Ecclesial leadership as friendship

In this book Dr Lynch provides an original theological argument for taking the notion of friendship seriously in the context of ecclesial leadership. This is a most welcome study that could influence the theology and practice of leadership in the church significantly. Therefore, I highly recommend this book because it deserves to be read and discussed widely by church leaders, scholars and students. Mark J. Cartledge, Professor of Practical Theology, Regent University School of Divinity, USA One of the classic tasks of theology – that somehow has been lost in the blurring transitions of modernity – is to speak of the most central and intimate parts of human existence. Chloe Lynch has offered us an important book that does just this, taking us deeply inside the experience of friendship, showing how God moves in the rhythms of friendship, and how we are most human when we are friends with God and one another. This is an immensely helpful book that will challenge your conception of leadership, and beautifully call you into new theological visions. Andrew Root, The Carrie Olson Baalson Professor of Youth and Family Ministry, Luther Seminary, USA and author of The Pastor in a Secular Age (2019) In a time of deep uncertainty and apparently perpetual change, the issue of leadership becomes crucial. If the church does not faithfully nurture Christlike leaders then the beautiful and crucial gift that is the Gospel will be inhibited in its transformative task. Of course, God’s work will continue no matter what! The church exists for a purpose: to expand our imagination. When the apostle Paul talks about renewing our minds, at least part of what he pushes us to consider is the reconstruction of our imagination. In this book Chloe offers us a way of thinking and understanding leadership that serves to re-form our imagination in ways that can enable us to rethink and reframe what it means to lead God’s people. That is not a small contribution! This is a fascinating and important book that has huge potential for facilitating creative thinking, and initiating thoughtful change and faithful living. John Swinton, Professor in Practical Theology and Pastoral Care, University of Aberdeen, UK

When it comes to talking about the activity of directing the church, the language of leadership and leaders is increasingly popular. Yet what is leadership – and how might theological narratives better resource the discourse and practice of leadership in ecclesial contexts? In identifying and critiquing managerialism as a dominant narrative of leadership in the Western church, this book calls for an alternative approach founded on the concept of friendship. Engaging with the wider field of leadership studies, the book establishes an understanding of leadership activity and brings it into conversation with an incarnational ecclesiology. The result is a prophetic reimagining of ecclesial leadership in terms of a relational, kenotic praxis. This praxis of mutuality and love is framed here in the rich language of Christian friendship. The book also wrestles deeply with the embodiment of such a praxis, making explicit the power behaviours typical of friendship-leadership and offering constructive guidance for practitioners in the task of implementation within a complex and fractured world. This book offers a new vision of the centrality of friendship to leadership of a healthy church community. As such, it will be of great use to scholars of practical theology, ecclesiology and leadership, as well as practitioners in church ministry. Chloe Lynch is Lecturer in Practical Theology at London School of Theology, UK. She has also spent a decade leading a church in West London and worked for a number of years as a City solicitor. Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship

Theological reflection on the church’s practice is now recognised as a significant element in theological studies in the academy and seminary. Routledge’s series in practical, pastoral and empirical theology seeks to foster this resurgence of interest and encourage new developments in practical and applied aspects of theology worldwide. This timely series draws together a wide range of disciplinary approaches and empirical studies to embrace contemporary developments including: the expansion of research in empirical theology, psychological theology, ministry studies, public theology, Christian education and faith development; key issues of contemporary society such as health, ethics and the environment; and more traditional areas of concern such as pastoral care and counselling. Scripting Pentecost A Study of Pentecostals, Worship and Liturgy Edited by Mark J. Cartledge and A.J. Swoboda Researching Female Faith Qualitative Research Methods Edited by Nicola Slee, Fran Porter and Anne Phillips Reimagining Theologies of Marriage in Contexts of Domestic Violence When Salvation is Survival Rachel Starr Women Choosing Silence Relationality and Transformation in Spiritual Practice Alison Woolley Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship Chloe Lynch For more information and a full list of titles in the series, please visit: www. routledge.com/religion/series/APPETHEO Explorations in Practical, Pastoral and Empirical Theology Series Editors: Leslie J. Francis, Jeff Astley, Martyn Percy and Nicola Slee

Ecclesial Leadership as Friendship Chloe Lynch

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Chloe Lynch The right of Chloe Lynch to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-02893-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-01935-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

To Peter, my best friend

Foreword xi Acknowledgements xiii List of abbreviations xv Introduction 1 Practical theology and acts of prophetic imagination 1 The movements of prophetic imagination 5 PART I Expressing the pain 9 1 Leadership and the dominant consciousness 11 Leadership, leaders and managerialism13 Managerialism and ecclesial leadership19 Expressing the pain21 2 Seeking an alternative consciousness 33 The pain of a near-silence34 Questioning the language of leadership38 Whispers of incarnation39 Incarnation and practice44 PART II A deep remembering 59 3 Memories of servanthood 61 Servant-leadership61 Servanthood and ecclesial leadership67 Contents

x Contents 4 Memories of incarnation 79 Tracing the inner logic of the incarnation79 Apprehending the reality of God in the incarnation84 5 Memories of the church 95 The kenotic and ek-static community95 The telos of the church and its ministry101 The incarnational and evangelical Christian103 PART III Coding the discourse 113 6 Incarnational ecclesial leadership and the eschatological inbreaking 115 Incarnational ecclesial leadership: an alternative discourse115 Coding the discourse of incarnational ecclesial leadership122 7 ‘I have called you friends . . .’ 127 Friendship in the Facebook generation127 Friendship in John 15:12–17130 Thomas and friendship134 Aelred and friendship139 8 Friendship: love’s ideal 154 Particularity, preference and exclusivity155 Mutuality, vulnerability and fidelity162 Friendship reclaimed166 PART IV Practising hope 177 9 Incarnational ecclesial leadership and the prophetic imagination 179 Imagining incarnational ecclesial leadership as friendship179 Friendship-leadership: imagining a concrete praxis183 Imagining the next steps189 10 Prophetic hope in a groaning creation 201 Appendix: Imagination’s starting points 213 Bibliography 217 Index 254

If theology – whether systematic or practical – is exegesis of the gospel then the politics and economics of such a theology should reflect the gospel and not those of the world it challenges. After all, the gospel’s politics – the greatest is the least – and its economics – we thrive to the degree we give, not keep – turn everything upside down. What, then, might Jesus-shaped leadership similarly look like in both the church and the world? After all, since Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, then an intimate connection exists between the gospel and how the people of God are led. It is astonishing, therefore, how little the world’s greatest leader – who oversees franchises in every country on this planet, who currently has around 2.4 billion followers and commands an organisation that has not only survived but thrived for around two millennia – is taken seriously as a model for leadership. Of course, leadership gurus abound, urging aspiring leaders to encourage, mentor, build trust, coach, be decisive, focus, have integrity and team-build, thus homogenising leadership to a benign set of skills and characteristics. What all these skills and characteristics have in common, despite the nomenclature, is that they perpetuate, not always disingenuously, a veiled divide between ‘them’ – leadership – and ‘us’ – the led. Few critique the grounds on which this kind of leadership mindset rests, let alone dare test its veracity against the claims of Jesus’ gospel. Perhaps the nearest contemporary experts get to a specifically Christological understanding of leadership is afforded in describing Jesus as Servant. Yet, even here the faux characteristics espoused only mask a deeper and more unsettling fact that this understanding of leadership is still an exercise of power over people. As such, something disingenuous lies at the heart of contemporary ecclesial understandings of leadership in their application and praxis. The dissonance between how Jesus led and how contemporary churchmen and women are taught to lead is profound. What I find so compelling about Chloe’s thesis is that it goes to the heart of how Jesus himself led his own followers. Sounds a cliché until we realise Chloe’s intent in this book is to develop a leadership style premised on the fact that Jesus called his disciples friends. Leadership through friendship, a lovely notion – until it is put into practice! Ask anyone in the driving seat of Foreword

xii Foreword people-management. This kind of leadership requires a naking, a becoming vulnerable, a levelling. This is power with – not power over: coactive, not coercive leadership, one that deconstructs any underlying powerplay. This is power-giving at its most vulnerable and most challenging. Jesus-shaped? Certainly – what Chloe argues for here is a form of leadership premised on faith: faith to imagine leadership where vulnerability is celebrated; where leadership embodies the political and economic, personal and social implications of friendship. Most certainly, Jesus’ leadership template is shaped by how he himself led – cross-shaped. Leadership through friendship not only demands vulnerability but also sacrifice. Refreshingly, in critiquing current leadership models Chloe dares imagine in this piece of constructive and practical theology the real possibility of leading as Jesus led – as friend. I am delighted to have been a part of this project. It exudes the very best of academic research and yet is written from the heart of a pastor herself who has agonised over the paucity of resources available that challenge us to re-engineer our leadership in line with Jesus’ own form of leadership. As such, this is theology at its best: theology from the gospel to the church for the world. Dr Graham W.P. McFarlane Director of Research Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology London School of Theology

This project has been an exercise in obedience to the God who called me to risk wild grace. That grace first kills before it makes alive, Ray Anderson says, removing all human possibility until true faith and obedience come as gift of divine grace. Only in that gift comes human participation, the Yes of response to the Word himself. 1 Yet if God had shown me from the beginning just how wild his grace, and how painful the dying, I might never have undertaken or completed the PhD from which this book has been birthed. I am therefore in no doubt that it is thanks to the support of a number of precious people that I have been able to say my Yes of faith and obedience in this particular adventure of divine grace. My thanks are, first, to Dr Graham McFarlane, my doctoral supervisor. Throughout my studies, Graham believed in me, very often much more than I myself. He understood, too, how this project was a faith endeavour from start to finish, modelling to me not just his razor-sharp intellect and robust academic wisdom but also an unshakeable conviction that the righteous live by faith, a reality I now struggle to embody more deeply. Deep gratitude is also due to the wider community of London School of Theology. The ‘gap year’ from the City in 2007 which brought me here has somehow become eleven years and, regularly, I stop in wonder at the privilege of worshipping, teaching and researching in such a beautiful community. Faculty and staff pay what is often a significant price to make space for students to flourish and I am so thankful for all that colleagues past and present have given to me in that respect. The Guthrie community of onsite researchers, too, has been a source of encouragement, Dr Olwyn Mark chief amongst them, and I am grateful also for the critical encouragement of my PhD examiners, Professor Mark Cartledge and Dr William Atkinson. Then there are friends and family. The LifeGiving family was the crucible for this work: for a decade of being church together, we did something of what this project has always been trying to name. Because of that, my theology of ecclesial friendship has names and faces: Noble, Winnie, Paul, Paul and Kamika, I’m looking at you. Thanks are also due to Carol and Johnny who both helped me very intentionally to ‘hold the space for Jesus’. When grace was at its wildest and I thought I could not continue, you each talked Acknowledgements

xiv Acknowledgements and prayed me through. I won’t forget it. I’m thankful, too, for my family who have cheered me on and forgiven me for spending so much time working on this project. After the PhD, I said I’d try to spend less time lost in my work going forward. Preparing the book may have given the lie to that promise: if so, I am sorry! Finally come the two most important expressions of thanks. Peter, my best friend and co-worker in the ministry of Jesus, has done for me more than I can say. That is why this book is dedicated to him, for I consider it fruit of his ministry too. My prayer is that we would learn to embody this kind of ecclesial leadership. Then also my gratitude is to the triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – who has invited me into the Friendship in which all other friendship finds its place. Despite having written about a hundred thousand of them, I find that there are no words to express my response of love. I pray that my life somehow might. ___________ Chapters 1 and 5of this book are derived in part from an article published in the Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association (14/12/17), available online: www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/18124461.2017.1413528 . Note 1 Ray S. Anderson, The Soul of Ministry: Forming Leaders for God’s People, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997, 47.

Writings of Ray S. Anderson Caregiving Ray S. Anderson, Spiritual Caregiving as Secular Sacrament: A Practical Theology for Professional Caregivers , London: Jessica Kingsley, 2003. ‘Christopraxis’ Ray S. Anderson, ‘Christopraxis: The Ministry and the Humanity of Christ for the World’ (11–31) in Trevor A. Hart and Daniel P. Thimell (eds.), Christ in Our Place: The Humanity of God in Christ for the Reconciliation of the World , Exeter: Paternoster, 1989. ‘Empowering’ Ray S. Anderson, ‘Empowering Servant Leadership’, www.allianceofrenewalchurches.org/Resources/ Downloads/files/Servant%20Leadership.pdf, accessed 23/01/14. ETEC Ray S. Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches , Oxford: BRF, 2007. Happy Ray S. Anderson, Everything That Makes Me Happy I Learned When I Grew Up , Downers Grove: IVP, 1995. ‘Holistic’ Ray S. Anderson, ‘Toward a Holistic Psychology: Putting all the Pieces in Their Proper Place’, Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology 1:2 (2007), 5–16. HTRG Ray S. Anderson, Historical Transcendence and the Reality of God: A Christological Critique , London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1975. ‘Making’ Ray S. Anderson, ‘Making the Transition: From a Theology of Ministry to a Ministry of Theology’ (27–38) in Allan Hugh Cole, Jr. (ed.), From Midterms to Ministry: Practical Theologians on Pastoral Beginnings , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. MGB Ray S. Anderson, Minding God’s Business , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2008. MOTF Ray S. Anderson, Ministry on the Fireline: A Practical Theology for an Empowered Church , Downers Grove: IVP, 1993. Abbreviations

xvi Abbreviations OBF Ray S. Anderson and Dennis B. Guernsey, On Being Family: A Social Theology of the Family , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. OBH Ray S. Anderson, On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Self-Care Ray S. Anderson, Self-Care: A Theology of Personal Empowerment and Spiritual Healing , Pasadena: Fuller Seminary Press, 2000. SoG Ray S. Anderson, The Soul of God: A Theological Memoir , Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004. SoM Ray S. Anderson, The Soul of Ministry: Forming Leaders for God’s People , Louisville: WJKP, 1997. Soulprints Ray S. Anderson, Soulprints: Personal Reflections on Faith, Hope and Love , s.l.: Fuller Seminary Press, 1996. SPT Ray S. Anderson, The Shape of Practical Theology: Empowering Ministry with Theological Praxis , Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001. Theological Ray S. Anderson (ed.), Theological Foundations for Ministry , Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. ‘Theology’ Ray S. Anderson, ‘A Theology for Ministry’ (6–21) in Ray S. Anderson (ed.), Theological Foundations for Ministry, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979. ‘Torrance’ Ray S. Anderson, ‘The Practical Theology of Thomas F. Torrance’, The Princeton Theological Review 14:2 (2008), 65–77. Other abbreviations BDAG W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, F.W. Danker (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BRF Bible Reading Fellowship CIPD Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development DLT Darton, Longman & Todd EMQ Evangelical Missions Quarterly EQ Evangelical Quarterly ERT Evangelical Review of Theology ExpTim Expository Times GLOBE Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness IJPT International Journal of Practical Theology IVP InterVarsity Press JBPL Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership

Abbreviations xvii JEPTA Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JRL Journal of Religious Leadership JYM Journal of Youth Ministry n.d. no date NE Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics (tr. David Ross), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology NT New Testament OT Old Testament SJT Scottish Journal of Theology s.l. sine loco SNS social networking sites SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge ST St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (ed. Thomas Gilby et al.), [Cambridge]: Blackfriars, [1964–1981]. SUNY State University of New York Press TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament THES Times Higher Education Supplement WBC Word Biblical Commentary WCC World Council of Churches WJKP Westminster John Knox Press

Practical theology and acts of prophetic imagination It began in Cambridge nineteen years ago. On the Tuesday after Easter in Eden Baptist, a local church leader finished his training session for CICCU 1 college reps by inviting those who felt called to church leadership to raise their hand. On the conveyor belt to the City and only one year a Christian, never having contemplated such a call, I found my heart deeply moved and my hand raised by something quite other than my own volition. That day, I left the church building with no understanding regarding what had transpired. I spoke with no church leader about it, no believer older in the faith, and after some months it was as if I had imagined this divine encounter. Yet, from then onwards, leadership in the church was to prove inextricably woven into the threads of my life, a call and a fascination which I cannot shake. In the years which were to follow, I would wrestle continually, first as practitioner then also as academic, with theological questions about the nature and practice of this call. It was the discipline of practical theology which helped me recognise that my effort to integrate theology and ecclesial leadership practice was, in fact, an act of imagination. Stephen Pattison argues that the exploration, enriching and nurturing of imagination should in fact be seen as one of the main functions of practical theology, 2 a theology which is also to be ‘creative and illuminative, not just analytic, active and useful’ and perhaps even to produce work which ‘sings’. 3 He is not alone. Theologians, more generally, have suggested imagination as ‘vital tool and resource for our grasp and elucidation of the substance of theology’ 4 and as ‘a key category for making sense of . . . hopeful living towards God’s future’. 5 Yet it is perhaps practical theologians who should be most alive to the value of imagination if it is, as Garrett Green contends, the Anknüpfungspunkt or anthropological touching point between revelation and human experience. 6 Of all theologians, we especially should be interested by imagination as the locus in our experience at which divine revelation is able to be encountered. 7 For ours is a discipline which is intentional about the dynamic theory-practice relationship, reflecting critically upon contemporary human experience in conversation Introduction

2 Introduction with theological norms and admitting that such reflection occurs from one’s particular embodied (and therefore socially located) existence as human. Though what is apprehended by acts of imagination transcends the present experience of the one imagining, such acts nevertheless take flight from – and, as I shall consider, are shaped by – the starting points constituted by that experience. For imaginative endeavour occurs at the touching point of revelation and human experience, the same place in which the work of practical theology must occur. Green explains further that imagination, as this locus in our experience, is the capacity by which reality may be apprehended even where it may not be physically experienced. 8 Accordingly, it renders us able to begin to grasp possibilities which are simultaneously real and yet not manifest: we can imagine what we cannot physically see or hear, touch, taste or smell. In the same way, imagination enables the perceiving of theological possibility. In Christ, any theological possibility is, of course, always an eschatological one, a reality as yet beyond human experience (at least in part) because it is both now but also still-coming. This eschatological tension is no less true of ecclesial reality, yet acts of imagination allow us to name, and even in some sense to enter into, the ecclesial reality which God invites us to encounter – all without thereby denying the experience of present reality. In my work as a practical theologian, then, I am fired specifically by the prophetic potential of acts of imagination. Theology in the mode of imagination need not simply be creative and illuminative, as Pattison proposes: where eschatological dynamics are involved, it must also be prophetic. In this respect, Walter Brueggemann’s work is my goad. In his proposals regarding the prophetic imagination, Brueggemann explains that the prophetic task is to imagine and then enact ‘new realities against the more visible ones of the old order’. 9 This is core to my understanding of the practical theological task. We must name the old order, the way things are. Indeed, much valuable work has been done by practical theologians in the descriptive-empirical domain. Yet this cannot be the whole of practical theology. For it is ours also to imagine, and then enact, those new realities by which the church might enter more deeply into her eschatological hope. In the face of the dominant consciousness, Brueggemann proposes, the prophets articulate an alternative consciousness, one which criticises that dominant consciousness with a view to its dismantling and which also acts to energise communities towards a prophetic hope. 10 In a culture satisfied ‘to implement almost anything and to imagine almost nothing’, the prophet must ‘keep alive the ministry of imagination, to keep on conjuring and proposing futures alternative to the single one [which the dominant consciousness] . . . wants to urge as the only thinkable one’. 11 Whilst this book holds central an interest in the way things are, engaging practical theology’s descriptive and interpretative tasks in part I , 12 I also cannot hide that my work is inspired more by Brueggemann’s ministry of imagination, a conjuring of what should be. 13 In a context where concern has been expressed in some quarters that there has been a tendency to lose

Introduction 3 focus on what is theological about practical theology, 14 this book moves in the opposite direction. Any act of imagination needs to be given form if it is not to spiral into a flight of fancy, endlessly ephemeral and impossible to pin down. Though Pattison provides the initial spark for seeing practical theology as imaginative endeavour, he does not offer guidance for the form of practical theology in the mode of imagination. Yet, in Brueggemann’s characterisation of the sub-community which engages in acts of prophetic imagination, I find the beginnings of structure which can give form to this endeavour. 15 Its first tracings appear with most clarity in the preface to the revised edition of The Prophetic Imagination. Commenting on ‘“the natural habitat” of prophetic voices’, Brueggemann identifies four key characteristics typical of the subcommunity which births the prophetic imagination. First, it will have available to it ‘a long and available memory [of] . . . an identifiable past’. Second, there will be an ‘expressed sense of pain . . . understood as unbearable for the long term’. There is, third, ‘an active practice of hope . . . [in] promises yet to be kept’ and, finally, such a sub-community will be party to a ‘richly coded’ identifiable ‘ mode of discourse’. These four pillars are held within a ‘defining . . . conviction that . . . [reality] can and will be different because of the purposes of God that will not relent’. 16 For some years now, it has been my conviction also that things can and will be different. My story, too, has been one of an expressed sense of pain, a frustration in the face of what is the dominant consciousness concerning leadership in the Western church. This pain has increased over a period of years since that now-distant day in Cambridge until I have declared it unbearable for the long term. Although, like Brueggemann, I must admit myself so tangled in the dominant consciousness that the possibility of an alternative is almost inconceivable, 17 yet my imagination has begun to stir over the years. What if, in the context of my pain in the face of that dominant consciousness, I could plumb the deep memories of Christian tradition and code the discourse of an alternative consciousness of ecclesial leadership? What if, in a ‘dominant history . . . [which] consists in briefcases and limousines and press conferences and quotas’, 18 active practices of hope could be imagined by the church? I found myself in Eden Baptist on that day of divine encounter having begun, some months earlier at only eighteen, to co-lead the CICCU college group. I had no idea of the tension which this encounter and call was to produce in me, a tension of deep joy and also this frustration regarding the status quo of Western ecclesial leadership. Always a voracious reader, from then onwards my reading diet became, alongside the law texts and casebooks requisite for my academic and professional training, the full gamut of popular writings on Christian leadership. I drank deeply of all that I could obtain. Tube ride after tube ride, by this time en route to the City law firm, I soaked in the axioms of John Maxwell, I wrestled to understand how the fivefold office of Ephesians translated into leadership, 19 and I longed for the

4 Introduction day that I would be part of a ‘Kingdom Dream Team’. 20 Unfortunately for my 20-something-year-old self, however, Bill Hybels never quite appeared to admit that Dream Teams tend not to land in one’s lap but necessitate what I shall later call ‘lengths of love’ to form! There was plenty to read: the fascination with leadership is everywhere in the Western church. Intensified perhaps by the 1980s Church Growth movement, a leading proponent of which claimed that the primary catalyst in church growth is ‘dynamic leadership’, 21 leadership is declared ‘the hope of the church’. 22 Leadership was further popularised by sources including the prolific writings of Christian leadership guru, John Maxwell, 23 and the launch by Christianity Today, Inc. of the quarterly Leadership Journal , 24 to such an extent that Boolean searching for ‘church AND leadership’ on the WorldCat book database reveals 40,460 publications. 25 The phenomenon is not limited to the US context: the annual Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit conference brings leadership teachings to 600+ sites in 128 nations and is translated into 60 languages. 26 In the UK, Anglicans have also focused on leadership in the ecclesial context in recent years, 27 illustrated by the increasingly popular annual conference from Holy Trinity Brompton/Alpha which celebrates leadership in both ecclesial and marketplace contexts. 28 My leadership learning continued and, over a five-year period postgraduation, I led various small groups in a large Pentecostal church, attended several leadership conferences and listened to podcasts of many more leadership teaching sessions that I had not attended. In 2006, I then undertook a year-long ‘emerging leadership’ initiative in the fledgling church that we had helped to plant the year before, overseeing various ministry areas, contributing to the overall direction of the church and being mentored by the founding leader. I lived and breathed church leadership until finally, in 2007, what had been call and fascination crystallised. I, with my husband Peter and another of the ‘emerging leaders’, was invited to form a leadership team with the church’s founding leader. I continued working as a London lawyer but gave my evenings and weekends to building the church, a gathering fluctuating between 50 and 100 members, at first something of an ethnic diversity but latterly a black-majority congregation, most of whom came to faith amongst us. For several years, I fought tirelessly to lead this congregation alongside the other leaders, who were also bivocational. During that time, the founding leader stepped out of the team, we baptised, taught and eventually sent out many disciples, and I gave up my daily City commute to pursue a theological education. It was, perhaps, the theological education which eventually pushed me to express the pain. By 2010, I was deeply restless. At this stage employed parttime as a leader, I had time to ask questions about the leadership paradigms I had imbibed in my early twenties. I had begun to wrestle with what kind of leader I wanted to be, pushed in part by a Master’s dissertation supervisor also involved in ecclesial leadership. The contours of ecclesial leadership, both as I had learned it in practice from my leadership mentor and from

Introduction 5 the books and conferences and podcasts, appeared little dissimilar from the narratives espoused by leadership in City institutions. Its goals, where they differed from those of secular leadership, were often left implicit and ambiguous. The sense of pain was real as I faced these narratives, adopted as the dominant leadership culture in the Western church. Thus, what had begun in 2000 with an encounter which later seemed almost imagined eventually drove me to ask deeper questions concerning the discourse and practice of ecclesial leadership. Yet for months I struggled to understand where even to commence looking for answers. Then early in 2011, when wondering whether I needed to lay the question aside for someone else to consider, it happened that I was auditing a class in Trinitarian theology. Motivated by sheer interest, I was not looking to find my leadership answers there. Yet something happened that semester. In class after class, I experienced some kind of encounter with the Spirit of Christ in which academia and practice converged for me. I came to believe that in systematics I was receiving a rich theological language by which I might begin to construct thoughts about ecclesial leadership. It was these concrete experiences – of ecclesial leadership, of theological wrestling and of what seemed, once again, like divine encounter – which launched this book. In offering this brief glimpse of my story, 29 I am recognising that a theologian’s context and history affect their choice of research subject, how they undertake the research 30 and where they stand within that field. My story and my context are thus the starting points for my imagination. Such starting points influence my capacity to apprehend a theological reality which may not yet be seen to be manifest in practice, because they both engender the questions I ask and determine the sources which I consider suitable not only to unleash, but also properly to bridle, acts of prophetic imagination. My metatheoretical assumptions, as Richard Osmer calls these starting points, will become apparent throughout the book but they are also set out in detail in the Appendix for those readers who wish for more explicit statements regarding them. The movements of prophetic imagination I have begun already, somewhat informally, to express the sense of pain associated with the dominant consciousness. Yet now it is time to permit Brueggemann’s four pillars of the prophetic sub-community to give shape to the imaginative endeavour. Consistent with these, the chapters which follow are organised into four parts. First, I will name and give more precise form to the sense of pain, one which, as someone immersed in ecclesial life, I consider unbearable for the long term. I will seek to describe the current reality and to interpret why the dominant consciousness prevails. What has been happening and why? The second movement is to engage in a deep remembering. There are normative resources in Scripture and tradition by which we can, in Brueggemann’s words, ‘sink . . . the present generation into an identifiable

6 Introduction past’. 31 Particularly, I will argue that it is time to draw again upon a theology of incarnation and the ecclesiology which it may engender. The third part of the book weaves these rememberings into a way of imagining incarnational ecclesial leadership as it could be. Here I describe its telos and praxis and explore a possible coding of this leadership discourse which stands as an alternative to the dominant consciousness. The final pillar, that of the active practice of hope, is informed by the pillars which precede it. For the active practice of hope is the task of a community which has engaged the prophetic imagination, a community which ‘knows about promises yet to be kept, promises that stand in judgment on the present’. 32 Thus the fourth and final segment of the book synthesises all that has gone before, confirming that the newly coded discourse of leadership correlates with the content of what has been remembered, and explores implications in the context of practical theology’s performative mandate. How, I will ask here, can we practise prophetic hope? Without doubt, a book like this is first intended for a scholarly audience. Yet even as my intended audience is, on one hand, academic practical theologians, in each chapter a second audience is always just on the horizon. This audience comprises practitioners, those who wish to practise ecclesial leadership reflectively as activity of faith. 33 They are admittedly of secondary concern throughout most of the book: a pain which stems, in part, from a relative lack of robust theological engagement with the question of ecclesial leadership demands an academic response. Nevertheless, this is a work for the church and so the final movement of actively practising hope may, particularly, be of interest to that secondary audience of practitioners. Practitioners need rules of art in the context of implementation of prophetic imagination in a creation that groans. In such a fractured and complex reality, we, as practitioners, can lose sight of the eschatological promise, which seems more ‘not yet’ than ‘now’. Yet though practical theology is indeed realistic concerning present experience, it is also eschatologically directed. 34 There are certainly challenges in speaking about ecclesial leadership in a creation that groans, but there is also opportunity to direct our eyes again to the reality which is the eschatological telos towards which the church is moving in Christ. Those exercising ecclesial leadership, more than many, need encouragement in this task. This is exactly what I understand to be my responsibility as a practical theologian. Though I must sink deeply and with scholarly judgment into the memories of the tradition, having first entered into the pain of what is now, and though I must engage with careful academic criticality in coding the discourses of hope, there is yet one more element to consider. My scholarship must serve the church. It must speak encouragement and strength in practical ways to men and women who, together with me, are friends of the Friend. The prophetic imagination must point towards the eschatological practices of hope by which we may give it form. I am inspired by the belief that, even in the context of a creation still waiting for the glorious freedom

Introduction 7 promised, there is value in unleashing the imagination towards a prophetic hope. My contribution here is but a beginning to the work which beckons: indeed, the prophetic imagination only ever means seeing ‘a piece of it all’. 35 Yet, notwithstanding its provisionality and its fragility, perhaps this act of imagination might yet influence ecclesial practices of hope as those engaged in leadership prepare the church to apprehend fully the reality which draws ever nearer in Christ. Notes 1 Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union. 2 Stephen Pattison, The Challenge of Practical Theology: Selected Essays, London: Jessica Kingsley, 2007, 284; cf. Kathleen A. Cahalan and James R. Nieman, ‘Mapping the Field of Practical Theology’ (62–85) in Dorothy C. Bass and Craig Dykstra (eds.), For Life Abundant: Practical Theology, Theological Education, and Christian Ministry , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, 84. 3 Pattison, Challenge , 286. 4 Trevor Hart, ‘Imagining Evangelical Theology’ (191–200) in John G. Stackhouse (ed.), Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Evangelical Method, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000, 192. 5 Trevor Hart, ‘Imagination for the Kingdom of God? Hope, Promise, and the Transformative Power of an Imagined Future’ (49–76) in Richard Bauckham (ed.), God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999, 54. 6 Garrett Green, Imagining God: Theology and the Religious Imagination, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 29, 34. 7 Green, Imagining, 43; Sandra M. Levy, Imagination and the Journey of Faith, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, 103. Leanne Payne calls imagination the ‘intuition of the real’ ( The Healing Presence , Wheaton: Crossway, 1989, 139). 8 Green, Imagining , 63. 9 Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (2nd ed.), Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, 14. 10 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 3. 11 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 40. 12 Here I employ language used by Richard Osmer in his description of typical approaches to practical theological method ( Practical Theology: An Introduction , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 13 In its concern for the ‘ministry of imagination’, the book is thus weighted towards the third of Osmer’s tasks, the normative one, although part IV also takes seriously the last of practical theology’s movements, the pragmatic task. 14 Mark Cartledge, The Mediation of the Spirit: Interventions in Practical Theology , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015, 168. 15 Brueggemann’s project as a whole in The Prophetic Imagination has been generally well-received although it has not met with uniform acceptance. Criticisms, such as they are, tend to be levelled at what is alleged to be an overly critical or unnuanced reading of the monarchy in Israel rather than the concept of the prophetic imagination itself or the description of the sub-community in which it is found (e.g., Denis Baly, ‘The Prophetic Imagination: Walter Brueggemann’, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:2 (1979), 300–301; Henry Rowold, ‘The Prophetic Imagination’, Currents in Theology and Mission 6:6 (1979), 378). For interesting recent discussion of this project, see the collection of articles in volumes 22 and 23 of the Journal of Pentecostal Theology from 2013 and 2014.

8 Introduction 16 Brueggemann, Prophetic , xvi, xviii. 17 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 36. 18 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 36. 19 Phil Greenslade, Leadership: Reflections on Biblical Leadership Today, Farnham: CWR, 2002. 20 Bill Hybels, Courageous Leadership , Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. 21 C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow: Seven Vital Signs of a Healthy Church, Ventura: Regal, 1984, 63. Much literature from this context emphasises ‘highpowered, entrepreneurial leadership exercised by larger-than-life “charismatic” personalities’ (Eddie Gibbs, Leadership Next: Changing Leaders in a Changing Culture , Nottingham: IVP, 2005, 21). 22 Aubrey Malphurs, Being Leaders: The Nature of Authentic Christian Leadership , Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, 12. 23 For full listings of his products, see www.johnmaxwell.com,accessed 18/04/17. The ‘John Maxwell Leadership Library’ is discounted from $6,257 to $3,999, indicating the perceived market value of such content. 24 www.christianitytoday.com/le/, accessed 18/04/17. 25 A Google search raises ‘about 105,000,000 results’; both searches performed 18/04/17. These numbers are purely indicative since a full analysis would require a broader range of search terms and likely produce even more results. 26 Data from www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/index.html#about,accessed 18/04/17. Data was gathered prior to the resignation of Bill Hybels, the accusations made against him and the related reverberations for the Global Leadership Summit and Willow Creek Association. 27 Justin Lewis-Anthony discusses this in You Are the Messiah and I Should Know: Why Leadership Is a Myth and Probably a Heresy, London: Continuum, 2013, 3–34. 28 http://lc18.alpha.org/, accessed 13/09/17. 29 Pete Ward calls this theobiography ( Participation and Mediation: A Practical Theology for the Liquid Church , London: SCM, 2008, 4). 30 John Swinton and Harriet Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, London: SCM, 2006, 60–61. 31 Brueggemann, Prophetic , xvi. 32 Brueggemann, Prophetic , xvi. 33 Bonnie Miller-McLemore locates practical theology in four contexts: scholarly discipline; activity of faith by believers living reflectively; method of study; and curricular area (‘Five Misunderstandings about Practical Theology’, IJPT 16:1 (2012), 5–26, 20). I find myself with interest in all four. In addition to the contexts of scholarly discipline and activity of faith described above, I selfconsciously employ practical theological method and also engage concerns typical of practical theology as curricular area. 34 Kathleen A. Cahalan and Gordon S. Mikoski (eds.), Opening the Field of Practical Theology: An Introduction , Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, 6. 35 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 16.

Part I Expressing the pain

The call of the prophets is, Brueggemann claims, ‘ to nurture, nourish and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us ’. 1 This alternative consciousness of prophetic imagination operates in relation to the dominant consciousness in two ways: first, the critique which it brings is for the dismantling of the ‘present ordering of things’; second, it seeks the energising of the wider faith community by its promise of a future hope. 2 This dialectic is what allows us to be ‘seriously faithful to God’. 3 Before a future hope can be promised, then, it is necessary to engage the dominant ecclesial leadership culture. To do so critically does not mean to claim to stand apart from this culture: those within the prophetic sub-community are also ‘children of the . . . [dominant] consciousness’ and ‘in one way or another, have deep commitments to it’. 4 In fact, a prophetic critique comes from within, from a sub-community which stands in solidarity with the wider community and which weeps ‘as a way of bringing to reality what the [wider community] . . . must see and will not’. 5 This expression of pain through tears is ‘a radical criticism, a fearful dismantling’ of the dominant consciousness. 6 To name that consciousness and to express the pain which is overflow of the prophetic imagination’s work of critical engagement is the task of the first part of this book. Chapter 1 will consider one particular strand of the dominant consciousness in relation to ecclesial leadership, expressing the related pain. In chapter 2 , I will then explore the extent to which the church has begun to articulate a counter-narrative in relation to the category of ‘leadership’, facing here the pain of a near-silence. Various narratives, both cultural and theological, have influenced the dominant consciousness in the English-speaking Western church concerning leadership. Across the global church, of course, the combination of leadership narratives particular to any one place will likely vary to one degree or another. 7 Nevertheless, every act of prophetic imagination is located: its starting points are, as I noted in the Introduction, influenced by the identity of the one imagining, their social location and history. I am within the wider community which is the English-speaking Western church. My focus is thus on leadership theory and ecclesial leadership perspectives emanating from the Leadership and the dominant consciousness 1

12 Expressing the pain English-speaking Western context and, whilst I expect the conceptual work of later chapters to have prospective value for other contexts, my work is shaped by the milieu within which it arises. 8 Although this indicates further work as necessary to consider potential adaptations beyond that context, the narrowing of emphasis also allows specificity in relation to cultural narratives affecting the dominant consciousness regarding ecclesial leadership. Managerialism is a particular cultural narrative which has influenced the wider field of leadership studies and which can be traced into Western ecclesial perspectives on leadership. It is, admittedly, one of several possibilities. Also found in contemporary leadership studies and potentially still influencing Western ecclesial perspectives is the ‘great man’ narrative of leadership, mentioned briefly below. Alternatively, reaching beyond contemporary leadership literature, I might consider the dynamic flowing from association of ecclesial leadership with the professions and their celebration of expertise. 9 However, this descriptive-interpretative chapter must necessarily be brief if there is to be sustained engagement with the normative task of developing an alternative consciousness of ecclesial leadership. Accordingly, I explore only the first of these narratives to make the case for the problematic nature of the dominant consciousness and the necessity of more theologically reflective engagement regarding contemporary ecclesial leadership. For theological narratives would go some way to countering cultural ones. We are formed by the narratives we inhabit, their practices and values becoming our own. 10 These may be self-perpetuating: where we have given ourselves in pursuit of the narrative’s goods, we have also measured success on these terms and, provided that some congregations appear to achieve these goods, the narrative is largely unquestioned. Yet theological reflection, the articulation of competing narratives, might begin to curtail the hegemony of cultural narratives. Certainly, some level of interaction between the field of leadership studies and the theological resources used to construct an alternative consciousness is necessary. This is particularly the case for ecclesial leadership where the literature regarding contemporary practice often draws heavily, if sometimes uncritically, on leadership theory or, alternatively, reads biblical texts without a clear hermeneutic for justifying how these are then applied to contemporary leadership contexts. The former literature often lacks theological depth; the latter tends not to connect its project with an understanding of leadership in its own right, 11 often assuming rather than defining leadership, whether due to ignorance of the field’s significance, recognition of its complexity or a belief that Christian leadership should be defined entirely in biblical-theological terms. Though I understand the latter position, any proposal must not only be theologically secure but must also engage with leadership as currently understood so that where it embraces or departs from secular concepts of leadership, it does so consciously and deliberately. Whilst a cultural narrative has already become intertwined with ecclesial concepts of leadership demanding, I will argue, some form of departure

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 13 therefrom, this does not warrant excluding contemporary leadership theory from the conversation entirely. Thus in this chapter I will trace the narrative of managerialism, showing that it remains significant within the broader field of leadership studies notwithstanding other more recent complexity/systems leadership perspectives and that it has become part of the dominant consciousness of ecclesial leadership, at least in certain quarters. This latter reality is theologically problematic for reasons which I will develop later. In addition to tracing this narrative, and expressing the related pain which accompanies the prophetic imagination’s critical movement of dismantling, I will touch also on the wider story of leadership studies, particularly its complexity and the breadth of ways in which it has been studied, whether in terms of the persons who exercise leadership, the activity of leadership itself, the positions of leadership (which may, of course, be occupied by some who do not engage in leadership activity) and the structures which undergird that leadership. Two building blocks for my case will thereby be identified. First, the dangers of managerialism in ecclesial leadership will be demonstrated, emphasising the need for greater clarity in theological narratives of leadership. Second, the discussion of leadership studies more widely will furnish a way of narrowing focus to a specific aspect of leadership studies, raising certain questions pertaining to leadership. It is not that these are the only questions one might ask. Yet I will argue that they are helpful primary questions, the answers to which will constitute a foundation for future development of this work into other aspects of leadership. Leadership, leaders and managerialism Leadership as a concept is not new 12 and core foundational texts highlight the discipline’s breadth and complexity. 13 In 1978, James MacGregor Burns called leadership ‘one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth’ 14 and, more recently, Keith Grint proposed a hiatus in further research: ‘since the research is making things worse not better we should stop while we are not totally confused’! 15 Given such diversity, only the simplest of overviews is possible and I will permit my focus to be dictated by the two priorities set out above. First, I would ascertain what we mean when we speak of leadership and, second, whether the narrative of managerialism has taken root within the discourse of leadership as a whole. Contemporary leadership theory 16 began by focusing on the leader as the ‘great man’. Sometimes described as ‘trait theory’, the emphasis was on identifying the traits common to leaders which enabled them to wield and amass power. 17 Whilst some date this to the early twentieth century, 18 Justin Lewis-Anthony attributes it to Thomas Carlyle’s 1840 lectures on heroes and the heroic. 19 From here, and perhaps in reaction thereto, 20 emphasis moved from the ‘history makers’ to the contextual factors which called them forth. 21 Such contextual or situational theories were, partly, also a progression from

14 Expressing the pain behavioural theories which attended less to intrinsic leadership traits and more to leadership behaviours. Behavioural theories had identified two primary behaviours (task and relationship), the best-known model being Blake and Mouton’s grid. 22 The situational approach, developed from the late 1960s onwards, went further to assume that a leader would adapt their behaviour/ style to their followers, especially in terms of the level of directive (task) and supportive (relationship) behaviours. 23 These behavioural and situational theories constituted a shift in emphasis from leaders to leadership. Given this shift in interest from questions of who leads to questions regarding the activity of leadership it is unsurprising that, around this time, research began to consider leader-follower interactions rather than simply the acts of leaders towards their followers. These were designated ‘transactions’, an exchange of value whereby followers granted power to the leader, joining in pursuit of their goal, in return for money, goods or general wellbeing. 24 Yet Burns’ work in 1978 challenged this characterisation, suggesting that power should be conceived not as an object for a leader’s use but as a relational category, a connection to others. 25 Transformational, rather than transactional, leadership should engage followers not only towards achieving a goal but also uplift them in motivation and morality towards becoming leaders themselves. 26 Within the emphasis on follower-transformation, a further theory arose. Adaptive leadership refers to mobilising the capacity of followers to engage with ‘adaptive challenges’ and thrive. It differentiates these from ‘technical challenges’ which require only ‘tune-up’ work to existing structures and methods. Adaptive challenges rather demand entirely new practices and ways of thinking. 27 In particular, such change requires meaning-making through the use of narrative, practices and symbols. 28 Peter Senge’s focus on the learning organisation is similar in its recognition of the significance of follower mobilisation. Arguing against leadership’s individualisation, he characterises leading as the enabling of learning by teams and groups, 29 again an interest in leadership as activity rather than in ‘leader(s)’. Margaret Wheatley’s work on complexity theory and leadership epitomises most clearly this systems thinking. Her approach considers that leadership’s ‘ultimate destination . . . is the realization that teams are quite capable of being self-managed, and that organizations require something very different from leaders’. 30 Driven by Wheatley’s realisation that she and colleagues, expert management consultants, did not know how to lead organisational change successfully, 31 this work characterises leadership as best understood in a ‘quantum’, rather than ‘Newtonian’, paradigm. 32 The quantum worldview perceives organisations as having a high degree of self-organisation and as being relational networks, not entities comprised of individuals. It impacts significantly an understanding of leadership: instead of leadership as control and the imposition of meaning by the few, it becomes leadership’s goal to enable the organisation to articulate and develop its own collective identity, supporting it as it lives by its own values. 33 Followers are equipped ‘to see how their personal patterns

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 15 and behaviors contribute to the whole’, the surprise being that they themselves then embrace change. 34 Thus, such leadership trusts that by facilitating followers’ receipt of information concerning the whole and by encouraging congruence between the professed values of that whole and the behaviours of the individual follower, order will emerge from chaos. Such a model is affirmed by Dee Hock from his experience with VISA. 35 However, although greeted with widespread interest, this rejection of leadership as control or imposition of meaning by the few is not yet mainstream practice. 36 Brief though this summary is, it suffices to reveal the diversity and complexity of leadership studies. It is partly the superabundance of research which brings the confusion endemic to the field, such that an article in the THES argued for minimising the ‘quasi-philosophical stuff’ and maximising the ‘real-life examples’ of leadership. 37 Joseph Rost concludes in his wideranging survey of that research that in an ‘industrial leadership paradigm’ leadership became ‘great men and women with certain preferred traits influencing followers to do what the leaders wish in order to achieve group/ organizational goals that reflect excellence defined as some kind of higherlevel effectiveness’. 38 Leadership had essentially become ‘good management’ by notable individuals. 39 Rost proposes that this paradigm must give way to a new understanding for a postindustrial age, arguing that though Burns attempted this in 1978 he was, contrary to earlier optimistic evaluations, largely unsuccessful. 40 Rost’s critique, made in 1991 but reiterated in 2008, 41 is correct in noting the continuing pull of the ‘great man’ narrative. The Superleader myth endures. Our culture longs for the leader who will tell us what to do, who will lead from where we are into a utopian future and, so, despairs when they fail. Media coverage of political party leaders and corporate leaders, 42 together with some of Hollywood’s blockbuster films 43 and the popularity of Jim Collins’ writings on the ‘level 5’ leader, 44 suffices to indicate the culturally embedded nature of this idea of leadership as singular and allpowerful. Yet the Superleader narrative is myth. As early as the 1940s, one review of twenty research studies demonstrated that only 5 per cent of leadership traits assessed were common to more than three studies, undermining ‘great man’ theories. 45 Countering this myth, rather than focusing on leader as individual or on leadership position, I will pursue leadership as activity, 46 defined particularly as a process of influencing 47 other(s) 48 towards a goal or objective. 49 This definition, at least, is agreed upon as leadership’s ‘essence’ by ‘most’ commentators, 50 even if research approaches then diverge broadly. Because my primary focus is leadership as activity, and not who leads, I am not in this study limiting leadership to specific persons, although some may exercise leadership more consistently and thus be ‘leaders’. In this way, both assigned and emergent leadership 51 are included, recognising leadership as a complex, multilateral process. 52 Whilst future work could consider the issue of which persons may be assigned leadership authority and responsibility, 53 the

16 Expressing the pain breadth of the field demands tight boundaries on this project. Thus, for clarity, language of ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’, where used in this book, denotes who is influencing and who is being influenced by any leadership act. This terminology should not be construed as stating that some are positionally leaders or followers; though there may be positional dynamics in some exercises of leadership, depending on how secondary questions of structure and position have been answered in a particular context, focus here is on the activity of leadership which is in principle possible also for those without positional authority. Thus, in this study, ‘leader’ denotes anyone exercising (even episodically) the leadership being described. 54 This leadership definition includes leadership activity ‘as it happens’. To demand that the goal is accomplished as intended before a process may be called leadership limits leadership researchers’ evaluations to situations which are now past; it does not allow leadership to be characterised as such until ‘after the event’. 55 Yet leadership outcomes depend on many variables and can be immediate or delayed. 56 Furthermore, conceptual reflection, as opposed to empirical case study research, cannot proceed on an ‘after the event’ basis. Thus, I will not, indeed cannot, consider the degree to which leadership produces results, although I will allude to those realities which might facilitate or hinder such outcomes. What remains core, however, is that intentionality in the exercise of influence towards the goal is fundamental. Without this, there is no leadership. 57 Simon Western supports Rost’s second critique – that leadership has become good management pursuing ‘higher-level effectiveness’. 58 Yet leadership as defined does not intrinsically presuppose the same functions as management: indeed, leadership and management are generally perceived as ‘distinct processes’ and, sometimes, as ‘qualitatively different and mutually exclusive’. 59 Management limits organisational chaos. 60 Its core functions are planning, organisation, commanding, co-ordinating and controlling. 61 Management is not without narrative but is value-laden. 62 Particularly, where narratives of managerialism are operative, the priorities determined in the context of management functions 63 are shaped by the market: ‘systematic application of the means of securing ever greater efficiency, calculability, predictability and control’, 64 the four pillars of what is sometimes called the McDonaldisation dynamic. 65 As Martin Parker notes, there are other approaches to organisation of a group’s activities: management’s functions might be governed by narratives other than managerialism. 66 However: for managerialists, the market is treated as if it were a global historical force . . . a descriptive certainty and a prescriptive inevitability . . . add[ing] up to a kind of moral imperative . . . towards the greatest good of the greatest number. 67 Managerialism is linked with Taylorism which pursued optimised workplace efficiency by standardising not only the method of completing tasks,

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 17 but also the tools required, time allocated and type of specialist worker most suited to the task. 68 Though Taylorism might appear to have faded, Western identifies its twenty-first century resurgence, dubbing it ‘Control by numbers’. 69 This focus on control is affirmed by Parker who describes managerialism’s three core assumptions as the control of nature, control of humans and increasing control of organisational abilities. 70 Whilst management functions are not co-extensive with leadership, leadership may, depending on context, benefit from and even require undergirding by management’s functions, that is, its organisational structures and co-ordinating processes. Yet leadership is not defined by these management functions nor need the priorities of managerialism dictate the goal of leadership: the two are separable. Nevertheless, though leadership need not be shaped by managerial priorities, it often has been. Whilst preferring not to make hard distinctions between the functions of leadership and management, a recent commentator describes the continuing dominance of narratives emphasising predictability, control and efficiency. 71 More systemic perspectives on leadership like those of Heifetz, Senge, Wheatley and Hock have not deposed this dominance of narratives of managerialism. 72 Indeed, Mark Hughes claimed in 2016 that the paradigm remains ‘intact, more resistant to change and even more pronounced’ than before. 73 In limiting focus to leadership as activity, then, I do not deny the centrality of positions and process: as organisational complexity increases, so does the need for the activity of leadership to be undergirded by structures and coordinating processes. 74 Yet the questions core to leadership as activity – its goal and its process of influencing – are separable from questions of organisational structure and co-ordinating processes and answers to the former must inform answers to these latter, secondary, questions. In this way, not only will managerial narratives not shape leadership priorities; managerial narratives will be displaced by the ultimate leadership goal as the priority shaping the functions of management. Implicitly, answers to the primary leadership questions must also inform answers given regarding what we might call subsidiary objectives. By subsidiary objectives, I mean those ends which may not relate to the overarching goal identified for leadership yet which must be engaged, negatively, to ensure continuing freedom to pursue that primary goal without hindrance or, positively, to contribute to its accomplishment. Achieving movement towards these subsidiary objectives may be seen as the domain of management, the functions of which are to plan and organise implementation of the subsidiary tasks necessary to co-ordinate movement towards the overarching goal; alternatively, they may be characterised as leadership’s domain in that each of these objectives, though subsidiary, is a goal in its own right towards which others must be led. There is, at this level, a certain fluidity between leadership and management. I do not deny this. Yet, whichever way we lean here, the argument is the same. For, however this dynamic is classified, the fact remains that these are subsidiary objectives;

18 Expressing the pain their accomplishment is for the sake of the primary leadership goal and thus must not undermine leadership towards that goal. Any subsidiary objective, including leadership processes of influence towards it or management processes of implementation thereof 75 as well as decision-making processes regarding it, must be consistent with the primary goal of leadership and related process of influence. If not, unsustainability will quickly follow. Often, however, the reverse has been operative, the narratives of managerialism eclipsing whatever was leadership’s goal. Economic efficiency and effectiveness have become defining characteristics of Western modernity with productivity through optimisation of process extolled as an end in itself, the ‘Control by numbers’ discourse which I mentioned. 76 The prevalence of managerialism in leadership has been impelled by the erroneous assumption that efficiency is neutral 77 with organisational leaders and managers as ‘morally neutral characters whose skills enable them to devise the most efficient means of achieving whatever end is proposed’, an assumption resulting in a potentially tyrannical separation of efficiency from the morality of the ends being served. 78 Measurement is, in line with market demand for calculability, then required to demonstrate that resources have been employed successfully towards a telos (effectiveness) and optimally (efficiency). Yet effectiveness and efficiency tend to be used interchangeably, perhaps because success, or effectiveness, in this context blurs with a drive for optimisation of outcomes: 79 ‘[i]n McDonaldized systems, quantity has become equivalent to quality; a lot of something, or the quick delivery of it, means it must be good’. 80 Charles Taylor identifies success as now comprising both technical management of organisational growth and satisfaction of individuals’ choices. He associates the former with modernity’s assignment of primacy to instrumental reason. According to this rationale, success is growth, emphasising efficiency: an optimal cost-output ratio is the mythical grail. 81 Indeed, the second potential criterion of success – fulfilment of the individual’s narcissistic desires – is a simple widening in the scope of such a rationale: using resources so as to promote individuals’ ‘happiness and wellbeing’ 82 is itself potentially a gearing towards economic efficiency of output because it ensures repeat business from satisfied customers. Where success is defined in terms of optimising economic and other resources towards an eventual goal of maximal profit and consumer fulfilment, and where there is a lack of other guidance in leadership theory regarding appropriate ways to define the telos to which leadership should be directed, managerial narratives tend to prevail. Leadership defaults towards managerial priorities, subsuming any other goal and related measure of effectiveness. Provided that the cost-output ratio is maximised and comfort of individuals assured, few questions may arise concerning the appropriateness of any other leadership outcomes: efficiency and individual fulfilment become the ultimate telos unless some other overarching goal is being clearly and consistently articulated against this narrative. 83

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 19 Managerialism and ecclesial leadership The narratives of managerialism have also leaked into the church, 84 which is not immune to its surrounding cultural narratives, with ‘managerial forms . . . simply . . . layered on top of the church’s self-understanding’. 85 In a context of growing marginalisation, 86 indeed confusion regarding the ecclesial leader’s task, 87 a ‘clergyman[’s] . . . theological insights and pastoral experience have no market value’. 88 Ecclesial leaders have thus perceived benefit in presenting themselves as a product, specifically, experts with a sought-after competence, 89 one centred largely on organisational management for the provision of ‘spiritual goods and services through a centralized structure’. 90 The focus in some quarters on priorities typically associated with managerialism is evident in that many churches, perhaps especially those influenced by the Church Growth movement, 91 have measured leadership success in terms of maximising the ABCs – attendance, buildings and cash. 92 This is perhaps even the ‘common path’ of defining success. 93 The affirmation by Barna’s 2011 research of the particular centrality of attendance in evaluating success 94 may indicate a focus on efficiency, confusing the ‘“real church” [with] . . . the one that can be . . . measured’ by quantitative indicators 95 and ensuring, in Michael Budde’s arrestingly disturbing phrase, ‘more sheepper-shepherding-unit’. 96 Certainly, Richard Smith’s study of a local church which transitioned to become a global multi-church is a rather concerning example of ecclesial managerialism. It correlates the priorities espoused by the church’s leadership in order to accomplish the transition with the four elements of the McDonaldisation thesis, emphasising particularly the importance of organisational structure, the need for leaders to measure success based on attendance, giving and member retention rates, and the focus on uniformity of services and even of interior décor of church buildings separated by thousands of miles. As Smith notes, ‘once the system is in place in a local branch, anyone could run it’: 97 to lead has become simply to perpetuate the system. Admittedly, counter-movements such as the emerging church and the emphasis on spiritual formation have opposed the managerial paradigm of success. 98 Kent Carlson and Mike Lueken recount a fascinating story as leaders of a church which rejected the managerial models emphasising productivity and numbers which they found embedded in Western ecclesial culture. 99 However, these counter-movements have not yet eradicated the paradigm, 100 mainly because of that paradigm’s tenacity but also in part perhaps because each has experienced its own challenges, one with accusations of heresy against its ‘emergent’ strand, 101 the other with avoiding spiritual syncretism regarding its affirmation of certain contemplative practices. 102 It is unsurprising that the church looks to business schools and corporate leaders to understand leadership: professors of American business schools author much of the Christian leadership literature and American business and government leaders are often the most high-profile speakers at US megachurch Willow Creek’s Leadership Summit whilst, in cross-pollination of

20 Expressing the pain expertise, business schools are using evangelical megachurches as paradigms for business leadership. 103 Consider, for example, the relationship between Jack Welch (ex-GE) and Bill Hybels (ex-Willow Creek), 104 work co-authored by Hybels and well-known business consultant Ken Blanchard, 105 and the adoption of Rick Warren’s ‘40 Days of Purpose’ by major corporations. 106 This has been a pattern for some time. Even as early as 1976, it was remarked ruefully that, within the Lutheran tradition: questions of polity were not to be argued by theological considerations, but by considerations of ‘efficiency’. The result has . . . been . . . [imitation of] – usually about fifteen years behind – the sort of organization currently dominant in society. 107 The phenomenon of ‘almost complete rapprochement . . . between . . . business and religious organisations’ 108 is not limited to the US. In the UK, Anglicanism evinces similar traces of managerialism as the church looks to business, with its embedded managerial narratives, to understand leadership. This was explored by Lewis-Anthony in 2013 109 and, previously, heavily critiqued by Richard Roberts. 110 Stephen Pattison’s scathing judgment is that ‘management and . . . [Anglicanism] have kissed and are in the process of happily lying down together’, 111 whilst Gerlinde Mautner identifies so-called religious and managerial discourses in ecclesial contexts. 112 Further, UK scholar John Drane argues that Ritzer’s McDonaldisation thesis regarding the four priorities of managerialism finds application also in the church, 113 something Ritzer himself affirmed in 2015. 114 From an Australian perspective, Stephen Pickard’s reflection is less stinging but does suggest that managerialism’s pursuit of efficiency may centralise ecclesial power, preserving the status quo, 115 whilst Scott Cowdell describes managerialism as a ‘cult . . . increasingly annexing the ecclesial imagination in Australia and throughout the West’. 116 As we saw, the narratives of managerialism are underpinned by the market model. 117 In contexts where the market prevails, ‘religious traditions become consumer commodities [with] . . . a good deal of religious activity . . . dominated by the logic of market economics’. 118 Correlation has been suggested between factors guaranteeing the success of churches and factors indicating market success (for example, church polity/organisational structure, clergy/sales representative, religious doctrine of life/product and evangelisation techniques/marketing techniques). 119 Indeed, Barna advocates adopting market models as means of ‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ ministry. 120 Cross-pollination of symbols and practices thus ensues between for-profit entities and the church, yet the market wins the contest in determining their meaning. 121 The market mentality treats the church like a business offering products to defined markets, with pursuant leadership implications including the maintenance of congregational solvency by satisfying the market 122 and ‘managing perception’. 123 This, surely, reinforces ABC success criteria:

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 21 because convictions regarding effectiveness in marketing practices are ‘valueladen’, not neutral, they begin to shape ecclesiology rather than vice versa, reinforcing or creating ends commensurate with the means and demanding, especially, outcomes capable of quantitative valuation. 124 Alongside elements of efficiency, ecclesial leadership driven by the market also emphasises managerialism’s second strand: delivering fulfilment to individuals. William Willimon claims that ecclesial leadership ‘attempt[s] . . . to service the needs of . . . self-centered consumers, without critique or limit of those needs’. 125 It is not that pursuing increased attendance and resources or meeting needs is necessarily inappropriate; rather, these must be limited by a telos constructed from theological reflection instead of pragmatism and market exigencies. The dynamic of cross-pollination fuels concern, however, that churches may choose quantitative metrics not for theological reasons but because what might have been the church’s ultimate telos has been eclipsed by managerial priorities relating to organisational growth. 126 I do not necessarily reject measurements of ecclesial movement towards its telos: certainly, where the telos is theologically defined, measurement of success would likely be beneficial. 127 Yet measuring the ABCs may indicate focus on substitute teloi, dictated by managerial narratives of leadership. Admittedly, growth towards much of what is of value in a theologically conceived reality is hard to measure, 128 and numbers of attendance, buildings and cash are simpler to quantify than fruitfulness and human flourishing. Yet numbers alone, though of some relevance where the story they tell is read through theological lenses rather than those of managerialism, may reveal less than hoped. Furthermore, measuring such things as the ABCs may ‘shift . . . the focus of effort from the elusive essence to the measurable proxy’. 129 It is this potential eclipsing of telos which makes the normative thrust of following chapters particularly significant. Optimisation of resources towards maximal output (often attendance numbers – which, of course, also represent cash revenue) and individual fulfilment may appear to be what works but may not be what ought to be. Whilst methodological concerns are not irrelevant, and pragmatism has its place, these should be critiqued and limited by primary theological reflection concerning the nature and purpose of ecclesial leadership. Thus, let us turn to explicit critique of some of the painful implications of the widespread managerial dynamic in ecclesial leadership, 130 strengthening the claim that a more intentionally theological proposal is required. Expressing the pain Adopting managerialism’s priorities constitutes, first, a failure to recognise ecclesial leadership’s proper source and context. Because the church’s ground of being is in Christ, 131 any understanding of ecclesial leadership must be determined by its source in him and by the context in which such leadership is to be exercised, namely the church as the historical people of God.

22 Expressing the pain John Milbank notes that despite theologians’ tendency to appropriate other accounts of reality and ‘then to see what theological insights will cohere with it’, there are no such fundamental accounts and thus theology must delineate its own version of history’s final causes: the ‘framework of reference implicit in Christian story and action’ is different from other cultural systems, a ‘counter-ontology’. 132 Yet the counter-assumption of leadership influenced by business models is that leadership principles are universal, irrespective of socioethnic or religious context. 133 Such an assumption is inherently easier to wrestle with than the idea that ecclesial leadership must be conditioned by an understanding of its Christological source: a leadership which abides by pragmatic universalities will always be simpler to implement than a characterisation of leadership as requiring interaction with Christ as living person and with those being led as the people of God being formed in Christ. 134 The former may also be more attractive, for employing such a model offers ‘clarity and security’: everyone knows where they stand in what is essentially a quantifiable ‘set of tasks and exchanges’ with defined processes moulding relationships. 135 Yet, in some sense, adoption of such a secularising frame of reference flows from a marginalisation of theology to sociology, equating to loss of the church’s self-identity. Where such marginalisation leads to ecclesial leadership becoming informed by values of something other than theology, a theological framework is displaced from the heart of such ministry however overtly the church may apparently profess it. 136 Uncritical adoption of such cultural systems is therefore problematic: precisely because the church has a ‘counter-ontology’, pragmatism must not prevail. The second concern is how managerial priorities may shape a leadership telos. Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘Manager’ character clearly captures the tendency of managerialism towards treating the telos of its work as beyond its remit, with the emphasis on ‘technique . . . effectiveness in transforming raw materials into final products, unskilled . . . into skilled labor, investment into profits’. 137 The final purpose of such leadership is largely irrelevant: what matters is efficiency which becomes, in practice, a substitute telos with the attendant risk that leaders become less concerned with where they end up than whether they got there efficiently. As discussed, such a telos is not morally neutral, having become aligned with economic output and the promotion of privatised fulfilment. It is not and can never be the telos of ecclesial leadership which, however defined in detail, must fundamentally be related to the preparation of a people in Christ through the Spirit for the Father, as later chapters will consider. Moreover, despite the church’s apparent subscription to the modernist pursuit of efficiency, this pursuit is eroding in the outside world, albeit slowly. 138 Postmodernity denounces ‘the so-called objective sources that give power to leaders’ as too easily enabling abuse of power for financial gain. 139 Indeed because, for postmoderns, truth cannot be reduced to a series of propositions divorced from culture and history, supposedly generically applicable axioms of leadership are deemed highly suspect, proceeding as they do not from any objectivity but rather

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 23 from historical contingencies: 140 here, a worldview conditioned by capitalism where financial gain and control are the drivers. What confidence can leadership conditioned by the pursuit of efficiency offer regarding the service of moral ends benefitting those being led rather than the enrichment and empowering of a few? 141 Finally, managerial effectiveness operates as fiction: it is based on presuppositions which cannot be proven and produces effects ‘too often only coincidentally related to the effects of which [its] . . . users boast’. 142 Contemporary theorists support this postmodern ambivalence: as Wheatley indicates, the leadership of modernity, which assumes that application of the right principles can enable organisational change to occur, is almost certainly struggling to deliver in the environment of complex change flowing from the high level of interconnectedness prevailing in contemporary society and the erosion of societal norms within contexts of cultural liminality. 143 Further, this modern leadership, with its focus on organisational management according to supposed universal principles, is essentially mechanistic, 144 affording little attention to the reality that ‘the real shaping of a community . . . comes from the thousands and millions of small, supposedly insignificant interactions we can never see or incorporate into our data and plans’. 145 Even on the (not-guaranteed) occasions that such leadership principles successfully enable alignment of resources to achieve a goal, to use them in relation to people risks a process of objectification and control, 146 given their roots in a paradigm which seeks ‘the manipulation of human beings into compliant patterns of behavior’. 147 This, surely, the church cannot affirm. In light of this, managerialism’s infiltration of ecclesial leadership is problematic. For it: seek[s] to shape the affections, dispositions and desires of .  .  . [its] disciples . . . make[s] definitive claims about the nature of reality and human existence, and . . . require[s] that other loyalties . . . be oriented to [it] . . . in an inferior or subordinated fashion. 148 The pain of such a reality is unbearable for the long term. Though this reality may have been fed by the desire of leaders to stave off marginalisation through reframing their work as organisational management, and by the degree to which this narrative was already embedded in wider concepts of leadership, the result cannot compensate the loss of an understanding of the source, context and telos of ecclesial leadership. Whilst management functions of organisation and co-ordination may benefit leadership in the ecclesial context, 149 narratives of managerialism must not be permitted to replace a theologically determined telos for ecclesial leadership with substitute priorities such as efficiency and control. Articulation of an alternative to the dominant leadership consciousness is urgent. Yet what kind of theological narrative of ecclesial leadership has been offered to counter the cultural story?

24 Expressing the pain Notes 1 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 3. 2 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 3. 3 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 4. 4 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 39. 5 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 46. 6 Brueggemann, Prophetic , 57. 7 The GLOBE research studied how culture impacts approaches to leadership, concluding that perspectives on leadership could be categorised into a variety of cultural groups, one of which was Anglophone Western nations including the UK, US and Australia (Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2016, 430–451; Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations (global ed.), Harlow: Pearson Education, 2013, 350–352). I assume that this cultural diversity is true of the church also. 8 References to ‘Western’ and ‘West’ denote the English-speaking West throughout, unless otherwise stated. 9 Quentin Kinnison, ‘The Pastor as Expert and the Challenge of Being a Saltwater Fish in a Freshwater Tank’, JRL 13:1 (2014), 1–30; Alan E. Lewis, ‘Vocation in the Ecclesia Crucis’ (110–128) in Christian D. Kettler and Todd H. Speidell (eds.), Incarnational Ministry: The Presence of Christ in Church, Society, and Family (Essays in Honor of Ray S. Anderson), Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1990; Jackson W. Carroll, ‘Reflections of a ClergyWatcher’, Duke University Divinity School Retirement Lecture (18/04/01), pulpitandpew.org/sites/all/themes/pulpitandpew/files/clergywatcherlecture. pdf, accessed 11/07/17. 10 James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation , Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. 11 Bârd Erik Hallesby Norheim, ‘A Grain of Wheat: Towards a Theological Anthropology for Leading Change in Ministry’, JRL 13:1 (2014), 59–77, 61 n.8, 67. Lewis A. Parks and Bruce C. Birch constitute an exception, arguing for ‘robust correlation of scripture and theology with the best thinking in secular leadership studies’ ( Ducking Spears, Dancing Madly: A Biblical Model of Church Leadership, Nashville: Abingdon, 2004, 22–24). The June 2016 revision of a significant text begins to recognise this failure by expanding what was four pages in the 2004 edition to a full chapter on leadership as academic discipline, although integration thereof with Christian perspectives is minimal (Bernice M. Ledbetter, Robert J. Banks and David C. Greenhalgh, Reviewing Leadership: A Christian Evaluation of Current Approaches (2nd ed.), Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016). 12 Joseph C. Rost offers an etymology of this word group and a history of definitions ( Leadership for the Twenty-First Century, New York: Praeger, 1991, chs. 3–4). 13 Northouse, Leadership; Rost, Leadership; Yukl, Leadership; Keith Grint, Leadership: Limits and Possibilities , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 14 James MacGregor Burns, Leadership , New York: Harper & Row, 1978, 2. 15 Grint, Leadership , 17. 16 Some suggest that leadership theories are distinct from one another and easily classified. I concur with Rost, who considers this inaccurate ( Leadership, 27), listing key theories for indicative purposes only. 17 Yukl, Leadership , 28. 18 Northouse, Leadership , 19. 19 Lewis-Anthony, Messiah, 45; Eugene E. Jennings, An Anatomy of Leadership: Princes, Heroes, and Supermen , New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960, 5–6.

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 25 20 Stogdill challenged the trait theories, finding no common denominator that consistently differentiated leaders from non-leaders and arguing that those traits were situation-dependent (Northouse, Leadership, 20–21 quoting Ralph M. Stogdill, ‘Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature’, Journal of Psychology 25 (1948), 35–71). His research twenty-five years later reserved a place for traits alongside the situational factors (Bernard M. Bass, Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research (rev. ed.), New York: Free Press, 1981, 43–96). 21 Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers, Cambridge: Belknap/ Harvard University Press, 1994, 16. 22 Northouse, Leadership , 74–78; Yukl, Leadership , 71. 23 Northouse, Leadership, 93–103; Paul Hersey, Kenneth H. Blanchard and Dewey F. Johnson, Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (8th ed.), Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 2001, ch.8. Situational theory relates closely to contingency theories: Fiedler’s contingency theory emphasised matching the right leader with the right behaviours or style and right circumstances, becoming mainstream in the 1960s (Georgia J. Sorenson and George R. Goethals, ‘Leadership Theories: Overview’ (867–874) in George R. Goethals, Georgia J. Sorenson and James MacGregor Burns (eds.), Encyclopedia of Leadership Vol. 2 , Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004, 869). 24 Burns, Leadership , 4. 25 Burns, Leadership , 20. 26 Burns, Leadership , 20. 27 Heifetz, Leadership, 20–22, ch.2. For a Christian appropriation: Tod Bolsinger, Canoeing the Mountains: Christian Leadership in Uncharted Territory, Downers Grove: IVP, 2015. 28 Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991; Scott Cormode, Making Spiritual Sense: Christian Leaders as Spiritual Interpreters, Nashville: Abingdon, 2006, 70–107. Cormode writes concerning Christian leadership which he considers ‘fundamentally an act of theological interpretation’ ( Making, x–xi). 29 Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization , London: Century Business, 1993, 340. 30 Scott London, ‘Interview of Margaret Wheatley’, www.scottlondon.com/inter views/wheatley.html, accessed 11/07/17. 31 London, ‘Interview’. 32 Margaret J. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (2nd ed.), San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1999, 27–47. 33 Wheatley, Leadership , 129–131. 34 Wheatley, Leadership , 144. 35 Dee Hock, One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2005. 36 Yukl, Leadership , 290. 37 Winston Fletcher, ‘Lots of Bark, Little Bite for Top Dogs’, THES (20/10/06), www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/lots-of-bark-little-bite-for-topdogs/206191.article, accessed 13/09/17. 38 Rost, Leadership , 180. 39 Rost, Leadership , 94. 40 Rost, Leadership, 181. Bernard M. Bass extended and refined Burns’ work ( Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, New York: Free Press, 1985, 20–22); cf. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge, New York: Harper & Row, 1985. Exemplifying how this thinking has been incorporated into Christian leadership models, Leighton Ford describes his proposals as influenced by Burns, Bass and Bennis ( Transforming

26 Expressing the pain Leadership: Jesus’ Way of Creating Vision, Shaping Values and Empowering Change, Downers Grove: IVP, 1991, 21–22, 26–27). Today, however, transformational theories focus more on attaining pragmatic task-related goals over ‘moral elevation of followers or social reform’ (Yukl, Leadership , 312). 41 Joseph Rost, ‘Followership: An Outmoded Concept’ (53–66) in Ronald E. Riggio, Ira Chaleff and Jean Lipman-Blumen (eds.), The Art of Followership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. 42 E.g., Rowena Mason, ‘Jack Straw: Gordon Brown Was Not Up to Being Prime Minister’, The Telegraph (28/09/12), www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9574183/ Jack-Straw-Gordon-Brown-was-not-up-to-being-Prime-Minister.html, accessed 11/07/17; David Magee, ‘GE’s Immelt Overcoming Welch’s Legacy’, International Business Times (22/07/11), www.ibtimes.com/ges-immelt-over coming-welchs-legacy-300855,accessed 11/07/17; cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords (ed. Edwin H. Robertson, tr. John Bowden), London: Collins, 1970, 191–200. 43 Lewis-Anthony reviews Hollywood war-films and Westerns to identify this persisting myth of ‘great man leadership’ ( Messiah , chs.4–7). 44 Jim Collins, Good to Great , London: Random House, 2001, 17–40. 45 John Adair, Effective Leadership Development , London: CIPD, 2006, 9. 46 Northouse, Leadership , 7–8; Bolman and Deal, Reframing , 344–346. 47 Northouse, Leadership, 6. Yukl also mentions ‘facilitating’ efforts towards achieving a task ( Leadership, 23). Rost speaks of influence but not process specifically ( Leadership, 180). Leadership is presented as ‘an interactive event’ (Northouse, Leadership , 6). 48 Yukl, Leadership , 23; Northouse, Leadership , 6; Rost, Leadership , 180. 49 Northouse, Leadership, 6; Rost, Leadership, 180; Yukl, Leadership, 23. In their textbook, Doris Schedlitzki and Gareth Edwards describe using Northouse’s definition most often in their teaching ( Studying Leadership: Traditional and Critical Approaches , London: Sage, 2014, 4). 50 Yukl, Leadership , 18, 188. 51 Northouse, Leadership , 8–10. 52 Bolman and Deal, Reframing, 344–346; Yukl, Leadership, 19–20. I seek simply to name the process of influence and the primary end to which leadership is directed in the church: I will not attend to specific leadership tasks (related to objectives subsidiary to that primary end) which may be attributed as the responsibility, principally, of those who exercise leadership consistently. 53 This would be profitable: as chapter 9 reflects, some role differentiation is inevitable in any institution. 54 Chapter 9 will note that some will be more readily recognised as ‘leaders’ in the ecclesial context and thereby authorised to lead (whether or not with positional authority/role) because they are perceived to engage in the praxis of leadership with greater consistency than others by virtue of maturity, gifting or intentionality. 55 Rost, Leadership , 114. 56 Yukl, Leadership , 24–26. 57 Rost, Leadership , 114; Yukl, Leadership , 18. 58 Simon Western, Leadership: A Critical Text (2nd ed.), London: Sage, 2013, 164. 59 Yukl, Leadership , 22. 60 Northouse, Leadership , 13. 61 Henri Fayol, General and Industrial Management (rev. ed., by Irwin Gray), London: Pitman, 1988, 9, 12–13; cf. John P. Kotter, A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, New York: Free Press, 1990, 4. Characterising management by its activities is perhaps preferable to the approach of

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 27 Bennis and Nanus which distinguishes management from leadership in terms of the types of people who do each ( Leaders , 21)! 62 Stephen Pattison, The Faith of the Managers: When Management Becomes Religion , London: Cassell, 2007, 161–162. 63 Robert R. Locke and J.-C. Spender make this same distinction between managerialism and management’s functions ( Confronting Managerialism: How the Business Elite and Their Schools Threw Our Lives Out of Balance, London: Zed, 2011, x–xi). Cf. Stanley A. Deetz, Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization: Developments in Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life, Albany: SUNY, 1992, 222–223; Malcolm Torry, Managing God’s Business: Religious and Faith-Based Organizations and Their Management, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005, 7. 64 Richard H. Roberts, Religion, Theology and the Human Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 162; Gerlinde Mautner, Language and the Market Society: Critical Reflection on Discourse and Dominance, New York: Routledge, 2010, 18–19. 65 George Ritzer, The McDonaldization of Society (8th ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2015. 66 Martin Parker, ‘Organizing: Skyscrapers and Multitudes’, Critical Perspectives on International Business 3:3 (2007), 221, 224. He notes, however, that managerialism’s dominance is now so unquestioned that it is increasingly difficult to imagine or remember alternatives ( Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism , Cambridge: Polity, 2002, 11). 67 Parker, ‘Organizing’, 220–225, 222. 68 Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1911, 68; Western, Leadership, 168; Christopher Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990s? (2nd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 1993, 15–16. Fordism, Taylorism’s direct descendant, emphasised such principles in the context of high control by employers (Western, Leadership , 168–169). 69 Western, Leadership , 172–176; Locke and Spender, Confronting , xiii. 70 Parker, Against , 3. 71 Ralph Stacey, Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management: Meeting the Challenges of Complexity, Oxford: Routledge, 2012, 1–2, 13, 47, ch.6. Ritzer agrees ( McDonaldization , 49–50). 72 Russ Marion, ‘Organizational Leadership and Complexity Mechanisms’ (184– 202) in Michael G. Rumsey (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 197; Western, Leadership, 306; Yukl, Leadership, 290. 73 Mark Hughes, The Leadership of Organizational Change, Abingdon: Routledge, 2016, 214. 74 Yukl, Leadership , 33–34. 75 Whether leadership or management may depend on context and perhaps also one’s perspective. 76 For a discussion of neo-Taylorism: Pollitt, Managerialism , 13–17, 111–146. 77 Some consider it even morally appropriate – Lewis-Anthony discusses the effects of neo-Taylorism on establishing the morality of resource efficiency ( Messiah, 24–25). 78 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (3rd ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2007, 25, 74. This is not to deny the existence of some ethical codes of conduct and compliance regulations relating to leadership contexts. However, such codes may be limited in operation and interpreted as narrowly as possible in practice: Karen Lebacqz discusses whether they encourage

28 Expressing the pain morality or ‘protect professionals and ensure their status and income’ ( Professional Ethics: Power and Paradox , Nashville: Abingdon, 1985, 66–68). 79 ‘The fear is that . . . the independent ends that ought to be guiding our lives will be eclipsed by the demand to maximize output’ (Charles Taylor, The Malaise of Modernity, Ontario: Anansi, 1991, 5); Ritzer, McDonaldization, 46; Pollitt, Managerialism , 143–144. 80 Ritzer, McDonaldization , 14. 81 Taylor, Malaise , 5–7. 82 Taylor, Malaise , 2–5. 83 Cf. Roberts, Religion, 177. 84 Steven Croft, Ministry in Three Dimensions: Ordination and Leadership in the Local Church (rev. ed.), London: DLT, 2008, 22–28. 85 Lyndon Shakespeare, Being the Body of Christ in the Age of Management, Eugene: Cascade, 2016, 13. 86 Carroll, ‘Reflections’, 8. 87 H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry, New York: Harper & Row, 1956, 48–94; Jackson W. Carroll, ‘Protestant Pastoral Ministry at the Beginning of the New Millennium’, Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and Religious Research Association (2000), 4, pulpitandpew.org/sites/all/themes/pulpitandpew/files/jackcarroll.pdf, accessed 11/07/17. 88 Anthony Russell, The Clerical Profession, London: SPCK, 1984, 282 (italics mine). 89 Derek Tidball, Skilful Shepherds: Explorations in Pastoral Theology (2nd ed.), Nottingham: Apollos, 1997, 14; Jackson W. Carroll, God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, 20. 90 Alan J. Roxburgh, The Sky Is Falling: Leaders Lost in Transition, Eagle: ACI, 2005, 87; cf. David F. Wells, No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993, 236–237. 91 J.B. Watson, Jr. and Walter H. Scalen, Jr., ‘“Dining with the Devil”: The Unique Secularization of American Evangelical Churches’, International Social Science Review 83:3–4 (2008), 171–180; Gary Black, The Theology of Dallas Willard: Discovering Protoevangelical Faith, Eugene: Pickwick, 2013, 34–35. Significant influencers in this movement, which pays particular attention to numerical growth in churches, include Donald McGavran and his Fuller Seminary colleague, C. Peter Wagner; it spawned vast numbers of publications (Herwig Wagner, ‘Church Growth Movement’ (66–67) in Karl Müller, Theo Sundermeier, Stephen B. Bevans and Richard H. Bliese (eds.), Dictionary of Mission: Theology, History, Perspectives, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006). For helpful introductory engagement: Gary L. McIntosh (ed.), Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: Five Views, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. A limited study of church growth principles in a UK context is recorded in Paul Beasley-Murray and Alan Wilkinson, Turning the Tide: An Assessment of Baptist Church Growth in England , London: Bible Society, 1981. 92 Further: David E. Fitch, The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005, ch.1; Martyn Percy, The Future Shapes of Anglicanism: Currents, Contours, Charts, London: Routledge, 2017, 33. Dallas Willard describes the ‘ABCs’ (attendance/buildings/cash) as the ‘popular model of success’ (‘The Apprentices’, www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=112,accessed 11/07/17) cf. Leonard Sweet, I Am a Follower: The Way, Truth, and Life of Following Jesus, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012, 83. 93 Gary G. Hoag, R. Scott Rodin and Wesley Kenneth Willmer, The Choice: The Christ-Centered Pursuit of Kingdom Outcomes, Winchester: ECFA, 2014; Mautner, Language, 101.

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 29 94 George Barna, Futurecast: What Today’s Trends Mean for Tomorrow’s World, s.l.: BarnaBooks, 2011, 183. Martyn Percy notes that churches now tend to look beyond Sunday attendance to ‘the totality of their output’ in terms of connection points ( The Ecclesial Canopy: Faith, Hope, Charity, Farnham: Ashgate, 2012, 54). 95 John Jefferson Davis, Practicing Ministry in the Presence of God: Theological Reflections on Ministry and the Christian Life, Eugene: Cascade, 2015, 189. Not all numerical indicators are necessarily unhelpful, as I consider below; cf. Shawn Lovejoy, The Measure of Our Success: An Impassioned Plea to Pastors, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012, 20–24. Mike Bonem suggests a variety of ecclesial metrics ( In Pursuit of Great AND Godly Leadership: Tapping the Wisdom of the World for the Kingdom of God, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012, 235–240). 96 Michael L. Budde, ‘The Rational Shepherd: Corporate Practice and the Church’, Studies in Christian Ethics 21:1 (2008), 96–116, 100. 97 Richard M. Smith, ‘Becoming McChurch: A Case Study of a Black Church Organization’s Transition from Leading in the Local Community to Creating a Global Brand’, JRL 15:1 (2016), 55–76, 71. 98 Black, Willard, 40–48; Phyllis Tickle, Emergence Christianity: What It Is, Where It Is Going, and Why It Matters , Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012, 116–117. 99 Kent Carlson and Mike Lueken, Renovating the Church: What Happens When a Seeker Church Discovers Spiritual Formation , Downers Grove: IVP, 2011. 100 Watson and Scalen, ‘Dining’, 178. 101 E.g., John Piper’s ‘Farewell, Rob Bell’ tweet – see Wes Markofski, New Monasticism and the Transformation of American Evangelicalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, 145–146. 102 Dallas Willard admits the possibility of the spiritual formation movement becoming ‘lost in the sea of . . . new age spirituality’ (‘Spiritual Formation: What It Is, and How It Is Done’, www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=58, accessed 11/07/17). 103 Fitch, Giveaway, 74; Larry Witham, Marketplace of the Gods: How Economics Explains Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, 91. Pattison affirms this mutual influence ( Challenge, 73). The UK Holy Trinity Brompton/Alpha Leadership Conference reveals similar dynamics: speakers in recent years include business leaders Patrick Lencioni, Jo Malone and Simon Sinek alongside British and American church leaders (www.htb.org/media/event/Leadership+Conference+2015; www.htb.org/media/event/Leadership%20Conference%202013?page=3; https://alpha.org/lc/talks; accessed 13/09/17). 104 See Jeff Chu’s 2010 article, ‘How WC Is Leading the Evangelicals by Learning from the Business World’, www.fastcompany.com/1702221/how-willow-creekleading-evangelicals-learning-business-world, accessed 11/07/17. 105 Ken Blanchard, Bill Hybels and Phil Hodges, Leadership by the Book: Tools to Transform Your Workplace , London: Harper Collins, 1999. 106 Thomas Edward Frank, ‘Leadership and Administration: An Emerging Field in Practical Theology’, IJPT 10:1 (2006), 113–136, 118–119. 107 Eric W. Gritsch and Robert W. Jenson, Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings , Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, 205. 108 Pattison, Challenge , 87. 109 Lewis-Anthony, Messiah. Also: Percy, Future; John Fitzmaurice, Virtue Ecclesiology: An Exploration in the Good Church, Abingdon: Ashgate/Routledge, 2016, 45–46. 110 Richard H. Roberts’ trenchant critique (referencing particularly Robin Gill and Derek Burke, Strategic Church Leadership, London: SPCK, 1996) is in: Religion, 161; ‘Order and Organization: The Future of Institutional and Established Religion’ (78–96) in G.R. Evans and Martyn Percy (eds.), Managing the

30 Expressing the pain Church? Order and Organization in a Secular Age, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. 111 Pattison, Challenge , 83. 112 Mautner, Language , 99–124. 113 John Drane, The McDonaldization of the Church: Spirituality, Creativity, and the Future of the Church , London: DLT, 2000. 114 George Ritzer, Introduction to Sociology (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2015, 394. 115 Stephen Pickard, Theological Foundations for Collaborative Ministry, Farnborough: Ashgate, 2009, 170–177. 116 Scott Cowdell, ‘Ecclesial Roots of Clergy Sexual Abuse: A Girardian Reflection’ (233–246) in Scott Cowdell, Chris Fleming and Joel Hodge (eds.), Violence, Desire, and the Sacred Vol. 2: René Girard and Sacrifice in Life, Love, and the Sacred , New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014, 236. 117 Pattison, Faith , 164. 118 Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York: Anchor, 1990, 138); cf. Larry A. Witham, Who Shall Lead Them? The Future of Ministry in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 195. 119 Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2005, 9, 12. 120 George Barna, Marketing the Church: What They Never Taught You about Church Growth, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988, 14–16, 26, 107. For a thorough critique: Philip D. Kenneson, ‘Selling [Out] the Church in the Marketplace of Desire’, Modern Theology 9:4 (1993), 319–348. 121 Michael Budde and Robert Brimlow, Christianity Incorporated: How Big Business Is Buying the Church , Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2002, chs.2–3. 122 Philip D. Kenneson and James L. Street, Selling Out the Church: The Dangers of Church Marketing , Eugene: Cascade, 2003, 143. 123 Richard L. Reising, ChurchMarketing 101: Preparing Your Church for Greater Growth , Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006, 14. 124 Kenneson, ‘Selling’, 325–335; cf. Mautner, Language , 105. 125 William H. Willimon, Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry, Nashville: Abingdon, 2002, 95. Cf. Dwight Zscheile, ‘Disruptive Innovations and the Deinstitutionalization of Religion’, JRL 14:2 (2015), 5–30, 19–20; Guinness, Dining, 64–67; Vincent J. Miller, Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture, New York: Continuum, 2009, 85–86. The incursion of a secularising worldview which ‘puts the sinner at its center and relegates God to the periphery’ has produced a church committed to ‘the virtue of meeting people’s needs’, seeking not preachers of God’s Word but organisational managers (David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams , Leicester: IVP, 1994, 76, 86). 126 Cf. Pickard’s ‘theological blur’ ( Theological, 179). Martin Warner contends powerfully: ‘our concern about numbers must be driven by love in all its divine, eternal, triune fullness and beauty’ (‘Incarnation and Church Growth’ (107– 126) in David Goodhew (ed.), Towards a Theology of Church Growth, Farnham: Ashgate, 2015, 109). 127 Paul Valler outlines arguments for and against in Using Measurement Well: Encouraging a Culture of Human Flourishing , Cambridge: Grove, 2014, 4–9. 128 Stephen Pattison, ‘Some Objections to Aims and Objectives’ (128–152) in Evans and Percy (eds.), Managing , 137–138. 129 Eve Poole, ‘Baptizing Management’, Studies in Christian Ethics 21:1 (2008), 83–95, 90.

Leadership and the dominant consciousness 31 130 Further on ecclesial celebration of managerial perspectives: Craig Van Gelder, ‘Theological Education and Missional Leadership Formation: Can Seminaries Prepare Missional Leaders for Congregations?’ (11–44) in Craig Van Gelder (ed.), The Missional Church and Leadership Formation: Helping Congregations Develop Leadership Capacity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 24; Reggie McNeal, The Present-Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003, 124; Larry L. McSwain, The Calling of Congregational Leadership: Being, Knowing, Doing Ministry, St. Louis: Chalice, 2013, 34; Mervyn Davies and Graham Dodds, Leadership in the Church for a People of Hope , London: T&T Clark, 2011, 30; Wells, Place , 233. 131 T.F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction , London: SCM, 1965, 208. 132 John Milbank, Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (2nd ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, 382–383. 133 Fitch, Giveaway, 74. ‘[T]he true principles of leadership are constant – whether you’re looking at . . . pastors in local churches, or the businesspeople of today’s global economy’ (John C. Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998, xx); cf. Scott Thumma and Dave Travis regarding ecclesial leaders who would also have ‘succeeded’ in any other vocation ( Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America’s Largest Churches, San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2007, 15, 65–66). This assumption of universality is, at the very least, questionable. 134 Colin E. Gunton contends that the adoption by the early church of contemporary structures from hierarchical social models flowed from a failure to delineate an ecclesial ontology ( The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (2nd ed.), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997, 60). Whilst my focus is limited to the activity of leadership, not structural questions, I affirm the need to delineate the nature of the church as the context of ecclesial leadership, pursuing this in chapters 4–5. 135 Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians , Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, 231–232. 136 Wells, Place, 254–256. Cf. J.A. Dinoia who notes that though ‘the culture of management’ may have a place in understanding ‘the structure and interaction involved in . . . the Church’, it must not supplant ‘a properly theological account of ecclesial structures’ as he argues it can (‘Communion and Magisterium: Teaching Authority and the Culture of Grace’, Modern Theology 9:4 (1993), 403–418, 414). 137 MacIntyre, After, 30. Bellah’s ‘Therapist’ character similarly focuses on means of achieving individual fulfilment rather than appropriateness of those ends (Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (3rd ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008, 47–48). 138 Locke comments that ‘some’ experts reject as invalid the epistemological assumptions of American management, referencing proponents of complexity/systems approaches such as Peter Senge and Fritjof Capra. However, these are leadership theorists; though certain firms have adopted their approach, ‘the jury is still out on how successful these efforts have been’ vis-à-vis wider rejection of managerialism (Robert R. Locke, The Collapse of the American Management Mystique, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, 175–192). Cf. nn.71–72 for more recent perspectives. 139 Fitch, Giveaway , 76. 140 Fitch, Giveaway , 76. 141 Stephen Pattison considers ‘the rhetoric of social responsibility and ethics’ to be largely only words ( Challenge , 85); cf. n.78. 142 MacIntyre, After, 75–77, 107; cf. Bolman and Deal, Reframing, 294–295, 298– 299; Pattison, ‘Objections’, 138; Stacey, Tools , 51.