A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Brian Stiller is the Executive Director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and Speaker at the 1988 Annual Meeting of the Renewal Fellowship. This article first appeared in the Sundial, a quarterly newsletter published by the E.F.C. It was in the third quarter issue in 1987 and is printed here by permission.
“Star Trek,” the original TV series, opened with its spine-chilling mission, “… To seek out new life … to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
Is this same attitude true of our faith? Or has life become so technical, our faith doctrinal, ministry systematized, leaders disappointing and our dreams so tarnished with cynicism that our hearts no longer thrill to the challenge of taking new territory for God?
The question filled my mind as I stood to give the keynote address at a conference recently held in Singapore (Singapore ’87) for younger church leaders from around the world.
In my article reprinted in the last issue of Channels, I spoke on patterns of leadership with my generation, and apparently struck a real nerve.
My analysis was this: Church leadership which emerged following World War II was characterized by creativity and risk-taking. In turn, my generation was recruited into managing the visions of those of the former generation. Their long shadow shielded us from developing our inner dreams. Instead, we seemed to enjoy the security and comfort of continuing with their ideas and organizations.
A world survey
A few years ago I travelled to many parts of the world and discovered the same patterns I had observed in North America. There seemed to be little effort anywhere on the part of senior leaders to pass the torch to younger leaders and little interest by younger leaders to pick it up and run. Although senior leadership agreed that they were in desperate need of younger leadership, there seemed to be little or no effort to put in place a strategy for the raising up of a new generation of leaders.
What I found even more frightening was the drift of younger leaders. In many countries and for various reasons, I could see that many were looking for positions that would primarily provide social standing and financial security.
Further, too often I saw simply the reworking of old leadership models issuing out of the colonial experience. Inflexible denominations and stereotyped organizational patterns were squelching creativity.
In 1989, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization will hold its next world conference. A critical question on its agenda is, “To whom will we pass the torch of leadership?”
When we fail to pass the torch
As we look at churches and organizations today, we can see that there are many in need of torch passing. But either the senior leader desperately holds on too long with no attempt to train or give opportunity to the younger, or the tension produces so much conflict that the younger leader heads off to some other, more flexible opportunity. Out of it all, energy and vision are suppressed. This leads to an increasing loss of touch with reality and a lack of clear goals and effective strategy.
How can the torch be passed? Does it take a revolution as in the Philippines or South Korea for leadership to wake up? Are tension and the suppression of talent and ideas always necessary to force a change?
There is a wonderful example in the Old Testament of the passing of the torch – from Moses to Joshua.
The announcement, “Moses, my servant, is dead,” boomed out across the tents in the valley. What would happen now? many wondered. Fortunately for the people of Israel, Moses had carefully nurtured and developed a younger leader – Joshua.
What Moses did then lends powerful ideas to this generation.
Leadership includes different styles
Moses recognized that leadership emerges out of different styles. Whereas he was a crusader, Joshua was a manager.
Moses was angered by the treatment of his kinsfolk. Later he defended some young women who were being harrassed while tending their sheep. Ultimately his crusader instinct led him to say yes to God’s call to lead the people out of Egypt.
How different Joshua was. Right from the beginning, we see his obedience. Never is there conflict between himself and Moses. There was no sign of trouble because of a strident spirit of a self-centred personality.
Moses didn’t look for someone identical to himself. A different style was needed. Moses’ and Joshua’s backgrounds, personalities, styles, means of operation and public profiles were vastly different. Yet each was a leader and each, from his base of strength, was used by God in particular way and particular time.
Different times call for different styles
It’s easy to be trapped into believing in a “best” form of leadership. My generation has grown up thinking its cloth must be cut from a certain model. Since World War II church leadership has been characterized as aggressive, charismatic, individualistic and outgoing. This view of leadership, however, has been typecast from a specific time and culture. It’s time we looked for other models.
Moses was a restless and dominating figure who led his people out of bondage and defined the basis of the community by his special contract with God. How different was Joshua! Learning from his tutor, Moses, he took the patterns and ideas expressed by his predecessor and molded them into a working society. Each leader was competent but their styles were different.
Passing the torch is inevitable
It’s not always easy to make the transition from one generation to the next. My generation has lived with the “long shadow” syndrome. The long shadow occurs when a key senior leader, often a creative and crusading “Moses,” continues for so long that his or her shadow blankets the one who is following. And the up-and-coming leader never gets an opportunity to nurture his or her own vision. Instead, the potential leader gets trapped by serving the older and never really develops the fine edges of his or her own leadership.
Managing Moses’ ideas
Joshua became the manager of Moses’ ideas. And how necessary it is that crusaders nurture and train managers to put their ideas into order and practice. Joshua succeeded because he refused to succumb to the weakness which plagues all managers: maintaining the status quo. Rather, he nurtured his vision and risked beyond the borders of Moses.
Canadians have been captured by three unlikely heroes over the past few years. Terry Fox, with one leg lost to cancer, ran halfway across Canada. Steve Fonyo, who had also lost a leg to cancer, completed the cross-Canada run. Recently Rick Hansen rolled 40,000 kilometres around the world in his wheelchair.
Canadians responded with uncharacteristic enthusiasm. Why? Because the unlikely arose and opposed their natural handicaps and defied those who were able.
Our society is possessed with itself. Sadly, the church is infected with the same spirit. It’s time for some heroes. It’s time to run counter to the plague of “me first.” It’s time to run with abandonment as we take the torch and press on to the victor’s stand.
Our world is in need of women and men of God who will lead his people into his promises. This does not call for passive, timid-minded souls. It will take those who, like Joshua, in faith and Christ-like grace follow on the heels of mighty leaders and pick up the torch.