by your church's action.
That said. You're probably asking the how question by now right? How do we change this pattern? How do we make parent's more responsible? How do we stop enabling them? How do we make people commit or be more accountable.
Friends, How is the wrong question. At least at this point in the game.
How only leads to more of the same. Why? Read the questions I just listed. They are all victim or visionary oriented. They are about people out there, people who must be manipulated or persuaded to fall in line with what I think. More of the same. If you like where you are now, keep asking how. You will never see change, other than superficially.
It begs the question:
What is the role of leadership in the church?
What does engagement look like in the church?
I need to run, but I'm sure there will be more soon...
Labels: leadership, Random
posted by mark at
10:36 AM
3 Comments
