Resources in Response to “Failure to Thrive”
In the March 1 Alban Weekly, “Failure to Thrive,” Roy Oswald and Barry Johnson explain that a “polarity” is a set of interdependent and complementary truths. While the truths sometimes appear to be in conflict, in fact both sides (or “poles”) of a polarity must be honored for the whole truth to be known.
Oswald and Johnson’s recently published Managing Polarities in Congregations (from which the Weekly article is drawn) explains eight polarities that occur regularly in congregations. The book asserts that thriving congregations will work with these polarities, rather than treat them as opposites in a game of “who is right?” Congregations that fail to thrive often are stuck in endless battles that attempt to validate one perspective over another.
Today’s article hones in on the “strong clergy leadership” and “strong lay leadership” polarity. It demonstrates, through story and example, how congregations can find ways to empower both clergy and laity, bringing the poles into a creative balance.
What resources might support sound management of this polarity? In addition to the excellent resources listed at the end of the article, you might consider the items in the “Organizational Learning” section of the Congregational Resource Guide—particularly Barry Johnson’s older book, Polarity Management.
What stories and ideas do you have regarding the clergy leadership-lay leadership polarity? And what resources do you suggest? We look forward to hearing from you!
This subject is “right on” and in my experience is at the heart of many local congregation dysfunctions. In my denomination (UMC) the challenges are compounded by the appointment process and the rotation of clergy leadership, as if clergy leaders were a commodity. Many years ago Russ Moxley, of the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC, wrote a book about spirit that addressed the role of power in systems. This book appears to address that same issue from a different angle.
Bill Walker, Lay, Florida
This article and the concept of “polarity management” has a distinct echo of many concepts of New Age & Hermetic principles. If polarity management gains popular acceptance, will we be looking closer at principles of Yin & Yang or changing the seating arrangement in our offices to balance Feng Shui?
For this to be a valid management technique we must disentangle it from concepts of theological dualism and from the hauntingly similar ‘principle of polarity’ in the Kybalion.
This is a very important topic. Here we speak in-terms of polarities and I like that. Another way of looking at it is personality styles. For example, in the articles, what’s presented are D and S styles, based on the DISC behavior assessment.
Since relatively very few of us understand this information, rather then seeing that everyone adds value and that it’s more a matter of AND, rather then “either”, misunderstanding take place within organizations, leading to friction and disengagement.
In other words, the reasons most people can’t get alone is simply because they don’t understand each other and that we don’t take the time to look through the other person’s view.
I honestly and strongly believe that if people take the time to learn about these polarities, various behavioral styles, and come to understand that every human adds value, then we’ll have stronger organizations, lower stress, more joy, and so on. Everyone will win.
Clearly, no progress is made when a pastor tries to ram things down the throat of the laity. Likewise, if the pastor removes him/herself from the leadership role there will be a void, quickly filled by laity who may or may not have leadership skills to handle those roles. But what if the pastor used Paul’s Epistles and Matthew 18 to help everyone behave themselves and move forward with a real vision? Scripture tells us how to manage our churches. We, in the church, are too quick to apply businesss models in organizing our life together as a church. We do the same using social service delivery models to structure our outreach efforts rather than the life transformation models found in scripture, why is that?
Noah:
The actual basis for “polarity management” may be in the human brain. Every day you, others, and I face a constant choice between danger and opportunity, as our brains determine in milli-seconds how they will respond to our general and immediate contexts. Fear and accompanying anger — likely in these days of hyper-shouters — seem to be the default position, and so those who lead are constantly holding up the other “polarity,” the good news of opportunity. The brain swings between the two, with the amygdala and frontal cortex engaging in a continuing tug-of-war between the seeming opposites in what may likely turn out to be a false dichotomy.
Still, it’s good to know that deep down in our biologies, we come up against polarities rooted in places we cannot name, requiring ways of approaching this phenomenon in ways we can name. I think Oswald and Johnson do us a service in this construct of congregational life, if only that we come eventually to a position that rejects both polarities as eventual exclusive resting places for our sense of mission. I hear their work heading in that direction, which is also what I hear clearly in your own words of warning!
Bob Sitze
I appreciate the way this polarity is framed. I do think it is better managed when people are more mature. Well-functioning pastors have a better sense of what is their responsibility and what is not and are less inclined to overfunction and micromanage even if they are strong leaders. Mature lay leaders who are strong leaders know how to stand up appropriately to the pastor and say, “I disagree” without butting heads in ways that are destructive to the ministry.
This article does describe the polarity of leadership. But, leadership of what? Lay and clergy tend to lead their ideas, lead their traditions, lead their anxieties, but most are not leading the congregation. Leading a congregation requires relationship with it, which implies one knows the congregation – and the congregation knows itself. Most congregations know what they were, but not who they are. Congregations have identifiable corporate personalities shaped by their preferences with a spiritual posture, not necessarily the same as the pastor’s spiritual preferences. Failure to lead with the spiritual posture of the congregation drives it into a reactionary survival mode; a state of anxiety. Congregational health is achieved when the personality of the congregation is honored through engaging its preferences for worship, mission, and service. As anxiety is reduced the polarity leadership issues can move from “strong” or “weak” to dimensions of mutuality.
Michael C. Rehak Director of The Institute for Congregational Identity
What is the purpose of the churches these authors write about? Why does that not get raised? Is the purpose harmonious activity? When a congregation thrives, what is it doing? Do Oswald and Johnson ever ask toward what are leaders leading their churches? Their answer seems to be toward being a thriving congregation. Thriving on what? On being thriving? How about thriving on mission? Let’s hear about churches whose leaders thrive on supporting the daily lives of their members! Let’s hear about members who believe they are the primary agents of Jesus’ mission to make the world a more loving and just place! Isn’t that what the Kingdom or rule of God is about – God at work with us to overcome evil, sin, and death! It just may be that a large part of today’s problems are due to members who thrive in church but not in the world. The world needs more than clergy and laity who get along together!