Letter from the Vicar (September 2009)
Dear friends,
The trouble with modern politicians is that they offer no leadership” is a comment that you hear from time to time. In many ways it’s a claim which seems to be justified.
It’s all very well trying to adjust your policies according to the prevailing trends of public opinion - government by focus groups as it’s known in the trade – but sometimes it is essential to give a lead, to guide and form public opinion rather than be guided by it. Leaders sometimes have to make hard and tough decisions which people may not agree with, at least not to begin with. This may isolate them and leave them feeling unpopular, but the burden of leadership is sometimes to take those hard decisions and if possible to draw the people with you by education and encouragement. Leadership does involve a degree of forcefulness. But this can go too far. As one very wise person said to me soon after I came here, “we want to be led, but we will not be driven.” Leadership is a fine art and few have mastery of it, for it involves guidance without domination, inspiration without indoctrination.
The Biblical conception of leadership may be of particular help in getting the balance right. Four models are used to describe the attributes needed in a leader – servant, steward, episkopos and shepherd. The Christian leader is called to be a servant. A servant of God’s people, certainly, but above all a servant of God. Christian leadership is not about being at the beck and call of every whim of the congregation – or on a political level of the body politic – it is about serving their needs through serving God first and foremost. At the same time this model of leadership should turn back the great snare of those called to this vocation, vaunting ambition and pride. The words of Jesus in Mark 10.44 come to mind: “whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.”
Stewardship is another characteristically Christian model of leadership. There are three main requirements of the steward: first, accountability to God for the people, second, responsibility for handing on the inheritance received and third, responsibility for leading into the future. These have their consequences in the way in which leadership is undertaken in both the Church and the secular world. Accountability and responsibility are at the heart of good leadership. The idea of episkopos (which we associate with the bishop, but which is present in all Christian and many other communities) contains four important ingredients: oversight, co-ordination, discipline and what might be called focus. The leader must have an oversight of all that goes on in the community, she will co-ordinate much of this, she may need to exercise discipline from time to time and she will be a focal person for the community.
The role of leader as shepherd is but one of a number of models the Bible affords us. But it is an old and venerable model. Although the role of political leader and shepherd seem far from each other, the great Israelite King David was himself a shepherd when Samuel anointed him. The terms pastor and parson are both derived from the word shepherd. It is an attractive concept, conjuring images of care and diligence. However, both in the Church and in society at large there are limits to the traditional understanding of leadership as pastoral care.
The best way to approach this is to ask some probing questions. First: is the pastor called to be a shepherd of the whole flock or primarily to be concerned with the individual? Clearly for political leaders the whole community must be the object of care, though even here individuals and their rights need protection. In the Church too, though the ‘one’ needs to be sought out, the ‘99’ still need to be cared for. As in many other things a balance is required. Second: who should be pastored? Politicians have the difficult task of deciding whether to spend a large amount of money on the weakest in society, taxing the wealthy to take care of the poor. Equally in the Church pastors have to consider whether their time is best spend on those who demand the most or on those who demand less, but may still have needs to be met. Again, in both political and Church life a balance must be struck. The third question arising in connection with the shepherd model of leadership is this – to what extent should a leader be a father (or mother) figure? Clearly some political leaders and many Church leaders have this kind of a role. But it has its dangers. Above all too much reliance may be placed on the leader which may remove a sense of responsibility from members of the community. It may also be very bad for the leader to be held in such high regard. However the right kind of fatherly pastoral care was surely the kind of love we see in Jesus.
In Church and society we need leadership exhibiting these various characteristics. We need men and women who place service at the forefront of their minds. We need them to be conscious of their role as stewards, caretakers of society and church and planners for their future; we need people who are willing to exercise oversight and carry the burdens that entails. Above all we need people to be shepherds, pastoral guides who both care for and guide individuals and community. We are often inclined to despise our political and even sometimes our ecclesiastical leaders. But they have onerous responsibilities and need our prayers. So let us never neglect to pray for those in positions of leadership in Church and state as they seeks to undertake their difficult and often thankless tasks.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Franklin
September 2009
