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.

When Lack Becomes Loss

Peter Rollins continues to be a thinker that challenges me beyond what I am capable of thinking. While I listen or read him I feel like I understand in the moment, but as soon as try to explain it I fall apart. Not unlike when I walk confidently into a room only to enter that room and instantly forget what I came into that room for.

Rollins mentioned that there is “lack” and “loss”.

Both lack and loss are about an absence in our lives. Lack is about an absence that was never present, loss is about an absence that was present. I lack about a foot in height and overall skill to play basketball well. I never had that height or skill to begin with. However, I can loose my car keys that I thought were in my pocket.

The Bible speaks of humans created with lack, not loss.In Genesis at creation it is said that when God blew into the nostrils of the dirt, the dirt became “nephish.” Nephish means a bundle or collection of desires or appetites. The human being has appetites not because we lost something (like food) but because we have a lack that drives us (hunger drives us to find food). We can address the lack with healthier or non-healthier things, but the lack is not something that can ever be extinguished.

Someone can lack acceptance, and no matter how many awards they receive there is never enough. This person never received acceptance to begin with, it cannot be lost because it was never acquired in early life.

The problem is when we think our lack is a loss. That is to say, if we think that there was a time when humans were once complete, whole and without lacking anything, but then we lost it - we are mistaking our lack for loss. If we think that we can go back to another time (Eden, 1950’s, 1990’s, etc.) and “rediscover” what we lost - we are mistaking our lack for loss. If we think that our individual lives was without antagonism at some point in our past - we are mistaking our lack for loss. We have not loss anything, Jesus reminds us the Kingdom of Heaven is here and to come (unfolding). We never lost it, we only lack it.

Treating our lack as a loss means that we live our lives seeing the lack within us is a problem to resolve, rather than a source of energy. If we were to resolve our lack, it might be the most miserable thing we could do. As it is said, the only thing worse then not getting what you want is getting it. Because once you get it you realize that “it” cannot meet the lack within and you will be crushed. It is crushing to discover that the thing that you want, that you think will fill the lack, does not exist. The quest of life to fill the lack is revealed as a sham and so we fall into dismay.

Like the end of the movie The Graduate. The two went through hell and back in order to fill the lack in their lives. Then as they sat on the bus with the one they thought would fill the lack, they discover the lack is still present (“Hello darkness my old friend…").

Be mindful of the preacher or prophet who preaches that your lack is a loss and that they have what you have lost. You will not find it, because it was never lost to begin with.

Love You More Than The Things You Lack

When I listen to people who are seeing marriage I hear them discuss all the ways that they love one another. Most of the time the list of things are all the things the other person does or is. Expressions of kindness, generosity, humor, and care are tops on a lot of couples’ lists. It is easy to list off all that we love about our partner, and so it catches people a bit off guard when you ask, “tell me what your partner lacks.”

There is a little fear that comes into the room. Perhaps the assumption is that what one lacks the other fills (I lack attention to detail but my partner is great at details). Maybe the assumption is that if we express the lack then we are prone to see the negatives in our soon to be spouse. It could also be that the couple is acutely aware of the lack in the other and this is the root of all their habitual fighting.

When we are dating people we often find what the other person lacks to be a “deal breaker”. “This person is not educated/funny/tall/handsome/young/old/etc. enough. Loving another person in a covenantal relationship means that we love the other person more than the things they lack.

Loving one more than the things they lack is not uncommon in a marriage, however we tend to overlook this in our love for God.

Many times we are disappointed in the ways that God lacks. God does not talk loud enough. God is not visible enough. God is not real enough. And so, because of the lack we see in God, we do not fall in love with God. We love what God lacks more than God who lacks.

You may be thinking, ‘I thought that God does not lack.” In this case we might be holding onto the idea that God lacks the lack. Because if God lacks, then God is imperfect. And, if God is imperfect the God is not God. See where this takes us? We are saying that if God does not “lack the lack”, then God is not God.

Putting it in a question, do we love the idea of a lack-less God more than an incarnate God in Christ who lacks?

There are many examples in the Bible where God lacks. For instance, God is unable to find Adam and Even in the garden when they hid. God regrets making humankind pre-Noah. God’s mind is changed several times throughout the Biblical stories. God in Jesus lacked in the garden prior to his arrest. God dies (the ultimate lack) on the cross.

Perhaps of all the things that makes God different from humanity is that God does not fear the lack. God is at peace with lack. If God is good with having lack, the question is are we okay with God having lack?

Do we love God more than the things that God lacks?