Against "Equipping and Empowering"
While working and living at Shawshank, Andy Dufresne had a supervisor named Samuel Norton. Samuel was very deft at utilizing Andy’s accounting skills and intelligence. He empowered Andy to manage his and other supervisors’ taxes. He empowered Andy to tend to the company library. He equipped Andy with paper and postage and empowered him to write to the state legislature to request more money for the library—which was eventually granted. He empowered and equipped Andy to help his co-worker, Tommy, pass the GED. Samuel even saw Andy beyond his brain and equipped him with tools and a team to re-tar a roof. Andy did so well in his work that Norton approved some beers to be given to Andy and his team. Perhaps one of the most remarkable decisions was that Samuel Norton empowered and equipped Andy to have full access to the entire organization’s financials. Andy was so good at this work that he was able to move the organization’s money around so that Samuel Norton had more funds to use at his discretion.
Samuel Norton was not always one to equip or empower Andy, to be sure. He often overlooked Andy, punished him for insubordination, and revoked privileges when Andy abused them. Samuel Norton was the leader of the organization and had other responsibilities that Andy did not know or understand. Andy would often ask for days off, but Samuel Norton could not allow it. A few times, Andy would even appeal to the board, only to be turned down each time. Andy saw other co-workers “get out” of the system, but it did not always work out well for them. Andy was heartbroken when he learned that his friend and mentor at the library, Brooks, died by suicide after he left the organization run by Samuel Norton.
In case it was not mentioned, Samuel Norton was the Shawshank Prison warden. Andy and his friends, including Brooks, Tommy, the rooftop team, and his most faithful friend Red (played by Morgan Freeman), were all inmates.
In the United Methodist Church, and perhaps elsewhere, there is an idea that leaders should “equip and empower” others. It is so common in our lexicon that in many ways it is either taken as gospel or a thought-terminating cliché.
“Equipping and empowering” has the stickiness of alliteration, but that does not mean it is necessarily faithful to what church leadership modeled on Jesus should prioritize. Equipping and empowering might sound like they are ways to upset the status quo, but rather they are often used to maintain the status quo.
“It is not that equipping and empowering others is too radical, but rather that it is not radical enough.”
Often, in the hands of human beings, equipping and empowering are extractive practices. We equip those who are going to do work for the organization and are disappointed when the tools we provide them are taken elsewhere. The assumed goal of equipping and empowering is to help the other produce something. We empower those who are aligned with the leader(s), not those who challenge the leader(s). The leader decides who is worth equipping and empowering, thus organizational power remains in the hands of the leadership.
Scripture highlights that the work of equipping and empowering is best done when it is the role of the Holy Spirit. One of the most apparent examples of the Holy Spirit equipping and empowering is found in the story of Pentecost. In Acts 2 we read the disciples are equipped with new communication skills and empowered to leave their place of hiding.
The Holy Spirit equips us with the teachings of Jesus (John 14). The Holy Spirit equips the body with different gifts (1 Corinthians 12). The Holy Spirit equips us with different “fruits” (Galatians 5). The Holy Spirit is remarkable at equipping us with what we need when it is needed. The Holy Spirit also empowers us. It was the Holy Spirit that empowered the disciples to preach (Acts 4). It is the Holy Spirit that empowers the follower to worship (Ephesians 5). The Holy Spirit empowers us to enter places that require courage to go (Acts 16). It really is remarkable when the Spirit does her work, because she is tasked with equipping and empowering.
Leaders who prioritize equipping and empowering risk pushing the Holy Spirit out of the office. The only power that the leader has is a gift from the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that gives power, not the leader. And the Spirit is often located with the marginalized. This is why most church leaders know that the power of the congregation comes not from the pastor but from the body found in the pews. It is ironic to hear church members say things like “this is my church” but operate as though the pastor is the royal ruler. Laity know how much power they have and become hesitant to use it, which is why laity end up asking the pastor if they can do things so that there is a buffer in the event things go sideways - people can ask the pastor why the “let” this happen.
Leaders who focus on equipping may also overlook that what we think would be good equipping is often not for the work of God. David was not equipped by his family to be a leader (1 Samuel 16:11-13). Esther was not equipped to be queen (Esther 4:10-14). Moses could not talk good (Exodus 4:10). Isaiah had unclean lips (Isaiah 6:5). Paul did not even think he deserved to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9). All of these people would have been considered underequipped for their calling. Often the one who is being called is “under-equipped” but is overly called.
It is also common that leaders who prioritize empowering and equipping do not themselves have to undergo change or transformation. The change is expected in the one being equipped and empowered. Jesus Christ asks us to be transformed by taking up the cross, why do we elevate an approach that expects others to change around the leader? Samuel Norton did not change in any way regardless of who he equipped or empowered. He was still the same person who held all the keys and ensured order was upheld.
It is not that equipping and empowering are not good but they are often insufficient. Prioritizing equipping and empowering associates sin as a symptom of being human, not a condition. If the leader could just provide the right resources and tools, then the follower could change. If a follower could just be given the permission or power to do something, they would. It assumes sin as a symptom that can be treated with some combination of equipment and empowerment. Prioritizing equipping and empowering fails to account for the times when one is equipped and empowered but still does not or cannot act. Paul was equipped and empowered, and yet it was Paul who also wrote in Romans 7:
“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
Even with the tools and the power, our condition keeps us from doing even what we say we want to do. Unlike a symptom, sin is like being in prison—it holds us captive. We can have all the power and tools we desire, but if we are still kept in the shackles of sin, we remain imprisoned.
Norton equipped and empowered Andy in many ways, but in the end, Andy, and all of his friends, were still in prison. No amount of equipping or empowering could change that. Norton could use the tools of equipping and empowering for the sake of maintaining the status quo, protecting the institution, and demanding very little change from the leader himself.
It is not that equipping and empowering others is too radical, but rather that it is not radical enough.
If church leaders no longer prioritize equipping and empowering, what alternate priority would be aligned with the Gospel of Christ? The next post will offer an alternative.
The Sensible Church
Church leaders are sort of freaking out these days.
There are many reasons for this, and I am sure you can relate to more than a few of them. The uncertainty of participation in a COVID world. The decline of membership. The decline of finances. The reckoning of Christian nationalism. The nationalization of everything. The intersection of justice and mercy. Denominational splits and local church infights. New theologies and new mediums for communication…
The uncertainty of the sea change prompts church leaders dive into the resource reserves in the hopes to find something to help navigate the choppy waters. The way we typically think about how to solve problems is to either look to the past or to the future. Generally, conservatives look to see what has worked in the past to solve present problems. Progressives scoff at conservatives and say something like, “what got us here cannot take us there.” And so, progressives tend to look to the future to solve present problems.
This way of framing things overlooks the flaw that conservatives and progressives share. If we look to the past or the future church leaders are looking for what is sensible.
And that is a problem.
Sensible is attractive because, well it is sensible. Our minds tend to gravitate toward what makes the most sense and go in that direction. The sensible option is often an easier option to “sell” to others and get people on board. That which is sensible is also well supported by loads of books and resources, so it gives the impression that the sensible way is the best way.
Of course what is sensible to a progressive may not be sensible to a conservative. The Bible is full of examples of people doing the sensible thing but it is not what God desires. And for as easy as it might be to “sell” the sensible, it also instantly sets up an us/them divide where the “them” are idiots because “they” don’t do what is sensible able. In fact we often look to the other and say that their actions “don’t make sense.” It is also unhelpful for church leaders to be looking for the “best” way when we should be looking for the “faithful” way. But these are not the deeper problems with the sensible church.
It does not take any courage to be sensible. Faith is not needed to be sensible. In fact, courage and faith can be liabilities to the sensible church.
The call of Jesus to the church is not to be sensible, but to have courage to be faithful. The way of the cross is not sensible. Trusting that God is alive is not sensible. Resurrection is not sensible. Unconditional Grace is not sensible. Forgiveness is not sensible. Rejecting many leadership principles is not sensible. Reconsidering the core mission of the church is not sensible.
Desiring to be the sensible church is the symptom to our lack of faithful courage. We look to the past and the future for what is sensible, but the Good News is that we are liberated from being the sensible church. We are freed from having the answers, the best plan, the business model, the strategic vision, the marketing campaigns or any other action an organization might consider sensible. We are freed to be the foolish followers of the folly of God in Christ Jesus.
Maybe Paul was writing to the Sensible Church in Corinth when he wrote 1 Corinthians 1.18-25:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.
Personal Disciplines and Communal Practice (Video)
Recently, I had the chance to speak to some of the leadership of the church I serve about moving from a deciding body to a discerning body. In an effort to guide the group toward discernment, there are both personal disciplines and communal practices. This video was an effort to teach different disciplines and practices.
You may not care to watch this entire video, I do not blame you - I don’t like to listen to me, too. However, if you are interested in some of the disciplines and practices, I have put minute marks below for your reference.
I hope this teaching is helpful for you to either participate in these disciplines and practices or at the very least give you something to push against and discover your own Lenten disciplines and practices. (These minute marks and links are also in the comments of the video on Youtube.)
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.