Abandoning Conversation
When problems arise, we often deploy a familiar tool: conversation. And there are many versions of it:
Yet, with all these types and all the resources designed to support them, we rarely ask a fundamental question: What if conversation itself is the problem, not the solution?
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that communication is the problem. Rather, it’s this particular form of communication we call conversation that may be problematic.
Etymologically, conversation comes from con (with) and versare (to turn). The aim of a conversation is to turn—often to turn someone else. We enter conversations hoping the other person will turn to see something differently: perhaps to admit they were wrong, or to recognize that we are right. Sometimes we converse in hopes of turning ourselves, to see our own blind spots or errors. But this assumption—that someone must turn, and that someone is usually not me—is what makes conversations so fraught.
We talk about conversations being tough, difficult, authentic, and even fierce, precisely because they’re set up as confrontations. They often carry an adversarial undercurrent and, as a result, they frequently fail.
What if, instead of conversation, we turned to another form of communication: dialogue?
Etymologically, dialogue combines dia (through) and logos (word). A dialogue is about talking through things. The aim is not to turn anyone—not the other, not even oneself. Dialogue creates space for each participant to fully express their perspective, without the expectation that anyone will change their mind. It's not adversarial. In fact, true dialogue requires helping each other articulate and clarify their thoughts. The goal isn’t to turn, but to speak through.
Ironically, because dialogue lowers defenses, it creates the greatest opportunity for genuine change. People are more likely to see where the other is right, to recognize their own blind spots, and to shift their views—not because they’re pressured, but because they’re free to explore without threat. Unlike conversations, which often entangle identity and ego, dialogue allows for openness.
Perhaps that’s why we don’t hear about crucial, fierce, difficult, or authentic dialogues—because dialogue, by nature, doesn’t need to be any of those things. Dialogues require us to be curious for the sake of clarity and relationships. Not to turn anyone.
Alternate to Equipping and Empowering
The previous post might be summarized in this way:
Equipping and empowering is an insufficient set of priorities for clergy leaders to uphold because they mistake the work of the Holy Spirit with the work of the clergy person. As revolutionary as it sounds, prioritizing equipping and empowering often retains the status quo and limits the radical work of God.
The post ends by asking, “If church leaders no longer prioritize equipping and empowering, what alternate priority would be aligned with the Gospel of Christ?” This post argues for one possible set of new priorities.
When Jesus stepped in the temple, he was handed a scroll of Isaiah. From there he began to locate the section we call chapter 61 and read the following:
‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’
Jesus could have read any part of Isaiah such as the suffering servant texts or the coming of the messiah. Instead he read about the year of the Lord’s favor and what happens in that time. This section of Isaiah summarizes what he thinks his priorities are. So much so that after he read this section, the Gospel of Luke describes Jesus saying, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
“Clergy that prioritize liberation always have Good News to share because being set free from that which holds us captive is Good News.”
To put it another way: to be in ministry in the name of Jesus Christ, is to place Christ as the standard of what ministry that fulfills looks like. The work of equipping and empowering is not present in this standard. Rather we see it is the priorities of listening and liberation.
The Spirit of the Lord anoints Jesus to bring Good News to the poor. But what is Good News to the poor? How does one know what Good News is to the poor? The only way to know what Good News is to the poor is to listen to the needs of others and proclaim to them the news that is Good.
For instance, Good News to the economically poor might be employment. It might be a social service. It might be the affirmation that no one is defined by their production but by the Good News that God loves them. Good News to the poor is one that requires first and foremost that ministers in the name of Christ must prioritize listening. There are numerous books that provide insight into what happens when the ministers of Christ do not prioritize listening: When Helping Hurts (Corbett and Fikkert), Toxic Charity (Lutpon), Walking with the Poor (Myers), The Irresistible Revolution (Claiborne), etc. Pastors who prioritize listening may come to discover that what we thought would be helpful, is in fact unhelpful.
One of the most commonly cited examples of what happens when we prioritize empowering and equipping before we listen is the “Roundabout PlayPump”. The desire to equip people with water by using the power of kids who naturally play on a roundabout makes sense on paper. However, had we prioritized listening we might have been more able to avoid this dud of a solution.
Listening also requires that the clergy person listen not just to humans but listen to God. Prioritizing listening also would mean that congregations would expect clergy to listen to God. Clergy do not have to feel terrible if they are not “doing” but just had the goal to “be” in the presence of God. Being in the presence, listening to God’s Spirit, does require work because of the amount of noise in the world. As I have aged my physical hearing is failing in a very specific way. I can still hear things, however I really struggle to hear when there are competing noises. I can hear you talking to me, but put me in a Cheesecake Factory with people asking dozens of questions about the thousands of menu items and I have to strain to understand the person sitting next to me. The church is often like a Cheesecake Factory with expectations, ministries, needs, and desires. Those who prioritize listening might need to make structural changes to the church so that God and people can be heard and understood. Perhaps this is in part why Jesus drives noisy money changers out of the temple - structural change helps one to listen.
In addition to prioritizing listening, Jesus also paired that with liberation. Reconsider the verse:
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
We might be too plain in our reading here but the release of captives is not just for those in prison. The recovery of sight is not just for those of us who are physically blind. Letting the oppressed go free is not just for the ones who are under the thumb of an outsized oppressor. We are held captive to our own pride. We are blind to our ignorance. We are oppressed by systems of extraction.
The human condition is one that needs liberation. We need liberation from fear, violent systems, toxic relationships, acquiring power, garnering fame, personal pride, envy, anger, gluttony, addiction, avarice, shame, guilt, resentment, greed, etc. Being held captive is what we might call the condition of sin. Humans of all ages and stages are in this condition and this condition holds us captive.
We ALL are held hostage to sin. We all need liberation. And this is what a church leaders are able to assist with. The church leader can work in ways to remove the fear to act. They can work to encourage someone to release their anger. They can set up systems to let people make donations to be free from the way we worship mammon. They can remove organizational “red tape”. They can remove the burden of expectations and the demands of the law. They can remind people that they are children of God and not children of this world. They can break away from the many tyrannical powers of our lives (such as perfectionism, metrics, purpose, etc.).
Church leaders can share Good News of the forgiveness that is already given by God. They can be fools for Christ (1 Corinthians 4:10), to show that one can be in the world but not of it (John 17:14-16).
Clergy that prioritize liberation always have Good News to share because being set free from that which holds us captive is Good News. These clergy are the ones who are joyful and unafraid to what the Spirit might do in the lives of people and the body of the Church. They let go of trying to coheres people into what their desires are. These leaders are able to delight in failure because they are no longer held hostage to a fear of failure. Those leaders who prioritize liberation also no are not held captive to death and can boldly live life knowing that death has lost its sting (1 Corinthians 15:55-57).
When church leaders prioritize listening and liberation a different set of practices and ministries begin to take precedent. Clergy that prioritize equipping and empowering are often interested in ministry of addition. There is more training. More programs. More tools. More is always better. However, clergy that prioritize listening and liberating are interested in ministry of subtraction. Remove the demand/law. Remove the conditions. Remove the predetermined outcomes of success.
As argued in the first post, we can empower and equip people all day long, but as long as they are held captive to the conditions of being human there will be limited Good News. The way to liberation is by way of honoring the other and trusting that God has equipped and empowered them already - clergy need to listen to what the Spirit is asking and help set captives free.
How might ministry be different if clergy prioritize listening and liberating over equipping and empowering?
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.
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.