Reflection #6 -- May 16, 2007
Transparent Leadership

I am writing about a concern that I have regarding the Church of the Brethren and the responsibility of those who are in leadership. Simply stated, I believe that, as one part of the responsibility of a leader, one must be authentic and transparent.

Initially when this missive was written the title was “Prophetic Leadership”. In thinking about the meaning of “prophetic” I realize that other words may be helpful. I am hopeful that persons in leadership will be transparent, open, and direct in sharing their core values. I am hoping for a more outspoken, articulated and even confrontational (not Brethren surely?) approach to difficult issues of justice. Transparency, for me, connotes working from a center of authenticity and integrity. (Yes, one’s authentic style may be, at times, somewhat less than transparent depending on the situation.)

In the February 2006 letter the mailing went to 70 persons: former executives and staff persons, current hired and called leaders, national staff, district staff, pastors, AC moderators, and other friends and colleagues. It seems very appropriate to me, as we approach our 300th year anniversary, to raise the questions of the appropriate role of leadership in our denomination.

One of our District Executives put himself in a difficult position in the last couple of years in his district. He wrote in his district newsletter that while he knew what the Annual Conference action was in regard to sexual orientation, he did not personally agree with that Annual Conference action. He felt obligated to support the action, but he made it clear that it did not coincide with his own core values.

I admit that I am strongly biased. I want our leaders to state their own faith and core values clearly and distinctly. I urge them to say that what they believe does not coincide with Annual Conference statements or district or congregational decisions. How can we have honest dialogue unless there is a willingness to be clear about what we believe? For instance, I come from a bias that our leaders have been reluctant to speak out about their personal beliefs in regard to sexual orientation and concerns in the church about ordination, membership, leadership, and union services. I am sometimes cynical and believe that leaders do not speak out because of the economic impact it will have on the church or on themselves. There may be many other reasons – some of them theological, some philosophical, and some pragmatic.

I believe that difficult issues can be resolved, mediated and reconciled only when the leaders are familiar with biblical, historical, ethical points of view regarding sexual orientation and then clearly articulate their own personal values and biases.

I believe that often gays and lesbians have been left isolated and disenfranchised because church leaders have not been willing to educate themselves, have denied the severity of the conflict, and have decided that it is their role to stand in the middle and facilitate rather than be clear about and speak out about their own values. I believe that true mediation and reconciliation are possible only when the leaders are in open and honest dialogue.

I believe, in the words of a friend, that “leadership is the issue facing our society. We see it in every sector of our society, government, education, business, and religious institutions. It is a discouraging and dismal picture.”

I believe that while it is true that leaders have the responsibility, even the obligation, to listen to and represent the whole church, it is also true that leaders have the responsibility to educate, lead the way, and identify their own values. Is it possible to do both?

I believe that many of our leaders understand their primary role as being that of facilitating dialogue. In that role, they may have abdicated their responsibility to “speak the truth in
love.” Our leaders, in order to keep peace within the denomination, do not make clear their own personal and deeply held values, theology, or beliefs.

It is my observation that the more conservative leaders in the denomination understand their responsibility and role to be that of being prophetic. Certainly it is so on the issues of sexual orientation. Moderate to progressive leaders, on the other hand, tend to lean over backwards to be sure that all voices are heard. That position seems to exclude, however, their own profound and sincerely held convictions.

In your role as a leader, if Annual Conference or the District approves a statement or position that is in conflict with your deeply held values, what is your responsibility as a leader and as a person of faith?

I have recognized, upon recalling my own history, that I did not, in my executive positions, always speak out of my convictions. Do you wish you could do more than you do but are not allowed to do so or are kept from speaking out? What compels you to speak out? What holds you back?

In July 2005, when Annual Conference heard a report on the “Polity of the Conference and General Board”, the delegates added an item to the list of purposes and functions of the General Board - to “provide leadership in prophetic social policy development for the denomination.” Why was it necessary to put that in writing? What does that imply, not only for the General Board, but for others in positions of leadership? I wonder - is the role of leader as advocate not acceptable? No longer needed? I believe that it is needed now more than ever.

I wonder – do we think that the first and basic concern for the church is to “grow”? My UCC friend stated that during the 2005 General Synod debate on same-sex marriage, the UCC President at that time, John Thomas, responding to the critical voices that were afraid of what the resolution would do to UCC membership and local church loss, said that that is not the issue. The issue is what is right in terms of the understanding of the teachings of Jesus and the tradition of the UCC on matters of human dignity and justice, of love of our neighbor.

(My UCC friend noted that the anti-voices have been proven wrong. Yes, there was the loss of 16 churches in NC and PA. There was also the gain of 6 congregations with others in the process of changing their denominational affiliation, including some large membership churches. Also, there were tens of thousands of “hits” on the UCC website from persons seeking the location of congregations with which they might be associated.)

Katharine Jefferts Schori, the current UCC Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. elected in 2006, noted "I think courage is a central characteristic of leadership. If you're not willing to go into dangerous places, you have no business doing this work.".... "I'm clear about this role involving the entire breadth of the Episcopal Church. But at some level, I don't think it's appropriate for me to disguise what my own theological understanding is. I'm someone who believes transparency is incredibly important. It's part of integrity."

In summary, I believe that there are major leadership needs and problems facing the Church of the Brethren. I believe that we must identify the foundation upon which we formulate the purposes and goals of leadership. I believe that we can work toward resolving the tension between what we believe to be right and true and what we perceive the people in the church think and believe. I believe we must affirm that we are all created by one God and Creator. That affirmation must be based on the premise of open and honest dialogue – dialogue that includes the forthcoming of our own deeply held convictions.

- Ralph McFadden