Lately I've been thinking on and off about leadership and I coined the term "bureaucratic gnosticism" while conversing with a couple people on campus. While reflecting on leadership in general and on some current and past situations in which I've been involved I began to see a sort of pattern emerging from those that I would describe as "bad leaders" or at least "bad leadership." I'm not seeking to be the next John Maxwell (heaven forbid!!) and I'm really not even trying to pontificate on leadership, or so I think. The reason I'm writing this is twofold. The first reason is that I think the phrase "bureaucratic gnosticism" is nifty and since I made it up (to my knowledge) I thought I would share it. The second reason is because I am fearful that this form of leadership, although effective, is not healthy and is creeping into the church. Before I go any further let me explain what I mean by this phrase.
Gnosticism was an early heresy refuted by the church which had many forms and thus it is almost impossible to completely define it in a short blog post. With that said, one of the most common ways to describe the most basic tenet of gnosticism is to say that it was a religious sect that hinged on secret knowledge (gnosis = the Greek for knowledge). It was by possessing this secret knowledge (supposedly handed down from Christ in some gnostic circles) that one could partake in eternity. Now there are many more forms of gnosticism which emphasize different things, but we will allow this definition to suffice because it is primarily the concept of secret knowledge on which my phrase hinges.
I'm not 100% sure if I'm using bureaucratic according to its strict dictionary definition, but for our purposes we will allow it to mean: pertaining to authority, leadership or political influence. On a side note, it took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to spell bureaucratic. This is why i sucked at spelling bees.
By now you might have guessed where I'm going with this, but if not let me explain. I made up this phrase in reference to a particular style of leadership that, intentionally or not, keeps 90% of the knowledge within a small group of individuals. This does not mean that the information is confidential, on the contrary, the information (or knowledge) could easily be passed on to all involved without any harm or complexity. Why is the knowledge not shared? It seems to me that the reason is power. We are taught from a young age (and to a degree, rightly so) that knowledge is power. However, to use knowledge or information to create an artificial barrier between you (the leader) and everyone else so that you can control the power is absurd. It seems that it is this kind of barrier that leads to distrust, power trips, and dictatorial rule. Now I am not saying that there should be no division between a leader and those he or she leads, but what I am saying is that for a leader to keep such a tight reign on information leads to a form of gnosticism and micromanaging. Obviously if no one else knows all the details then they must rely on the leader for all guidance, instruction and facilitation. This keeps the leader firmly rooted in importance and power even when there is no real threat to his or her headship anyways. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is always done consciously. This may just be a learned leadership trait that people perform without realization. Now, this form of leadership may be effective in allowing the leader to guide his or her followers (for lack of a better term) the way that he or she wants, but it does drastically cut down on creativity, freedom, and ownership by the group under the leader. As I said, I'm not seeking to decry business practices, but I do fear that this is sneaking into the management styles of the church.
It seems that often a Pastor will unnecessarily keep information secret so that he or she may guide a board, congregation, or committee the way that they want. This approach keeps the church under the authority of the Pastor not because he or she is the pastor and has been put in place by the bishop, district superintendent, or vote, but rather because they are keeping the congregation in the dark. It seems to me that it is this bureaucratic gnosticism that perpetuates the 'god-complex' among pastors and encourages them to take hard nosed, 'It's my way or the highway,' stances with their congregants.
Really when it boils down to it this form of leadership seems unnecessary and even unchristian. We must respect those in authority but it is also an obligation for leaders not to abuse their power and create a form of gnosticism that allows them to hold the knowledge and thus the power with a closed fist. I admit that there are many times when information cannot and should not be shared and I also admit that this is not a black and white issue, but it seems to me that when the information can be shared it does no harm to share it. It seems to me that if an individual, or even a group of two or three, keeps such a tight reign on non-confidential information then they may indeed be falling into the trap that is bureaucratic gnosticism. This gnostic approach to leaders may be intentional or it may just be subconscious but either way it seems to me that it is an unsatisfactory and undesirable form of leadership.
Does this make sense? Have I described this phenomena well? Please give me your feedback as this is something that I'm just starting to think through as I see it more and more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think I know what you mean but it would help to have some examples. I had a couple of pastors in college who claimed to have a lot of spiritual experiences of hearing God speak through dreams and visions and the congregations relied on these pastors to know what God was saying. It was like you had to go to church to hear the pastor's latest vision or dream, and the pastor's considered themselves authoritative. I'm not sure if that is what you are referring to, or something totally different.
Gnosticism didn't really have secret knowledge, just sacramental knowledge. For gnosticism, gnosis was not a rational knowledge, but a phenominalistic knowledge. Thus, its "truths" (for lack of a better word) couldn't be rationally conveyed, they had to be experienced. Where people often get the misconception that this knowledge was secret is that the groups were not open to the whole of the church. A similar situation often evolves in protestantism under the Charismatic movement (which I'm not belittling). A small group of people (a subset of a parish) will gather for singing, prayer and the receiving of the gifts. While this group isn't secret or exclusive, they are receiving mysteries that the rest of the parish is not receiving. This is the best approximation of gnostic "secret knowledge."
Gnosticism is wrong for one reason and only one reason: it is a misunderstanding of the godhead. While each gnostic group understands the godhead differently, there is one common error: that there was a "fall" internally in the godhead and that the fallen "syzygy" created the material world. This is not the Catholic faith (I can point you to passages in Irenaeus if need be).
All the soteriological, ecclesiological, eschatological, social and sacramental outworkings of gnosticism are merely the symptoms of its error in understanding the godhead. As such, I don't think that "bureaucratic gnosticism" is fair terminology. Additionally, it may function a bit like Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), where "Gnostics" are the theologized Nazis.
I will also point out that there is a much simpler set of explanations for this phenomena you have observed: bad communication + politics. :)
PS - Avoid the protestant tendency to theologize everything. :) Most things in life are just screwed up because people screwed up, not because of a systematic problem that needs addressing.
"bad communication + politics". That seems like a pretty fair assessment of the situation. And when you're talking about the corruption of leadership in the church, I think you're right on when associated the problem with grasping for power, which would be the opposite of the Philippians 2 description of Jesus. Equality with God is a place of power, but Jesus lays down power, renounces claim on it, like in the desert temptation narrative as well. When Christian leaders employ "politics," which does not necessarily demand aspects of power (manipulation and desire to control), the one using such a term usually means it in a negative way, decision making with manipulation, control, and even deceit being part and parcel in the process. And since it is evil for people to try to control and manipulate other people, anyone who does so is sinning--leader or non-leader, in the church or not in the church. And of course such behavior is wrong, and I'm sure whoever does this will be held accountable, esp. in terms of church leadership. I affirm "hierarchical" church structure in that someone (or several someones) needs to be in charge of the group, which, esp. in the church, implies servant-heart-and-minded responsibility, Christlike through and through. The reality of last-becoming-first turns any real sense of hierarchy on its head, anyway. There is no room for power-plays (and displays), manipulation, deceit, slander, malice, etc. in the church. And the worst part is that it is sin, and we're all subject to it, which is why we have each other, to love, reprove, bear and rejoice with one another.
Are you thinking along the lines of what we talked about regarding my recent church experiences? Whether gnosticism or not, it seems that poor communication is only a symptom of a greater problem: lack of trust. Leadership needs to trust that the congregation will act as a balance to its decision-making, while proving itself trustworthy by offering some insight to the congregation when the decisions it makes are questioned. The congregation needs to trust that leadership will disclose all information as it sees necessary.
When that trust has been violated, or appears to have been violated by decisions made, all proverbial bets are off. More than just open communication is required to rebuild that trust before either party can comfortably ease into a working relationship again.
What do you think? Is this related to your post, or just a side-commentary based on an isolated situation?
Nathaniel,
Good point. I must defer to you as the gnostic expert and thus it seems that I've had a misconception of gnosticism.
I see your point mentioning Godwin's law. I'm not sure if it truly is what is happening here, but as I have a habit of using superlatives I should be careful of that.
I'm also not too sure this is a case of undue theologizing, but then again it may be.
Jess,
I actually wasn't thinking of the scenario we talked about, although I think I mentioned this on the phone to you. I was actually thinking of a situation I'm involved in right now where there is poor leadership and bad communication.
You make a good point to mention trust because it is indeed essential to effectively lead people.
This is interesting and difficult at the same time, especially being a pastor myself.
You're right; there are times when the leadership needs to spill its guts, and there are times when that is totally inappropriate.
(I am now speaking as a completely biased person who has been negatively affected by the structure of leadership, just wanted to tell you in advance.) There does need to be a balance between leadership and congregation, but one of the biggest issues any pastor will face is the trust of his/her congregation in the structure of government set up by the denomination. For instance, in the Wesleyan Church (at least the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Australia), the local church conference calls the pastor based on a recommendation from the local board of administration; the local board of administration is elected by the local church conference, but overseen by the pastor, and the pastor is the only member of the church government that carries authority outside of a specific gathering (i.e., the board and conferences have to be meeting together to have any authority; individual members have no individual authority). It should seem somewhat circular; it's set up that way for checks and balances. But here's the thing...the problem this church has had has been trusting the leaders it has elected! As a pastor, this is annoying as hell. The pastor turns into some sort of "dictator" in the perspective of the congregant because he refuses to share every little detail with his congregation (and believe you me, this pastor has prayed for discernment).
The other unfortunate aspect of all this is that the pastor, just by the very nature of issues of confidentiality and hierarchy, are forced to become politicians. This has been my greatest woe, because I sure as hell have never been called to politics. This is a problem plaguing every church, but I don't necessarily blame the denominational hierarchy; I blame every "kitchen cabinet" meeting that's ever taken place amongst members of the congregation, every gossiper, slanderer, and busybody that is more focused on everyone else's business rather than the fact that the Kingdom of God is just around the corner.
So, all that to say...pastors, you better be praying for discernment, and congregations, you better be praying for discernment. If your church is set up "democratically" in the way it runs, then work with it.
Thanks for letting me vent on some of the stuff that's been bothering me about this church, Ben :-). None of it was personally directed at you.
Post a Comment