Leadership, Followership, and Mission
Sitting in a coffee house in the northwest I was commiserating with a pastor friend about how neither of us had the sort of “big personality” so often identified with leadership.
He described himself as “leading from the middle,” that is, bringing people together around the congregation’s mission in a way that produced results but not heroes.
Talking about this issue brought up the criticism that both of us have taken over the years for not being more dominant, criticism that has always come from believers and virtually never from those who make no claim to follow Jesus.
We began to speculate about whether church folks and unchurched folks have different followership styles. Do they respond to completely different approaches to leadership, at least in the northwest Anglo context in which the observations were made?
This hypothesis (and that’s all it is) draws a distinction between two primary followership styles. I am deliberately exaggerating the difference for the purposes of clarity and discussion:
1. The churchly followership style: Serving for many years as an audience for platform-driven ministry, lots of church folks seem to equate leadership with a dynamic individual standing at the front of a large room casting vision the way a major league pitcher hurls fastballs. The ability of this lone entrepreneur to sway a large group of people with the quality of his/her strategy and the force of his/her personality is considered the very definition of leadership. This kind of attender is not shy about pressuring less dominant leaders to fit into this mold. And the temptation for leaders is to spin the ministry’s ethos in a direction that will appeal to this follower type because they likely control most of the financial assets in the house.
This is not to say that the less forceful leader loses his/her integrity, but that important nuances of the group’s culture are gradually shaped to please the churchly. If you don’t think this is possible, ask yourself what your ministry would look like if the majority of your financial support came from people under 25, or an ethnic group other than your own? If you don’t feel these pressures, we speculated that the reason may be that this battle was lost so long ago that it’s no longer a fight. Followership for the churchly, then, is a response to greatness—the kind of leadership I deserve.
2. The unchurchly followership style: My friend has noticed that the people coming to faith in Jesus in his congregation have an unswerving distaste for “big personality” leaders. These new Christians are likely to regard the celebrity model as an exercise in narcissism that is more about control and ego than servanthood. Their resistance takes many forms, but mainly is expressed by their relative absence from churches directed by the leaders of a more heroic stature. That way of leading feels to them like working for “the man” in the corporate world. They reason that, if Sunday morning demonstrates essentially authoritarian values, then the rest of this religion is probably not worth checking out. However, this person is more likely to be receptive to the “small personality” leader who, like my friend, brings people together in a faith community that responds in love to the mission of Jesus for the world.
Imagine what would happen if this leader began to spin the ethos of the ministry in this direction so that more and more unchurchly folk began to show up? Perhaps this explains research by Barna and others finding that effective evangelistic churches, in all their diversity, have the common feature of a missional culture. Followership for the unchurchly, then, is a response to humility—the kind of leadership that could change me.
Our embryonic idea concludes with the suggestion that these followership dynamics become cyclical, moving the ministry in either a less or more missional direction over time.
That’s the hypothesis. So test it.
Add your comment.
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Earl Creps—a popular speaker and leader—is director of the Doctor of Ministry program and associate professor at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (AGTS) in Springfield, Missouri. He has been a pastor, ministries consultant, and university professor. Along the way, Creps earned a Ph.D. in communication at Northwestern University and a doctor of ministry degree in leadership at AGTS.
What is Earl doing? View or subscribe to Earl Creps' Google calendar. Or learn how to contact him directly.
Hello Earl,
Greetings from Canada and the AOG’s sister organization, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. I am ordained with the PAOC and a Bible collge instructor who just happens to be teaching a leadership course (see my included faculty page). I like this discussion on followership as it is somewhat rare but very relevant. I am currently using a textbook that has ample discussion on followership (see it here http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-078798213X.html ) On this site, you can download a pdf of the first chapter which features discussion on followership (pp. 14-19) I though you may find this interesting.
Blessings,
Rob Lindemann
Dr. Creps, We are looking forward to having you at our leadership summit Saturday and with us Sunday in our gatherings. Call me if you have any needs or questions.
There is a difference in the way these two groups of people want to connect to God and each other. Their needs are different and that means we have to approach them differently. You really see this collision take shape when you transition an existing church with its strong sub-culture into a missional church. The battle a pastor faces in this time is how fast and how far do you take things. At what point do the disciples in the church stop connecting to Jesus and start feeling lost while you strive to create an enviroment for the sought to find their way. There is no doubt that this is a divine tension that requires the leading of the Holy Spirit.
What I have found is that people learn, or are conditioned, to connect to Jesus and each other in certain ways. Take these familiar paths away and they feel lost and out of touch. Once this disconnection happens they drop out of your church and look for one where they can connect. Worse yet, some become discouraged and end up not going to worship at all.
The observations you made are valuable, but what is even more valuable is to discover how to mix the two of them together. Is it even possible to accomplish or do we simply have to yield to building two different churches. Even if they coexist in the same building at different times.
It seems like the easy path is for us to say that one is right and one is wrong. And probably they both have elements of each of these in them. Maybe it is less about what is right and wrong and more about being all things to all people so that they might know Jesus?
This is far more than anyone should write in a blog so I will stop for now. Would love to read about the experiences of others who have found ways to do this in the local church.
Earl,
I was in your session @ Off the Map…
Thought it was good, but didn’t get a chance to talk after (several people in line).
I’m a pastor in an emerging, urban church planting movement in San Diego.
Thanks for this conversation… Though you’re right, these are generalizations, they resonate with my ‘on the ground’ experience.
As a faith community, we are missional.. We reach many who are either completely ‘unchurched’ or have been alienated from mainstream Christianity. Mostly those you described in your session as ‘cultural creatives.’ However, we also have Christians who come in (sometimes already conditioned into the first model of follwership) and want them to be able to be a part of leadership and mission.
How do we lead both types of followers… Is it possible?
That’s a powerful and provocative question. And a hard one. I’m wondering if a lot of church strife doesn’t come down to a clash of these two groups, or at least these two tendencies, on some level (assuming they both show up). Also, I’m wondering if it’s possible to find things that are bigger than both tendencies to which those who are willing can commit themselves. Each group seems to be in the orbit of a certain “gravitational field” insofar as its theory of leadership goes. I wonder if there is a point where those forces balance? The problem with that theory could be that the second kind of person is too skittish to hang around very long if the clues point to a top-down model, and the first sort of person is so married to that model that leaving it requires much time and lots of trips to “rehab.” My hunch, and that’s all it is, is that everyone has to make some concessions, so maybe that means leading them is about articulating the things worth conceding for?
As a teacher in a “school of minstry” I am very concerned about leadership/followership paradigms. Paul had a powerful paradigm – “be imitators of me”. We all too often jump to the next level and add, “As I am of Christ.” Actually, Paul often told his disciples to just be like he was.
For about twenty years I have used an interactive ploy to see where a congregation is in their self-image. I have everyone look at someone beside them and repeat after me, “The world would be a better place if everyone in it was just like me!” Every time I do this the people burst out laughing. I am absolutely persuaded that Christianity has given up the high ground of true discipleship. We are telling the world “Christians are not perfect, we are ‘just’ forgiven.” Or maybe another bumper sticker scripture – “Don’t follow me, I’m lost too.”
I believe people will follow the person who can say, “I know Whom I have believed; I know who I am; I know where I am going; I know how to get there.” One of the amazing things about Jesus was that He spoke with authority. He could speak with authority because His life backed up His words.
Al
Dr. Creps it was great having you at BCC this past weekend. I am still digesting the information that you shared. Thanks for being real and honest.
Earl, Thanks for your response…
Along with what you said, we have found a few things… 1. Communities eventually balance out so that the bulk of your ‘followership’ tilts one direction or another. 2. When it tilts towards the ‘unchurchly’ followership style (as it does in our church), the dilema is the population tends to be more ‘flakey’ in their commitment and, as you describe: any hint of ‘top down’ scares them away. While the ‘churchly’ style is frustrated if you aren’t more ‘top down,’ and try to organize a mutiny!
what is the follower types?
pastor creps…
you don’t know me personally, but i attended calvary temple in springfield while you pastored there. (i was a cbc student.) you recently spoke at beford christan community where my former youth pastor (nate) and my brother-in-law (rick)pastor. anyways…i just wanted to thank-you for your years of ministry. God has truly planted a vision in your heart that i could see 10 years ago in springfield and that i still see being cultivated today. My husband and i are assistant pastors in albuquerque now and often remember tidbits of your sermons. we are still encouraged by them. “be stong in the Lord and the power of His might!”
Earl:
Just a quick note to let you know that, since reading this post, the word “followership” has been well worn in my personal vocabulary. I had no recollection where it was picked up until I read the title of this post again today. Thanks… I’m not sure if you coined it, but it works pretty well regardless.