I am in Berlin for today and tomorrow to speak at a conference of ‘middle managers’ in the German Church (EKD). I flew in this morning in time to hear a stimulating address by Dr Thies Gundlach which (to my ears, at least) focused on the need for fresh attention to be paid to spirituality (the Bible being a lens through which to see God, the world and us) and a need for the development of strategic competence in the outreach ministry of the church in a changing world.
I have met Thies a number of times and am impressed with the seriousness with which he engages – both personally and professionally – with these questions. He is also a very nice bloke.
My session was at the end of a heavy conference day for the punters and I feared I would send them to their early sleep. I was sharing the platform with a Dutchman who gave an interesting presentation about the challenges posed by the changing situation of the church in the Netherlands. The idea was that the two of us would be interviewed first by two comperes and then give a twenty-minute address each on the theme of the conference. I went second and addressed the question of ‘Leadership, Management and Inspiration’. I basically wanted to encourage the ‘middle management’ to be creative in leadership, to lose their fear of failure and enjoy the challenge of their ministry.
I was asked beforehand whether I was daunted by the challenge of moving from Croydon to Bradford. I was able answer immediately and without either delusion or hesitation: no! I am looking forward to the challenges and opportunities that this will bring. It is a fantasy that life is ever sorted; every day brings new challenges and there was never a ‘golden age’. So, if we are going to do this stuff, let’s at least try to enjoy the experience.
For the record, my line on ‘leadership, management and inspiration’ was basically that management of resources is important, but that leadership involves more than administration. Leadership demands from leaders the ability and freedom to inspire the led. I began with Liverpool Football Club…
Why can Kenny Dalglish get out of the same players who failed for Roy Hodgson more energy, commitment, flair, engagement, skill, optimism, determination and enjoyment? The same players on the same ground for the same club. Well, one answer is that King Kenny has restored confidence not only in the collective ambition of the team/club, but also confidence in the individual players’ creative ability. They look like they want to play and want to win.
Part of the distinction between ‘management’ and ‘leadership’ can be illustrated by the question I found myself asking as Archdeacon of Lambeth ten years ago. I can’t remember how or why, but I recall realising that there are two approaches to being an archdeacon (responsible for buildings, finance, law and ‘stuff’ in the Church of England): the first asks what the law allows us to do and goes from there; the second asks what we want to achieve (where do we want to get to) and then works out how the law might allow us to get there. In other words, leadership begins with a vision for which a strategy is then needed – but strategy without vision is meaningless. Poor management often sees the development of strategies without having first identified the vision that the strategies are meant to make happen.
Of course, this has to do with giving permission to leaders(at any level) to fail. Having identified clarity, confidence and communication as key to good leadership, I quoted Matthew 25:14-30. Here three blokes (they are always blokes…) are given money by their boss who was about to go away for a bit. Two blokes doubled the cash they were given, but one hid his away in order to preserve it from risk of loss. The first two were praised, the last was condemned. The church and the Gospel are to be risked – given away and possibly lost, perverted, misrepresented, twisted, half-remembered, etc – and not stuck in the ground where they can be kept pure, untarnished and ‘holy’.
We never really learn this, do we?
Anyway, as this isn’t a sermon, we went on to take questions form the floor – many of which began with the football allusion. One question made me think about the analogy between football matches and church services. I quickly thought and suggested that the liturgy of football involves (among other things):
- a commonly owned and understood liturgy
- that liturgy involves worship, praise, criticism, prayer (pleading for an outcome), complaint, questioning, singing, silence, emotion, reflection, critical appraisal
- the experience is centred on a common goal (literally!)
- everyone is a participant in the event – no one is a mere spectator.
Now, think about how church might take these elements on board – consciously – in the choice of medium, language, music, action, performance and articulated vision.
A question about the challenge of the so-called New Atheists led to the conclusion (among other things) that their major weaknesses are (a) their lack of humour, (b) their need to hold on to a caricature of religion in order for their critique to bear the weight they put on it, and (c) their ignorance of the fact that what they think of as ‘new’ is actually very old and didn’t hold much water even 200 years ago.
Anyway, that’s Berlin Tonight (to quote either Leonard Cohen or Bruce Cockburn).
February 18, 2011 at 2:33 am
Oh oh. Sorry, but some major false preconceptions about New Atheists there.
a) A good deal many New Atheists actually do have quite a sense of humour, only, sometimes not about religion. For those, they see religion as morally wrong, full-stop, and not a laughing matter.
Some New Atheists have all the sense of humour of a long-dead beagle, and in fact it’s a topic that comes up on atheists boards quite often; but for certain reasons (which are a little long, but which I will explain if anyone wants to know), I’ld advise Christians against taking too much joy in that. It backfires.
By the way, separately, a lack of a sense of humour is not a problem confined to atheists. Lemme think; GAFCON? Ordinariate? That monstrous regiment of women bishops? And so on. Karl Barth certainly could have done with a Chestertonian sense of humour added to him.
b) A bit more truth to this one. Often it is a caricature of religion.
On the other hand, the New Atheist message has resonated as strongly as it has, because, bluntly, it’s not all caricature. It’s often enough reality. Or, in other words; just as opposition parties do not win elections, but instead governments lose them, so too is the success of the New Atheist message not all that contingent upon the sterling attributes of the NA’s themselves.
c) Uh. No. A very good many New Atheists will tell you that there is nothing really new about the New Atheism.
As to whether it all holds water or not; the two defining questions for me personally are:
1) Does and can someone really not believe in gods?
2) Can one be genuinely and authentically moral/ethical without any trace of religion or god-belief?
We can add a third one:
3) can a god be proved?
Since the answer for both 1 and 2 is to me “yes”, and for 3 “no”, then I fail to see how an atheist position “holds no water”.
The major New Atheist difference — the NA stance that religion is necessarily either morally wrong or at very best superfluous — is far more argueable. I don’t buy it myself. However, I recognise they can make a reasonable argument for that stance, just as I recognise that Christians, Jews and Muslims can make reasonable arguments for their own stances, although I regard all those arguments just as wrong as the NA one mentioned.
I take it the meeting didn’t bother having any real live atheists there to talk with them?
I’m mildly wondering whether you would have come up with a different set of attributes for the NA’s had you been visiting the Rheinland Church (which belongs to the EKD), rather than the Berliners.
Cheers,
the humourless (non-new) atheist Gurdur
February 18, 2011 at 7:54 am
[...] paths have almost crossed; a fair bit of a pity neither time we met. However, one paragraph in Nick Baines' blog post is … worrisome. This: Quote: "… A question about the challenge of the so-called New [...]
February 18, 2011 at 8:57 am
Dear Nick
Any chance of a copy of the address itself (but without the gratuitous Liverpool references!). It sounds like something that will engage with my own work. I’d be grateful.
February 18, 2011 at 11:50 am
Nick – this post is brilliant. Any more of the same would be well received.
Anne.
February 18, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“…leadership begins with a vision for which a strategy is then needed – but strategy without vision is meaningless. Poor management often sees the development of strategies without having first identified the vision that the strategies are meant to make happen.”
I agree – so often in the church we have strategy without vision, and (less often) vision without strategy (because there is less vision!). As you said to your Croydon clergy on Tuesday, vision leads the institution, the institution does not lead the vision. I think often us church leaders need to take risks with our vision and then plan the strategy, rather than staying in the relative comfort of a nicely planned strategy and hoping vision seeps in to the box.
There’s so much to learn from King Kenny. Inexperienced and rusty with a not-excellent managerial track record, but the right person at the right time who can help the team to surf the wave. Bit like me in ministry, really. At the moment…
February 18, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Justin, it’s in German. Is that OK?
February 18, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Gurdur, thanks for commenting. I also read your post in response, but you needn’t worry. I was reporting the experience of the people at the conference. Many of us (and I spend a good amount of time in the business) engage with atheists all the time. The comment was about the so-called ‘New Atheists’ specifically – and you seem not to disagree with what was being said about them. ‘new Atheists’ do not account for all atheists in the same way loony Christians do not account for all Christians.
You are dead right about humourless Christians – there are plenty of them. But that doesn’t negate the criticism of the New Atheists!
The issue with ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’ is part of the problem of having intelligent debate. You can’t prove you are loved by someone, but that doesn’t negate the reality of the experience. ‘Proof’ comes in many colours – simply to say God doesn’t fit one of them is not adequate as an argument.
I actually think we agree on much!
February 18, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Auf Deutsch? Well, I’ve been wanting to brush up my Hoch D
. Still be grateful for a sight of it. TVM
February 19, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Choosing 200 years ago as a benchmark (“their ignorance of the fact ….. even 200 years ago”) is quite interesting.
It was 200 years ago that Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote “The Necessity of Atheism”, for which the highly-educated, free-thinkers at Oxford University firstly kicked him out, and then burned all copies of his work (shades of Fahrenheit 451).
It was also 200 years ago that Darwin was born. I guess that, had we been blogging here then, we would all assume that God created life on planet Earth in the exact form it appears today.
Happily, we have moved on since then.
K
February 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Kevin, it is roughly since the Enlightenment – not meant to be precise.
February 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm
The atheistic bit gets a few lines at the end, and the most answer in the blog! Leadership is one of those qualities which happen when the chemistry is right, the people agree and the results usually speak for themselves. It dosn’t only apply in football and church, but in any team based activity. Good leadership is a gift, maybe from God or not. Pity some of these atheists do not show a bit of leadership in their thinking, seems to me they are always quoting tired arguments which are discredited or just wrong a lot of the time.
February 20, 2011 at 8:09 am
I must say, you lot have got nerves of steel! (not as much as Stephen though) Glad I managed to hang on to mine, Stanier to Stainer in one fell swoop! I have been laughing practically all night x
February 20, 2011 at 8:26 am
Hi Gurdur,
Your comment about there being no real live atheists at Nick’s meeting is probably fair (although it is fair that Christians consider the issues even if they can’t necessarily find an available atheist just at that moment.) Thought you might like this blog string after we had a real live atheist come to lecture at theological college. I think he would resist the “New” label though. Interestingly, he doesn’t see your third defining question as particularly important.
http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/why-i-am-an-atheist/
Helen
February 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Helen and Gurdur, I think we need to drop the notion that it is only possible (or legitimate) to have a conversation about atheists if there is at least one present. There are different forums for different purposes. The conference I was at in Berlin was not about atheism – the question of the phenomenon of the ‘New Atheists’ came up in a question to which a range of observations were made. Were we supposed to say, “Oh, we can’t discuss this because there isn’t an atheist present”? As Helen indicates, there are plenty of occasions when proper representation is appropriate – a stance the Greenbelt Arts Festival has taken in relation to witches, atheists, and loads of others. But, we shouldn’t worry too much about ‘internal’ conversations so long as – for Christians particularly – deliberate misrepresentation is avoided (on the basis of the Ninth Commandment!).
February 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Bishop Nick, thank you for your excellent blog.
Looking for examples of inspiring leadership, I wonder if you have come across a wonderful 3 minute video on YouTube titled “First Follower – Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy”. The link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ
The commentary is very insightful.
I appreciated your link between football and church. Some time ago I heard that there are only two places where you hear community singing: in church on a Sunday and at a football ground on a Saturday. Having sung in the Kop one day (my eldest son is a great LFC supporter) and in Kildwick Church (in your new diocese) the next I can readily make the connection.
I and the good folk of St Andrew’s, Kildwick look forward to your arrival in the diocese and particularly to our parish when you visit for a Confirmation service in June.
February 21, 2011 at 8:48 am
“But, we shouldn’t worry too much about ‘internal’ conversations so long as – for Christians particularly – deliberate misrepresentation is avoided (on the basis of the Ninth Commandment!).”
I’m not so sure about this. I agree that not every forum needs to have its complement of the people you talk about. But misrepresentation isn’t always deliberate, it is far too often borne out of a complete lack of real knowledge and understanding.
I’m reminded of the lgbt debate, which is marked by a lot of internal conversations “about” people and which is rarely based on any great in-depth understanding of real people’s lives. As someone commented on TA only yesterday: With “heterosexual people we talk about relationships. Homosexual people, we talk about sex. Heterosexual people have lives. Homosexual people have lifestyles. Heterosexual people have a moral vision. Homosexual people have an agenda.”
I think the conversation about New and Old Atheists follows very much a similar pattern of unquestioned assumptions. And unless real life people are present to challenge those assumptions, no-one will even be aware of their own misconceptions.
February 21, 2011 at 11:19 am
“One question made me think about the analogy between football matches and church services. I quickly thought and suggested that the liturgy of football involves (among other things):
• a commonly owned and understood liturgy
• that liturgy involves worship, praise, criticism, prayer (pleading for an outcome), complaint, questioning, singing, silence, emotion, reflection, critical appraisal
• the experience is centred on a common goal (literally!)
• everyone is a participant in the event – no one is a mere spectator.”
Ahem ..
I always understood that the experience was centered on two opposing goals.
And the off-side rule? And disqualifications e.g. for spitting, swearing or removing your shirt/dropping your shorts?
He that is not foul among you, let him flash the first yellow card.
I know I’m a girlie and all that but …
February 21, 2011 at 11:26 am
Dearsoeur, it really is possible to push a metaphor to destruction, isn’t it? Go back to your dolls…
February 21, 2011 at 11:29 am
Erika, you can’t seriously be suggesting that no conversation is ever possible in any forum without representation by those being talked about, can you? Conversations deliberately set up to discuss, for example, ‘theism and atheism’ should certainly have such presence, but not every conversation about theism, sexuality, sport, etc is set up for this. Anyway, the Berlin question arose in a context that was not about atheism, but during which a question arose. We weren’t going to say we couldn’t discuss it because there wasn’t an atheist present!
February 21, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Nick,
I think I actually said “I agree that not every forum needs to have its complement of the people you talk about” , so I certainly agree with you here. I thought I had been responding to your more general seeming comment:
“But, we shouldn’t worry too much about ‘internal’ conversations so long as – for Christians particularly – deliberate misrepresentation is avoided (on the basis of the Ninth Commandment!).”
What I wanted to say was that avoiding “deliberate” misrepresentation of those we talk about is not enough and that we need to be much more careful about accidental misrepresentation born out of a belief that we know what we’re talking about.
And I really do feel strongly about this, as so much of our political discourse is marred by the mistaken belief that we know all about the others without having to talk to them, be they feckless single mothers, Muslim terrorists, benefit scroungers, fat cats…
And highly educated and articulate people are not immune to this. It is only ever engaging with the others that can show us what they’re like.
February 21, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Of course you can have a conversation about atheism (old or new) without an atheist there.
But it is a little worrying that the conclusions drawn by this conferences are so wide of the truth, as explained by Gurdur (who is an awful lot more eloquent than I am).
K
February 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Now then, Nick. It isn’t difficult to destroy an analogy if it is a poor enough one. I should have finished my last sentence. I may be a girlie and all that but …. I fail to see any connection between football matches and church services, apart from the fact that in both types of event people [often large numbers of them]have been known to sing [quite loudly and enthusiastically] and [sometimes] wave their arms and point for emphasis.
But when the single and simple motive of one is the unashamed and avowed intent to trash the opposition [however jovially] while the complex and paradoxical endgame of the other is that “the last shall be first, and the first last” .. and do you really want to give the impression that the Christian liturgy is/should be as rigid and closed to interpretation as the orthodox rulings of a game such as football?
Oh, and I gave up dolls a long time ago, sorry. I much prefer rational argument …. if I can get it!
February 22, 2011 at 9:34 pm
I’ve read most of the “stuff” on Church leadership and management. I completed an MBA a dozen years ago, and the church didn’t have a clue what do with a priest who could read a company financial statements and gearing (maybe that means something else in the church!) But what stuck with me was that “managers do things right, leaders do the right thing”. Leaders get the vision sorted and then hold the organisation to the vision. So I was interested to read Nick Baines blog on Leadership and Management. I follow it on Churches Together Connect.
Nick wrote ‘Leadership begins with a vision for which a strategy is then needed – but strategy without vision is meaningless. Poor management often sees the development of strategies without having first identified the vision that the strategies are meant to make happen. Of course, this has to do with giving permission to leaders(at any level) to fail’.
Interesting, when I had just read a letter from Abp Desmond Tutu, written to the Churches in Britain and Ireland way back in 1994. His letter was part of an Advent message and this is what he said:
‘Give grace a chance! You have come into a culture of success. That’s sad in many ways. It says the worst thing that can happen to a human being is to fail; that it doesn’t matter what you succeed in so long as you succeed. If you can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps you are out. Compassion, gentleness, become almost swear words. “People must stand on their own feet” – yes, in a sense. But Christian faith says we are not made for independence but for INTER-dependence. And maybe what will come from the weak and not-so-successful is the reminder to you that Christianity is a faith of grace. Grace is a gift. It says you are subsidised by God. One of my favourite Christmas hymns is “O little town of Bethlehem” with that wonderful verse:
How silently, how silently
The wonderous gift is given.
There was no fanfare – so very much like how the despised, the unimportant, come into this world. So God gives. Can you learn to recieve, not just from us but from God.
At a time when Churches have laid an uncritical hand on the language of “added value” which takes little account of the value of relationship and dialogue, it is comforting to think of God’s subsidy of us all.
“Give grace a chance” is a line I will use again I know. At CTBI we have spend the last years taking chances. Creating a vision, taking difficult painful decisions, moving to new ways of working and now taking the risk of launching a new social networking platform. Taking a risk involves the real possibility of failure. Working the vision, and then working it again gives us a real hope of God’s subsidy. Were praying it does!