In another installment of our series on dangers of denominational work, we have the idea of over-estimating the influence of your denominational leadership.
As a leader sometimes there is a danger of underestimating your influence. Certainly we as parents at times underestimate our impact on our kids. Teachers can become discouraged and underestimate, in fact all of those working with the next generation often underestimate their influence. Young people have trouble articulating the impact you are having on them, or in fact only see it in retrospect, so we always underestimate our influence on the young.
But there are cases where we think we have influence when we don’t. That’s the bailiwick my Dad emphasized in his 1980 writings on the dangers of denominational leadership. Let’s see how his old letter applies today:
4. To over estimate the influence of the International Center*. When you send out a letter or a mid-week publication in the local church many of your people might read part of it. This will change. Denominational work is essentially different in this respect. The vast majority of the mail we send out from this building is considered “junk mail” by the recipients. Most of these people do not know you personally, consider most of us out of touch, and will simply stack it up in a pile or toss it out unopened. We must say things over and over and over again before even half of the audience gets them. Even then, they won’t get the entire message. If you are unable to live with “missed ducks” this work will be very frustrating to you. Never assume “because I said it they know it.” The work that you are now entering requires constant and repeated saying of the same thing. You have left local church work where you had a great influence on a fewer number. You are now entering denominational work where you will have a smaller emphasis on a greater number.
*The “International Center” was the name given to the Wesleyan Headquarters for a season when my Dad was working there. Some say that was a better name. I don’t much care. HQ is what most have always called it.
Response:
Wow.. this one is so very true. This is very problematic when it comes to branding, vision casting and promotion. You don’t want to sound like a broken record, but it does seem like you have to repeat yourself much. This was written back in the pre-internet era… and the distractions now are multiplied–and the irrelevance of the denomination seems more of a stated and accepted fact to many, not a hushed conversations. This one has me thinking deeply.[quote_right]Click here for the previous installments of this series on the Dangers of Denominational Work: Part 1 – Spiritual Coolness | Part 2 – Getting Out of Touch | Part 3 – Thinking Department Growth = Church Growth[/quote_right]
Resolution:
I will not become presumptive that people are hanging on my every printed (or tweeted) word. As a writer I already think this way a bit–but I have to apply this to my work here at HQ. I must become clearer in what I say–in what we as a team are communicating. And we not only need to say it more often; we also need to say it in new ways, and in new media. We need to join conversations already started, and answer the questions already being asked, not those never asked. We need to forget trying to justify our existence–and start remembering why we exist for real, and leading that way (or get out of the way.)
How about you? How do you see we denominational leaders overestimating our influence? Or how do you think you might overestimate your influence, in… say, your preaching, or your newsletter, or your blog, or your clever tweets? 🙂
This is great. I think it helps us down at the local level understand why “we keep hearing that speech on the 7 Passions,” some people weren’t paying attention the first six times. The first time I heard it was probably not the first time Dr. Lyon said it.
Regarding the internet, yes it can be a distraction, but also another way to disseminate the information. I, like many others, follow TWC and the Dept of Comm. on Twitter or FB. I’ve been asked plenty of times how I found out about one thing or another, and my answer is often, “I was looking around the Wesleyan website.”
Yep… I hear you on the 7 passions. At CWC I used to always say: “If you and your team are not making jokes about the vision, little puns and sarcastic asides, then you’ve not cast the vision enough times”
🙂
I know some already think that each church’s “dues” to their districts are too much oversight by the denomination in the first place. However, I continually wonder why each pastor isn’t required to do a better job at acknowledging or paying attention to HQ info. After all, in order to be branded “Wesleyan” that comes with certain agreements/connotations, and it seems like paying attention to the General level would be included. It also seems to me that it is the pastor’s responsibility to pass along general info to the congregation because most laypersons don’t seek out HQ info.
But even as I currently find myself out of the pastoral loop, I find that I’m more informed about many HQ things than some of my pastor friends! How is this? Perhaps I’m a nerd and follow too many Wesleyan blogs, but where does the responsibility fall here?
On the pastor to pay attention more? Perhaps.
On HQ to not send out so much more junk so that the pastors are only getting the important stuff? Perhaps.
On the average layperson to get involved? Perhaps.
I think both/and on the first two, but I think three falls under the pastor passing it along.
Of course this is all kind of assuming that the pastor will embrace the many ways that HQ is trying to communicate (print and digital). Lay out the print stuff, forward the digital, and at least make some mention of it periodically.
If this was worked on from multiple angles, then I think it would open communication between HQ and the church at large. I do wonder, though, if we can use the GC as an example? Although our congregation’s pastors were excited to go to GC, I haven’t heard a single thing about it in the pews. If it was so important to them and the church at large, then why aren’t we being told? This side of the communication falls down on the pastor at first glance. But as I think about it more, I wonder why I had to search through Groundswell and my “pastor” links to figure out how to watch/participate in GC from a distance… what does it take for HQ to get GC in the hands of the people?
I realize this does nothing to respond to your personal, shrinking bubble… um… stay strong! Fight the good fight? LOL I jest, but you can’t force people to listen to you anyways. So making this site and posting so frequently is a great start to continue your influence even when you’re not in a local church.
Hey Jeff. Good thoughts.
I do think that social media is the ultimate game changer in this. I found that MANY non-pastors were connecting with watching the livestream online and also the social media discussions.
However, we pastors like to “talk shop” with other pastors. We need places for that (Wesleyan Pastors is that).
The strategy now needs to be one where lay Wesleyans can engage–and ask the kind of questions they want to ask.I’ve got that in my “thinking cap” these days.
Jeff, I get what you are saying, but I have one thought to add. There are several levels of leadership. One is positional, which is a very old-school style of command and control leadership. “I’m the boss, that’s why” is the only reason you need to get done what needs to be done. Another is relational, where you want to do what needs to be done because you like me and you want to work with me. This is a kind of contractual relationship, where “I’ll help you to get it done because you help me to get it done.” HQ has, in the past, operated in a command and control style, although there were some relationships between leaders and the areas they individually impact, creating pockets of relational, contractual leadership. When these individuals leave HQ, there is a collective moan from the churches they influenced. The third leadership style is a covenant relationship, where I’m not doing stuff because HQ told me to, or because a certain HQ leader and I have a symbiotic relationship, but because I am a part of something larger than myself, that body makes me better, I make it better, and I’d want to be a part of it even if I wasn’t a part of it. That doesn’t come through HQ creating stuff and pushing it to the churches, or through a particular leader making connections with local church leaders. It happens when there is commitment from all parties to the mission, a willingness to lay aside personal agendas for the goal of the body (like a marriage). HQ needs to earn the right to speak into this type of leadership relationship, not command it or contract it.