Rebuilding 'the House' II

by Mark Hutchinson

The back room culture supporting this new post-denominational form of global organization (which in many ways is reminiscent of the global Keswick conference form so popular in the latter part of the nineteenth century) is supported by a model of ‘servant leadership’ absorbed from the corporate world. This was a form of leadership theory proposed by Robert Greenleaf which – reacting to the ‘fuhrerprinzip’ style of dominating leadership in the second world war and tapping into the energy of 1960s antiauthoritarianism – proposed a new form of leadership which is

based on teamwork and community; … seeks to involve others in decision making; which is strongly based in ethical and caring behaviour; and … which is enhancing the growth of people, while at the same time improving the caring and quality of our many institutions. [Spears, 1996, 33]

It was not a particularly Christian form of leadership – in part because defining a ‘Christian’ form of leadership is not an easy thing. (There are many forms of Christian leadership described both in the Bible and in the pages of Christian history.) Indeed, Greenleaf himself seems to have been influenced by Herman Hesse’s eastern philosophical leanings combined with shifts in cultural appreciations as to what the business corporation is for. In the end, Churches absorbed the model only in part, just as it only absorbed the experimentation of the contemporaneous charismatic movement in part. Many people forget that the charismatic movement was as much a communitarian movement as it was a movement of ‘signs and wonders’ or of ecclesial leadership. In the end, the communitarian impulse went the way of the alternative lifestyle culture of Nimbin – into separate subcultures. The ecclesial leadership issues – which saw the undermining of old presbytery models and the rise of ‘the leader’ – came to dominate, bringing the problems of the voluntary association in an age of post-voluntarism into the core of church attention. Hence the ‘ride of the Apostles’ as a legitimating theory for the new forms of leadership and followership.

Extending the genetic metaphor somewhat, one can track the flow of this sort of cultural influence through its associated language. Geneticists track their microscopic charges through the use of ‘marker genes’. A marker gene is a “ detectable genetic trait or segment of DNA that can be identified and tracked” by virtue of being on the same chromosome as the target gene and near enough to it so that the two genes (the marker gene and the target gene) are genetically linked and are usually inherited together. Along with theology, dress and tone, there is a new vocabulary which marks the new contemporary church culture. My favourite term is the neologism ‘integrous’, which regularly seems to crop up in Pentecostal conversations to mean ‘full of integrity’. It is not, as far as I know, a dictionary word, any more than ‘sms’ or most colloquialisms are. I assume it originates in the home of neologisms, the USA – and have regularly heard it in the mouths of American leaders such as Condoleezza Rice. It is a key word in the new contemporary church movement – which is by its nature a global, CIT mediated movement - precisely because it describes a set of values. The leaders of this new movement are keen to depart from the old, ‘holy roller’ forms of Pentecostalism, and to be seen as respectable. ‘Integrity’ is a part of the ecclesial makeover, a reaction against the ‘snake oil merchant’ image with which itinerant Pentecostal preachers have been associated since the days of ‘Elmer Gantry’, and which were reinforced in the public eye through the antics of Jim Bakker and others in the late 1980s. (Not surprisingly, it is also the name of ‘one of Christian music’s biggest success stories’, the international Christian media company, Integrity Media.) Being ‘integrous’ is a barrier against those accusations, and others that continually arise in a popular press insistent on performing its role as the ideological gatekeeper for the secular public square. Being ‘integrous’ expresses at once both an intention as to the tenor of internal church culture, not just in the sense of demonstrated integrity to the outside world, but in maintaining ‘integrity’ (in its broader sense of integration) in the church against the attacks of the world as the contemporary church movement strives for political, social and economic impact in a public sphere where they are not welcome.

Strangely enough, however, being ‘integrous’ also carries a sting in the tail. The fact that it is a neologism indicates that contemporary church leaders are still striving to overcome their working class backgrounds, still striving to break out of the religious ghetto of the Pentecostal subculture. It is not the language of the great public schools, of the powerful and well placed in the professions. The double edged nature of ‘integrity’ makes claims to integration, but at the same time maintains the osmotic barrier which allows megachurch subcultures to continue to exist (rather than become so open as to simply cease to exist as a church, à la the Salvation Army in some parts of the world). It is a solution to the conundrum the churches have arrived at by rejecting their holiness roots, and which therefore awake to find themselves standing naked and unclothed by a coherent ethical system in the public square. Being ‘integrous’ thus also acts as a replacement ethics – as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy notes:

while [integrity] is sometimes used virtually synonymously with ‘moral,’ we also at times distinguish acting morally from acting with integrity. Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally—though they would usually not know they are acting immorally.

It means acting consistently, being true to one’s claims about oneself – a stance which is aimed more at others perceptions of us than at us walking further along the path of the ‘good’. Even demons can act with integrity – their lying and deceit is consistent with their nature, as Jesus pointed out:

25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? (Matt 12)

As such, being ‘integrous’ is simply a description of ‘acting in character’ in the public eye. As public performance, it is a matter of skill rather than of being, techne rather than sophia. It is a defensible public ‘virtue’ in the postmodern age, which has banned itself from referring to things which are actually ‘good’ – and as such it has little to do with the classic Christian virtues. It is a brilliant piece of adaptation and philosophical camouflage. I just wonder whether it in fact has any intrinsic power to convince (rather than simply deflect), or to express something which is emotionally satisfying or ontologically transformative. If this is all there is, then how can our kingdom stand?

As a marker gene, ‘integrous’ is a harmless piece of subcultural vocabulary, a membership card to a transitory club. Next year, the language will shift, and it will be another concept. It will join the ranks of the passed over generational markers that once declared the world to be ‘groovy’ or ‘rad’! It is however, a marker gene: it points to another set of internal processes which have both positives and negatives associated with them. The positives include the fact that all communities have language markers, and that this is a sign that one of the things that Pentecostals have managed to do is create alternative communities which really work in an age where other forms of social ‘joining’ and participation seem to be declining. Another positive is the fact that the language markers demonstrate the concern within the Pentecostal community not only to do what is right, but also to be seen doing what is right. The question then becomes, who is establishing what is ‘right’ – the church or the broader society? Simply fulfilling the requirements of corporate good governance is not a definition of ‘right’ which church tradition would see as complete or well-rounded. The negative, when attached to an apostolic framework, is that ‘integrous’ can be a ‘marker’ which also goes along with a culture of domination and submission, a culture in which the appearance of unity and the appearance of virtue cover over the fact that we have yet to find an acceptable discipline which will inculcate true holiness, which will elicit the formation of true wisdom. If the only definitions of integrity lie in the hands of the senior pastor, and obedience to God becomes identified with mere service to the ‘house’ (ie. to the pastorate), then the crucial larger concept of individual calling and responsibility is voided. The danger then will be that our churches could well accept that state of being which we have so long criticized in others – that of having a form of godliness, but not the power thereof. Word, bro, word.

References:

Larry Spears, ‘Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 17/7 [1996], pp. 33-35.

Comments

[Joshua Ballard]

I actually laughed out loud when reading the last line of the article. I can imagine Mark syaing that complete with Vanilla Ice dance moves and hand gestures, possibly unknowingly offending members of the deaf community with said gestures.

I largely agree with Mark's conclusion, in that "Integrous-ness" has become the generally all-important marker for involvement within, at the very least, Pentecostal Youth groups. Living the techne concept of integrity that Mark illuminated is something that well-trained Pentecostal youth are quite capable of displaying in certain environments. Especially when it is concocted with an externally (usually "Victorian") defined version of what that "good" should be.

Take an "integrous" young person out of the pentecostal community and you can watch them become "integrous" with the secular community within the space of a couple of hours. This seems to be demonstrative that our holiness is not being defined according to a real standard of holiness, but a skill in integrating into the community one finds themselves in. If the community is "holy" then the individual will be "holy". But not for the sake of "holiness" but for the sake of integration.

As Mark wrote..."follower-training" is being demonstrated when these things happen, and not a recognition of individual responsibility which is required in the fulfillment of a missional movement.

Word to ya mother.

[Deborah Taggart]

Whoah Mark - that was brilliant....I can't think of anything to add or tweak but to say 'well said' :)

oh, and a random cheeky thought....when will our regular readers and commenters become 'sons and daughters of the blog'? :P

[Craig Bennett]

G"day Mark.

In light of the church culture today, and most pastors wanting / aspiring to be the pastor of a megachurch - or to grow their church to be one as a sign of successful ministry (not that there is anything inherently wrong with a large church)Do you think that there has been a paradim shift within Pentecostalism about what success is, and that success is the new form / fruit of "Holiness"

Also as a Pentecostal Christian, fellowshipping outside the Pentecostal movement, looking in from the outside, it seems there is a form of Pentecostal sub-culture that makes it standard to joke about mega-churches / leaders / success / other demominations etc that in of its self is not showing integrity or a level of holiness and so it could be a larger problem within the entire church and not just the larger ones?

[Tanya Riches]

Agreed with Deb - what a great read Mark ;-)! we may not like to hear these things said, but to pull down the rhetoric and look at what we are saying means is revealing - we don't always end up doing the right thing in our defense against the media onslaught, or in motivating people to do what we want them to do - although, how would we build the church otherwise, right pastors! So much vision, not enough time, money or support.

I would love to read M's follow up on language creating the belonging we are all searching for - & the something in the content itself we may find difficult to express, but that is different from 'out in the world' - for example, the familiar sense of God's nearness in worship, the 'awesome' encouragement we get from knowing each other, the 'challenges' to give more both financially and sacrificially as our western world moves more towards consumerism and individualism at the expense of others, the hope an alternative community centred on Christ can bring.

hehe as we head toward the biggest conference of the Christian year, may we all become moral, ethical and LESS integrous! (I swear this article was aimed at me, I must have used that word three times in the last week, unaware it wasn't legit!!!)

[Tanya Riches]

PS Mark if this goes to your email, I am serious about wanting to read the follow up - only because you've already brought my attention to the value of these things, and these churches are successfully redefining language - so there must be something to say! It's started me thinking... :-)