Texts: Acts 12:1-11; 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 17-18; Matthew 16:13-19
"Take me to your Leader." If you ever spent part of your youth watching early science fiction films, or horror films, those words should sound familiar to you. Although invading aliens tended to have quite strong accents they all seemed to have a remarkable ability to speak English; and they all took it for granted that we would have a leader. Perhaps they studied such useful subjects as sociology and anthropology as part of their training to be space travellers, along with such insignificant trifles as engineering, aeronautics and navigation over long distances.
And they were quite right, of course. Our own experience tells us that with any group, from a small house-group up to a nation state, some sort of leadership is essential. Groups that start of with the clear intention of having no leader usually follow one of two trajectories: either a leader emerges and is recognised and accepted, at least tacitly, by the other members; or the group slowly but surely falls apart. I was once a member of a small Christian group who tried to meet without a leader. The first half of the meeting was usually taken up with discussing who would take the minutes for that meeting; and then for the rest of the time we would try to fix a place, time and date for the next meeting. That's only a slight exaggeration: I promised myself when I extricated myself from that group that never again would I become involved in a group that did not have a leader.
This being election year, we will hear a lot about leadership. We will be told that at a time like this we need experienced leadership (by those parties who have experienced leaders), or fresh, innovative leadership (by those parties whose leaders are still a bit new to the role). Much will undoubtedly be made about "strong leadership". This is a bit trickier than experience, because there is, apparently, strength and strength. Many of you will remember the ill-fated Bill Rowling, who suddenly found himself Prime Minister following the unexpected death of Norman Kirk. One of the ablest and most pleasant men ever to hold that office, in my humble opinion, but he was mercilessly portrayed as weak by his political opponents (which included most of the newspapers of the time), and he was thrown out of office in a landslide.
So began the Muldoon years. He was certainly not weak: famous for attacking anyone who dared to criticise or even question him, inside the party or outside, he terrorised his own colleagues as much as the Opposition. For a time the electorate loved him for it, but then there was a mood change. His strength became seen in a different light; he was arrogant and power-mad. David Lange came preaching consensus and consultation, and we threw Muldoon out with the same sort of landslide we had given Rowling.
So what are we looking for in a leader? We have a few months left to answer that question in the political realm. But what ofleadership in the Church? What qualities should we look for in a church leader? Well, I have been involved in three electoral colleges in my time, the first two to elect an Assistant Bishop and then a Bishop in the Diocese of Wellington, and then to elect our Bishop in this diocese. What qualities were we looking for on those occasions – what qualities was I looking for? Now I am involved in the process of finding a new Dean. Do we look for the same qualities in a dean as we do in a bishop? Are there qualities of Christian leadership that apply at all levels of the Church, and, if so, what might they be?
Bishop George upset some people in the Diocese by saying that he did not see his role as setting out a vision for the Diocese; he thought the diocese should tell him as our new bishop what our vision was. Was that a sign of a good leader seeking to draw out the wisdom of the people and refusing to impose his ideas on them, or was it an abdication of the sort of leadership we rightly expect from our bishop? Part of the great difficulty of leadership arises from the fact that on questions of that kind opinion is likely to be divided in any group, inside or outside the Church.
And so often, the answer lies somewhere in-between. I remember in one of those electoral colleges a priest saying several times in the course of his address, "the question is, do we want a bishop who listens, or a bishop who leads?" It seemed to be beyond his comprehension that we might want a bishop who listens, consults, takes advice, and then leads. We were told the other night that we are seeking a dean "who will lead us forward". Of course – why didn't I think of that?
Of course, there is always some clever Charley who will suggest that we are not looking for certain qualities at all; what we are looking for is evidence that this particular person is being called by God to this particular position at this particular time. I remember a suggestion in the Welling case by a priest who told our large gathering that we had got the whole process for choosing a new bishop completely wrong. We should not be having a fierce debate about the relative merits of the candidates, followed by a democratic vote to determine the winner. We should leave that sort of thing to political parties and other secular organisations.
We should remember that we are not to be like that. Among us there is to be no worldly ambition, power games, or eye-gouging. Instead, we should seek the will of God. This, he frankly admitted, was not always easy, and he thought it would be impossible in a body such as Synod because not every member of Synod had the necessary gifts of discernment. We were just on the point of taking him out and stoning him when he hastened to assure us that he himself lacked those very gifts.
Could he therefore suggest that we set aside, say, ten or twelve people known to us to be leading a life of serious and deep prayer, and ask them to wait upon the Lord until it became clear to them whom God was calling to be the next Bishop of Wellington? There was some support for this radical idea, if only from those who saw it as their only hope of getting home in time to watch the rugby test on TV that night. But of course it was hopelessly impractical: the chances of the House of Clergy agreeing on which of their colleagues were more gifted in prayer and discernment than themselves were virtually nil.
But in principle, surely, my brave colleague was quite right. And today of all days we ought to see that. Who among us would choose as a leader one who has denied ever knowing Jesus in order to save his own skin? Who among us would choose as a leader in the Christian Church one who had thrown himself energetically into persecuting Christian believers and having them killed for their faith? If we had been on an interviewing panel, would we have been impressed by either of them? Or would we have dismissed Peter as a blusterer, lacking in substance and stability, ever likely to put his foot in it and say the wrong thing? And what of Paul? If we judge by appearances he wouldn't interview too well. Short, bald with rheumy eyes, apparently, and altogether far too fond of his own opinion on everything. A classic bigot, we might think.
Oh, dear – how wrong history would have proved us to be! With the benefit of hindsight we can see that these two men rank as the greatest of all the leaders the Church has been blessed with in its long history. So what was it that made them so great – what do they show us we should look for in a leader?
Above all, surely, absolute conviction that they have experienced the Risen Lord in their life. Only from that conviction comes the power to convince others of the truth of the Gospel. Only from that conviction comes the strength to persevere no matter what the response, what the criticisms that may be hurled at them. And only that conviction confirms that they were filled with and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
So what am I looking for in the next Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, Dunedin? Someone who relates well to the city? Desirable, but not essential. Someone who understands and supports our three-tikanga constitution? Desirable, but not essential. A good liturgist, teacher, preacher, or pastor? Someone who relates well to the young? Someone who sings well and appreciates the Cathedral choral tradition? In each case, I would say, desirable but not essential.
I am looking for a person who, from his or her own experience, is convinced that Jesus Christ is risen and that that one fact makes all the difference in the world. A man or woman who, in that respect, at least, reminds me very much of Peter and Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment