Bureaucratic Gnosticism

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.