Theology and Leadership Post

J. Michael - Week 3

J. Michael - Week 3

by Joseph Michael -
Number of replies: 4

A theological concept I've been reflecting on lately is from 2 Corinthians 4:7 that mentions we have this treasure in earthen vessels.  I've been reflecting on how the power of God puts on skin to interact with the world and God's love may use our life story and brain chemistry.

For leadership, this means to me that it is necessary to embrace your humanity to be a spiritual leader.  That while I strive to minister with the presence God and invoke spiritual power, this earthen vessel is a part of the story.  I view this as a corrective to the thinking of my past tradition which would suggest that our humanity is inherently evil and that to effectively minister we must empty ourselves of our humanness and negate our biology.  

This then would allow me to carry this treasure.  I also believe that as leaders we must treasure the gifts of God.  This means taking time to appreciate them, appreciate God's goodness, and be in God's presence. We do this because it is treasure not to continually and incessantly hammer away on a mission.  The treasure and the vessel are reconciled in an open and affirming faith to what God may do through our humanity.

The upside is that this is life affirming and offers balance.  This allows one to  fully embrace the multiple facets of their humanity and personhood.  

The downside is that this can be messy and complicated.  This approach to life and leadership doesn't always do the safe thing.  It doesn't follow a script on piety and holiness that a lot of people think is what Chritianity is supposed to mean. It can be risky to insist on room for your humanity.  People make mistakes and have conflicts and fail.  This approach makes failure an option and can allow for ambiguity in direction or even how to be.  Ambiguity doesn't not easily translate into action items or committee agendas.  This approach requires a certain humility and fallibility.  Leading from that place can be difficult.  It requires vulnerability which is scary.

In reply to Joseph Michael

Re: J. Michael - Week 3

by Heather Petit -

Oh, yes on ambiguity being hard to translate into committee agendas... 

This approach also requires a non-anxious presence and a lot of courage. It requires a community willing to look on failure as not an opportunity for blame but a generator of change and growth. 

I worked in this environment for a while, one that deeply embraced failure as a stepping stone to success, where my boss said 'if I don't see you failing I will know you're not stretching or taking risks - let me see you fail'. And who also was really good at following up on the failures with grace, thoughtfulness, consideration, and guidance for not repeating it (one really bad one on my part that lost us a contract). The downside I found out about this approach is that people rely on the follow-up too much, and do less intensive preparation. They're not terrified of messing up and so covering every base. So I was not given much training or coaching, because if I failed, it wasn't a career ender. I wasn't given much mentoring because I'd just learn from the mistakes I made. I would have done much better with double to triple the (significantly hands-off) preparation approach that people took to my development. I also shocked a lot of my staff because I actually did try to prepare them for things, look ahead to further projects and activities and suggest preparatory training, etc. Nobody did that! It takes some of each, I think, to make sure that people get enough put on the committee agenda. How to not make that back into a better-than-human shell, I am not sure.

In reply to Joseph Michael

Re: J. Michael - Week 3

by Deleted user -

“…messy and complicated.”  - sounds pretty healthy to me!  I appreciate the way you’re leaving space for what you call “failure”.  I don’t know that I would describe any earnestly approached ministry as failed, so much as maybe having shades of effectiveness.   I respect that you are embracing the human condition as an acceptable – maybe even necessary – component of ministry.  I also affirm your sense of humility that needs to be part of this process.   Experience says people have greater patience with leaders who are willing to be their true, imperfect selves vs. pretending they might be any other way.


In reply to Joseph Michael

Re: J. Michael - Week 3

by Beth Eustis -

Dear Joe,

Thank you for your post - very thought-provoking. Messy and complicated it is! To be able to lead and preach vulnerability is indeed scary! To face our own vulnerability requires us to look at ourselves - really look! Who wants to do that? lol But to be able to see God's goodness and light, it requires being able to look at your own darkness and learn to let go of what is holding you back from really serving God and humanity. I am learning to appreciate this myself as I learn who I really am and be more sensitive to other people's humanity. I want people to know I'm human - not some perfect, has-it-all-together, holy spirit machine. Who can relate to that?

In reply to Joseph Michael

Re: J. Michael - Week 3

by Michael Wilson -

Joe -- super post.  I dropped a file below of a fairly long Henri Nouwen quote.  You're the second person I'm recommended "The Wounded Healer" to -- so I think I'm seeing a theme about leadership, humanity, humility, and transparency.  And also people recognizing the risks and cost of this approach to leadership.

Vulnerability is, well, -- vulnerable.  Which means that is is truly risky.  I agree with you that it is the only way to help others move into a more humane existence is to acknowledge our own humanity.  

Well done.