The Burden of Leadership
Posted on November 28th, 2005 by Adam Greenwood
There has been quite the discussion in various blogs about Bishops and exactly what their role is relative to the Church. Are they full representatives of the Church in everything they do? Should they be? I don’t really wish to address those questions. Rather I wish to address the other side of the relationship. The duty members have to leaders.
I think that there is a common view in the Church by many members that the Church exists to serve them. That we go to Bishops, Stake Presidents and the like for counsel and that we merely do what they say in an unthinking manner. I’m not sure I agree with that view. (And, I should add, I’m not entirely sure how many in the Church actually do this - I think the unthinking sheep label is unfairly given. Especially by critics of the Church)
First off, to me the essential aspect of Church service is the fact it is typically bottom up. That is, the Church isn’t primarily a place people come to get served, but a place people come to serve. We are a lay ministry and ideally the primary places of service are the Relief Society and Priesthood quorums.
When we reverse this relationship we will always be disappointed. The fact we are a lay ministry means that we don’t always do things well. We screw up. We don’t necessarily know what we are doing. But we come to serve. Part of that is because in service we find our own sins healed. “For Charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8) In the act of losing ourselves we find ourselves.
Now none of this is to excuse misconduct. Even looking at the early history of the Church one could always find some leaders engaging in misconduct and abusing their stewardship. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord constantly warns that we will have to give an account of our stewardship, But at what point do we excuse some weakness of ability? Do we allow leaders to occasionally be wrong? Do we make the mistake of treating the leader as God and become disgruntled when we find that they are not?
It seems to me that often people are called to leadership positions not necessarily because of their ability to handle all the responsibilities. Rather the Lord, I strongly believe, often calls people to be leaders to help them grow. I remember growing up how often relatively new members were called to be Bishops. They struggled, often still being ignorant in certain aspects of Church structure and doctrine. Yet they came out amazingly strong members who helped the Church grow in those areas.
If we treat Church leadership the way we look at regular corporations or service organizations, I fear we will always be disappointed. But that is not the ultimate point of Church leadership. I strongly feel that one of the greatest and most important tests we’ll face as we grow spiritually is how to support and sustain those who are making mistakes. Because I think all of us have, at one time or an other faced that. Looking back at my own life, sometimes I’ve reacted well, with love and support. At other times I suspect I’ve been too critical. What is something I keep in mind are my own struggles at leadership the times I’ve had to do it. (Fortunately not often)
I think that we have to keep that in mind - thinking of what we’d do in their shoes. Not in the sense of merely disagreeing with their decisions. But recognizing their struggles and with an outpouring of love and mercy. The way we’d want to be treated.
Once again, I don’t want to appear like I’m justifying misconduct. Far from it. I’ve seen that before as well. Rather I want to have people think on that other side of the discussion which appears to be missing.
» Filed Under Any
Comments
16 Responses to “The Burden of Leadership”
Leave a Reply
Excellent post, Clark.
I don’t think people realize the magnitude of the calling of a Bishop. My father has been a bishop for the past 2 years and I have realized it is a mantle I don’t wish upon myself or any other.
He rarely has free time, must deal with every squabble that exists between every member that can’t settle it on their own. Parents actually bring him their kids so my dad can discipline them. It’s ridiculous how much the phone rings when I visit. He had a counselor on TOD for a few months, and the other is a fairly recent convert getting used to his leadership position. And yet, he has been able to maintain his sanity.
Has he made some mistakes? Absolutely. The Area Authority resides in his ward and has corrected him on a few instances. But my father is very humble (much more than I) and has taken his counsel to heart. The members love and appreciate him and I believe they enjoy the fact that their bishop is fallible and understand that he is learning right along with them.
Clark, I appreciate your perspective. When we promise to bear one another’s burdens, I think that includes sustaining each other and bearing with each other in our failings.
Yes, great post.
I do think we tend to forget that the Bishop is primarily a religious leader. Not a psychologist/social worker/marriage counselor/personal problem solver. And if we are looking for reasons to find fault, we will always find many. There may not be a better desciption of discipleship than the idea of supporting our leaders even in the midst of their mistakes.
First and foremost the Church is here to serve us all. It’s main purpose, whether it be through the 3-fold mission of the church, or some other monicker, is to carry out Moses 1:39 which we cannot do in any other way than through service to each other.
Given that I am serving in a Bishopric currently, there is an equal balance, not on a daily basis but over the long haul, of both being able to use skills and progression. For example, I am currently going through a phase where I am using skills consistently now, and yet just a few weeks ago I was learning wisdom and understanding from a Bishop through a disciplinary council (not my own of course!!). Def an equal balance here.
As for being supported by the members within the ward, I have personally never cared whether they do or not because I have enough work to do that it has no relevance really. I am also fully aware that my lack of caring about this sort of thing could get me into trouble if I am not sensitive to the way people feel about me and the example I am setting (Alma 13). In fact, perhaps compassion is the most important part of serving in any leadership calling, especially within a Bishopric. Yes, there is justice and plain speaking to be doled out to all members, but always in such a way that they go away having no excuse but always knowing they are loved and cared for, and that is a very hard balance to attain!
But what is the real burden of leadership? I don’t honestly feel that the time commitment is a problem, nor the skill level required for the work (who the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies), nor the incredible structure required within a ward to maintain all of the auxiliaries and needs of the members. What I find the biggest burden to deal with is the knowledge that you have about current personal events of people, good or bad! Good events bring much joy and happiness, but the bad events, really weighs heavy when you are trying to build some sort of Spiritual foundation to which people (non-members and members alike) will want to attend. It is ever amazing to me how much people try and conform the gospel doctrines to themselves and not themselves to the doctrines of the gospel or how little people are really willing to do to help others progress!
As for the weaknesses of those that serve in leadership positions, I have never really cared about that neither because all you have to do is focus on your own weaknesses and they are def more than enough. What is more important than anything is the effort people put into the position for the simple reason that when they work hard the Lord can magnify their work unlimited-fold and the work gets done sometimes no matter the approach as long as it is within bounds of the gospel.
I think what I’m saying Anonymoose, is that the Church is not here to serve. Rather the Church is here to facilitate service. That’s a significant difference. I simply don’t think the Church, as a whole, does a great job at serving. But I don’t think that is its mission.
That’s not in the least to deny that service is there nor to devalue the service the Church gives. (In service projects, welfare, counsel, or the like)
What I’m more getting at is that the attitude some members have that sees the Bishop as someone who gives them what they need is misplaced. I earnestly think that a lot of the people who go to the Bishop for silly counsel are misplacing their desires. They’d be far better off focusing in on how to improve themselves, and, in perhaps a few instances, going to specialized therapists and the like. The Bishop’s job shouldn’t be to act as a parent for people who don’t know how, for instance.
Perhaps I’m being a tad harsh here, and correct me if you feel I am wrong, but I’d lay odds that the majority of people going to a Bishop for counsel are asking for counsel that really isn’t appropriate for the Bishop.
What I’m trying to suggest is that there is a part of the relationship between Bishop and ward that is neglected by people. And that is our responsibilities.
Yes, I buy the facilitate service thing and perhaps that is what I was trying to get at, and so sorry for not being clearer about this, and thanks for your clarification on what you are saying.
I completely agree with your next point that a lot of people that go to the Bishop of their own free will are there for that ’silly’ counsel and it is the Bishop’s job at that point to make it clear to them that is is ’silly’ what they are asking and to go off and let the gospel govern their lives. Hence, they do not usually do that and are right back into the fire the very next week because they just do not know how to gocvern their lives accordingly. Yes, the parenting thing is dumb, but there is perhaps need sometimes for the Bishop to counsel that youth as their file leader that what they have done is actually wrong. I have seen some parents do that and the Bishop was more than willing to teach correct principles in that instance and also there have been similar cases where the Bishop needs to make those judgements especially when it comes to administration of the Sacrament, etc. Most is silly though!
And your last point is the most complete of the bunch. I would cite here that the best example of that is Home Teaching because although the Bishop is to supervise the home teaching of the ward, the EQ and HP are to administer the HTing in the ward and it just does not get done whether it is due to a loss in translation from the HPGL or EQP, or just a lack of desire, it is not totally clear, but it is the worst carried out responsibility within the church as a whole!
A good example of your last point was when I was sitting in a HP sunday meeting a few months ago and some brother wanted to organize a great ward temple attendance day where we would work to get as many people to go to the temple as possible - what a greta idea! I just sat there and shook my, then stood up and said that we already had something like that called our “Ward Temple Night which happens on the 3rd Friday of each Month and which your Bishop had put into place almost 3 years ago!” They just sat there and looked confused and troubled because they had negelected their responsiblities to the Bishop not to mention having missed a significant number of ‘great ward temple attendance days’!! ‘Twas very frustrating and yet protrays what you are saying in full!!
BTW, great post Clark!!
“Perhaps I’m being a tad harsh here, and correct me if you feel I am wrong, but I’d lay odds that the majority of people going to a Bishop for counsel are asking for counsel that really isn’t appropriate for the Bishop.”
I’d say that depends on the unit. That said, I agree except that I think “majority” would be high and that you’re leaving off the more important corollary: many who should be seeing the bishop are not. And the sad part about that is that the bishop doesn’t have time to seek those people out as often as they would like because they are too busy dealing with the more inane issues you’re pointing out above.
Excellent post, Clark. I agree very much with your catagorization that the Church is to facillitate service. The difficult thing is that the church is nonetheless a legal institution and not just a zion community. Consequently, there are matters of liability that seem inevitable. No? Or maybe that is not the point of the post.
Yes. There is a inherent conflict with the Church being a corporation with all the normal instincts of a corporation and being a Church that is in many ways opposed to most corporate notions. There’s a lot of tension there that sometimes keeps it from being effective at either. Although presumably that will change in the Millennium when I think we’ll be closer to the ideal Church structure. The Lord has to work with us here and now in our world, and that unfortunately means compromises from the ideal.
I sometimes wonder if the role of bishops in the church has been expanded to more than it is in the scriptures. I still respect bishops and am grateful for all the bishops I’ve had.
Good points all.
I’ve had a couple of bishops I respected less than others (the long winded one is one I highly regard, he is a true Christian, he just can’t quit talking).
One is inactive now and the other was inactive for a time, then partially active, and now serving in a bishopric again.
The older I get, the more I realize we’re all just human beings, mostly trying to do the best we can. Even bishops. I don’t think we allow enough for that.
Good topic, Clark.
Your point about inactivity is a good one Anne. One of my best Stake Presidents had been inactive for quite some time. After getting reactivating he became a Bishop and then a Stake President. My Mission President had been inactive most of his life. Actually now that I think about it, many great leaders I’ve met have spent time inactive. Something to keep in mind if we are tempted to judge too rashly.
Stretching the Moses 1: 39 theme just a bit, how does this sound:
“This is My work and My glory, to allow THE CHURCH to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
“This is My work and My glory, to allow THE INDIVIDUAL to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
“We are here in mortality to assist our Father in Heaven and His Son in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, whether on our own through quiet acts of Christian service, or as a part of a Quorum, Group, or Relief Society [or [put name of organization here].”
I’ve been a member for 22 years and I’ve had one bishop in all those years that made a deep impression on my life. I was serving as ward clerk at the time, so I got to meet with him on a weekly basis, but I’ve since served in other leadership positions and this humble, young (early 30’s) man, whose wife had difficult pregnancies and gave birth during his tenure, taught me more about discipleship and stewardship than any other Church leader, except for a couple of Stake Presidents and General Authorities. Disciplinary councils are probably the most difficult thing a Bishop has to do, and they turned out to be the most positive experiences for the one being disciplined, as well as those in the council. Why?
Charity, or the pure love of Christ. I wonder if someone can “learn” to be more charitable, or is it something we are born with? My wife is a wonderful example of charity in action, and I struggle daily regardless of how much I pray, fast, etc.
I believe that the most effective leaders constantly say “I have much to learn” (thank you Commander Data).
The important part of my relationship with those two bishops is not their inactivity, I think we all have demons and that quiet desperation. It was that while they were bishops, they begrudged the service. They didn’t want to be bothered. Both served short times as well, I think one only served two years.
I think if I had to be a bishop, I would be an old grouch too.
I don’t understand people who think they need to run to the bishop over every little thing. The guy is doing his SECOND job, trying to take care of the ward. Leave him alone. Important decision to make about your work/life/marriage? Well pray about it and then make the decision. Don’t bother the bishop. He doesn’t know what you should do. You and God know far more about your life than the bishop.
I also don’t understand bishops who think they have dominion over every little thing that might be happening within the boundaries of the ward, even if it has nothing to do with church or spirituality. In Vegas, the bishop would never have dreamed of telling women whether or not they could hold a secular (classic lit books, nothing religous or controversial) book club in their own homes, on their own time. And the women would have just laughed if he’d said something. Do the words, “None of your business?” mean anything to you buddy? Because while all of my bishops in Vegas seemed to understand it, I notice that a lot more here in Utah. The lines between spiritual life and authority and real world life and authority are a bit more blurry here.
Danithew, I don’t think that the role of Bishop has expanded from a scriptural point of view, it has probably just been made clearer and more specific as to what these responsibilities are as time has moved forward. I say that given the letters and documents that arrive from church HQ stating more defined roles for Bishops such as missionary work and home teaching, to name a few. I don’t think they were ever not a Bishop’s responsibilities, but it is now clear that they are. However, there are some things that a Bishop does not need to do but does anyways and perhaps those things are where we think the role has expanded. For example, he does not need to visit every member in the ward, that is for home teachers to do and then to return and report.
I do agree with Sue to some extent that he should mind his business, except, except, except, when the sectoral things may delve into transgression, then he might want to think about counselling, etc.