Organic Leadership
s most of you know, I’m a musician. And my “day job” during the school year is with Appalachian State University’s School of Music. I’m an accompanist there, mostly working with vocal students, but also occasionally with some instrumentalists.
This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in two concerts of chamber music. For those of you unfamiliar with classical music, the term “chamber music” usually refers to groups larger than two and up to about a dozen.
The two performances I was a part of were a piano trio (piano, violin, cello) and a piano quintet (piano, 2 violins, viola, and cello). Chamber music is rather different from most of the work I do at the University because it’s not “accompanying”. In chamber music, every instrument is equally important, and at any given point in time, any one of the instruments could be predominant in terms of playing the melody, etc.
This was the first time that I ever had the experience of working in this type of setting with chamber music, and I found it exhilarating! But it also made me think in terms of metaphor.
In July, 2005, I wrote a post called “Symphony or Cacophony” where I drew the parallel between a symphony orchestra becoming unified under one conductor and the Body of Christ being unified under our Conductor, Jesus Himself. And I believe that metaphor still stands.
But there is another facet of the body of Christ that I saw in my chamber music experiences. Specifically, I want to draw on examples from the quintet performance. (For those interested in these things, we performed Antonin Dvorák’s Piano Quintet in A Major, Op. 81.)
In a chamber music setting, there is no conductor. Rather, each player is responsible for being unified with the rest of the group. This plays out in various ways.
There are several ways in which the group coordinates with itself. One of these is the method we affectionately refer to as “The Sniff”.
It works like this: If the first violinist is responsible for starting a particular piece, he will make sure everyone is ready, and then he will sniff loud enough for the rest of the ensemble (and, depending on the hall, the audience as well!) to hear. This sharp inhalation functions in precisely the same way as a conductor’s “prep beat”. In other words, this is the one beat prior to the start of the music which instantly communicates when the piece is to begin, and likewise the tempo with which the piece will be played.
I will use “The Sniff” as my first example of how this played out in our performance. In the first movement of the Dvorák, the piano starts by itself and the cello comes in with a gorgeous solo in the third bar. For this reason, there was no need for a sniff from anyone. I merely made sure everyone was ready, especially the cellist, and I began playing.
The same was true of the second movement. However, the third movement started with the four string players minus the piano. In this instance, it was necessary for the first violinist to give “The Sniff”. And the quartet came in based on that cue.
The fourth movement started with all five of us. The difference was, however, that the piano hit the first note, and the four string players had to instantly respond on the second half of that first beat. In this case, because it was the piano that began, it was I who was responsible for “The Sniff”.
I illustrate all of this to demonstrate how I believe leadership can, and should, play out in the body of Christ. There are times when one or another person needs to “take the lead” on something. However, this is done in coordination with the rest of the body (in my metaphor, making sure the others are “ready” to move). And this leadership is sometimes just a gentle lead in the right direction.
Once the violinist or I gave that indication to the rest of the group that we were about to start, we then immediately resumed our position as “one of the gang”. I didn’t maintain “leadership” through the entire fourth movement. In fact, only about eight measures or so into the fourth movement, it was necessary for the first violinist to once again take the lead.
Another form of leadership that happens in chamber music such as this relates to subtle moments of leadership within a phrase of music. There are moments where the tempo is “pushed” or “stretched” in response to the musical ideas. Sometimes this is planned out in rehearsal, but other times, it “just happens” in performance.
One such example was in the second movement. This movement features the viola throughout most of the movement in a slow and passionate melody in the very dark key of f# minor. After a brief introduction by the piano, the viola takes over, and the rest of the quintet pretty much follows the violist’s lead.
There was one particular unrehearsed moment in our performance, however, where I saw not only organic leadership, but a shared leadership between me and the violist. I’ll try to explain it to make my point.
At a particular point in one phrase, I felt the urge to “stretch” a particular beat. Because the violist was technically in the lead at that point, I had to make sure not to step on her toes. I glanced over at her to see what she was going to do. She happened to glance my way at the same time, and so we were able to watch each other and feel the stretch of the beat together. The rest of the quintet followed perfectly.
The moment was very small. And the glance was very short, but just enough for us to incorporate the musical expression in conjunction with each other, and in so doing, lead the rest of the quintet together for that moment.
I call all of this “organic leadership”. The idea that leadership is fluid within the group, and that it sometimes moves from one to another as the need requires. There was not one set leader in the group, and when we were finished, it was a corporate bow by all five of us with none recognized more highly than the rest.
And what happens when that leadership doesn’t quite work? At another point in the second movement, the first violinist accidentally took the lead a measure earlier than he was supposed to. Instantly, the rest of the group figured out what had happened, and adjusted their playing to once again bring the entire quintet into unity. It happened so fast and without any of us actually having to say or do anything other than adjust our playing (skipping a few notes) to “catch up”.
The first violinist was not demoted as a result, nor was he forbidden from taking the lead in the other areas he was supposed to. Instead, the group organically worked to “cover” the fault, and together we continued in unity.
I think these are all ways in which the body of Christ can work together as one body. And I hope that, even for my readers who are not musical, the metaphor has been explained well enough to make the point. Your thoughts in response?
Until next time,
steve 
April 22nd, 2007 19:51
Good post, Steve!
I can really relate to this. Thanks!
April 22nd, 2007 21:08
Very abstract of you Steve. Idealistic even. Does it work—yes! Is it workable on a large scale—I don’t know.
I played guitar with a friend every week for 15-20 minutes during a prison outreach. The outreach lasted for maybe 6 or 7 years. Sometimes it was not every week but every other. We played the old stuff—Amazing Grace, When the Roll is Called Up Yonder, etc.
The point being that we reached a point, when playing in this venue and others, where we could just look at each other and know where the other was going. Whether one of us was going to change the tempo or segue into another song and so forth.
When we played at people’s houses, remarks were always made as to how in tune with each other we were and that we must practice a lot together. No one would believe that we never practiced—only that we played together every week and learned to flow together.
When playing with someone new, and they start to phrase a song in the way that they remember it and I get thrown off tempo or whatever, I still think of the relationship that I had with this brother.
And even though we attend different fellowships, we can still flow when we play together.
Whether I will ever find this again—I just don’t know.
April 22nd, 2007 21:28
Steve,
I like this metaphor. I agree with Terry: it is completely idealistic. It will never work given human nature. Thank God that we do not live by human nature.
-Alan
April 22nd, 2007 21:49
kkmhmom, thanks! Glad it resonated with you.
Terry, glad to hear from you, brother. I agree that it is idealistic. Most of what I seek to live is labeled as “idealistic” by others!
You asked if it works on a large scale. I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Do you mean in a large church?
If so, I would say “no”. I don’t believe it can work in a large church. But I long to see lots and lots of living-room-sized churches living this out, and coming together occasionally to celebrate God’s goodness together as a large group.
I definitely can relate to the experience you have had with your musical brother. There have been people like that in my musical life, too.
Alan, amen to that! One of the things that I fear gets lost often in our churches is the knowledge that we don’t (or shouldn’t be) living by human nature.
April 23rd, 2007 06:45
Steve,
I enjoyed the metaphor also.
Harmony is possible because of the foundational understanding that working together and doing your part to the best of your ability for the sake of the group produces the best end result for everyone.
Imagine what would happen with your quintet if one of the players decided they needed to stand out from the rest.
April 23rd, 2007 09:00
grace,
Imagine what would happen with your quintet if one of the players decided they needed to stand out from the rest.
Exactly. Now, to press the metaphor, there are times when one player is supposed to stand out from the rest (i.e., playing the melody), but it doesn’t affect their overall standing in the group, and when that “moment to shine” ends, they immediately resume their spot within the overall sound of the group and/or let someone else “take the lead”.
April 23rd, 2007 13:59
I didn’t mean “large church” as much as how often does this kind of seed fall into ground that will allow it to blossom. In my experience, that type of organic leadership will grow only in relation to what kind of tree produced the fruit from which the seed is collected and dried until a time a planting comes.
I guess I can see it happening if we all clean up our hard-drives and allow some alternate programing to take place.
In other words—if you and I begin a walk together during our youth—sharing the same food and shelter—then leadership that moves in the direction of the spirit anointing can come forth.
April 23rd, 2007 17:12
hmmmm…I understand the “idealistic” label, but isn’t saying, “That’s idealistic,” rhetorically just intentionally allowing that something cannot be done?
If so, are the words of Jesus idealistic? Give your enemy a drink; love your enemy; and on and on. Should we say rhetorically to Jesus, “Sounds good, but it’s idealistic, Jesus.”
If we take a basic definition of idealism: seeking to live under the influence of an ideal, isn’t Christianity idealism because it is living under the influence of the ideal man, Jesus?
Shall we say Christianity doesn’t work because of human nature?
Here is simplicity:
In love we bear the consequences of our own and the decisions of others that are marked by human nature, while we hope for and seek out the fullness of the spirit of Jesus to break forth among us! And does or does He not break through? Do we not make an unfortunate mistake to limit our Christian experience to our human nature? The abundant life Jesus said is ours is in His Spirit. If that influence upon us is not real, if we do not seek to accommodate it fully and release it (whether you call it idealism or not matters little; it is a supernatural experience which must be some form of idealism), if we remain in our natural human nature, then is that even Christianity?
The problem is not our human nature, but our failure to walk in faith concerning spirit and thereby become people defined by heaven in contrast with our human nature of the earth.
April 23rd, 2007 20:11
I like the metaphors, but I’m not sure how to apply them. Do we know that the church is supposed to work like this? As I read about the churches in the New Testament, the only real music I see is that brought about by the grace of God. The Corinthian church was certainly capable of a lot of noise. The churches John was writing to in I John went through what appears to be a painful split brought about by a group denying Jesus (they couldn’t even agree on what to play, to use your metaphor). Peter warns of immoral and false teachers. When we hear a lot of noise do we leave and form our own group, or are we called to do something more difficult.
Ded, I agree that Jesus’ words are not to be treated as unattainable ideals. In fact, at an intensely pragmatic level, I think Jesus is describing a way of life that is far better than any alternative. It’s blessed. The problem is that it’s so different than what we naturally think that we (or perhaps I should just say I) have a difficult time taking Jesus at his word.
April 23rd, 2007 22:09
Terry, oh, ok. If that’s what you meant by “large scale”, then I would say that my answer is “yes”! Wholeheartedly yes. I believe that it is what Christ wants for his body, and I believe that it can and will happen eventually. To his glory.
ded, I think that “idealistic” usually is used as a brushoff. However, I can’t speak for Terry, but I got the impression he was using it in a positive way.
As for Alan, I think he was being rhetorically sarcastic. It’s a technique I’ve seen him use quite often, and he uses it well!
The problem is not our human nature, but our failure to walk in faith concerning spirit and thereby become people defined by heaven in contrast with our human nature of the earth.
Amen! You are absolutely correct.
April 23rd, 2007 22:12
Craig, I realize that I didn’t provide “proof-texts” with this post, but in answer to your question, I do believe that this is the way Christ intends his body to function. (Obviously, if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have written the post!)
I’d be very interested in getting some more thoughts from you as to why you think that it might not be the right way to think of how the body of Christ operates.
Part of what drove me to this thought are concepts in the New Testament such as “think of others more highly than yourself”, and Philippians 2 where Paul talks about Jesus laying down his rights for the sake of others (us).
Also, because the gifts given to the church are given by the Spirit “as he wills”, it stands to reason that people won’t always be asked to “stand out” for extreme lengths of time. It was this organic flow of shared leadership that I was attempting to address in this post.
Your thoughts?
April 23rd, 2007 22:27
Steve, this is an interesting metaphor. I think it might be better described as “organic function” as opposed to “organic leadership.” Here is why I say that.
While there may be a rotation or fluctuation in their performance as lead musicians, they are doing so under the static directive of the music score. Thus the de facto leader of the ensemble is the composer. The musicians do not assume the leadership on a whim or a moment of passion, but at the discretion of the one who has arranged the piece.
With that in mind, would it be a stretch to say that the Bible is our “score”? It is God through His word that directs us in our roles in the body of Christ.
April 23rd, 2007 22:35
Gordon, that’s one possible way to look at it.
As we all know, every metaphor can be pressed too far. I personally wouldn’t take “the static directive of the music score” as symbolic of Scripture, although I could understand why one would look at it that way, especially with the word “static”.
I actually would prefer, seeing the “de facto leader of the ensemble” to be the Holy Spirit (as I think we would agree), to view the music as more dynamic as the Spirit moves.
In other words, the song is being written while it’s being played, if that makes sense.
But your view is equally possible.
Probably the only thing I would even slightly disagree with you on this would be:
It is God through His word that directs us in our roles in the body of Christ.
Change “word” to “Spirit” and I would concur immediately.
Good to hear from you, brother.
April 23rd, 2007 22:39
Oh, and by the way, from a classical musician’s perspective, it is quite possible for different musicians to have differing opinions as to what should warrant taking the lead in an ensemble performance such as described here.
In other words, it is not entirely accurate to say that one can only take the lead “at the discretion of [the composer]”. There are sometimes counter-melodies, etc. that might impulsively be brought out in performance.
There is actually quite a bit more freedom in interpreting what the composer wrote than many believe.
However, again, most metaphors can be pressed too far, and the more typical scenario is that those decisions are made in rehearsal prior to performance!
April 24th, 2007 01:12
Wow, what a great metaphor Steve. I can see how people would be uncomfortable with this analogy. It’s not so much a matter of restructuring current church leadership and how it is implemented, but rather, how people would no longer have someone to hide behind.
That may sound a bit harsh, but one of my biggest disillusionments with the church was the amount of complacency in the body. I found that it was easy for me to fall into a life of complacency as well, as the environment seemed to foster that type of behavior. One person gets to do all of the talking and in effect becomes the de facto leader. One person becomes the de facto music leader, another, the youth leader. It in effect becomes a hierarchy with all sorts of little leaders, in home groups, or of committees and the such.
Who do they defer to however? I do not believe it is Christ, but rather the leader of that particular body or denomination. Why? Because that person has a ‘vision’. They have a plan, a goal. They say it is from God, and it very well may be, but I have to question that vision when it becomes realized in something more akin to a business plan than humbleness and emulating Christ. When it means toeing the line instead of being able to ask questions and be an integral part of the process, I’m not sure that is what Christ had in mind when he washed the feet of his disciples, or responded to the question of who would be first in heaven.
I would recommend the book Organic Church by Neil Cole. A great view on this subject.
I have been reading a lot of Bonhoeffer concerning church community as well. Life Together talks about pastor as visionary. I may have to write about that next.
April 24th, 2007 07:26
Steve,
I don’t think I perceived either Alan or Terry as being negative, though perhaps I sounded that way.
The term idealism (like so many words) has meanings that do not allow for us to all use the term in a like-minded way. It is generally accepted that idealism focused on humans is unwarranted and a sure-fire back-fire! Thus, it is a practical application of the term not a definition. (Alan’s use?) Idealism as a philosophical tenet is an “ultimate reality that lies in a realm of transcending phenomenon”, or second, “a mere mental image”. (Terry’s use?)
I wanted others to consider reducing the term to a more basic meaning in which it clearly applies to being Christian in all facets (seeking to be in the ideal humanity of Jesus), and therefore applied toward leadership within the body is a completely fair use. In fact, it strikes me now that if we can see a function of leadership described as “idealistic” such becomes anecdotal evidence it ought to be considered as a possibility within the context of just how ideal Jesus is! Why limit the wonders the Father wants to include in the revealing of His sons? The earth groans to see the sons of God revealed. Why? Is it not because these are wondrous? Might we say such revealing is an ideal circumstance?
The abundance Jesus intends for us is a glorious, achievable (because of His active life within us)ideal!
Why fear our failure to such a degree that we place a hindering burden on our faith, blocking the hand of God to move on our behalf?
April 24th, 2007 10:49
ded,
You said: “The abundance Jesus intends for us is a glorious, achievable (because of His active life within us)ideal!” Exactly! This is exactly what I was trying to get across in my comment.
Yes, the Christian life as presented in Scripture and as required by the Spirit is ideal. There is no way that we can live that life on our own - by our own desires, in our own strength, with our own abilities, etc. Instead, this “ideal” life is only available for those who walk in the Spirit. Certainly, we fall from this ideal regularly, but that does not change it from being our purpose and goal. Actually, I believe that we were created to walk in that ideal, and we are never more ourselves (and never more Christ-like) than when we are living in that ideal.
ummm… I guess I should say something about “organic leadership” and music now.
-Alan
April 24th, 2007 12:14
My revelation of a good leader is one that is first of all trained up to be a good follower. And anytime a person is put into a leadership position just because he is that so-called “natural leader” without learning how to be a good follower invariably fails.
This is probably true for musicians also.
April 24th, 2007 13:22
Steve,
I wasn’t looking for proof texts, though I probably expressed myself poorly. My concern isn’t with the metaphor itself but with how to apply it. I like the metaphor. I especially liked how you described the musicians covering for each other and that resonates with “Love covers a multitude of sins.” I’m part of a (non professional) bluegrass gospel band, and we do a lot of covering.
The problem of knowing how to apply this metaphor may be what some are trying to get at when they accuse you of being idealistic. I avoided this way of phrasing the problem because it seems to me that ‘idealistic’ means to many ‘commands which are both unattainable and not practical but should be obeyed anyway’.
Perhaps an example will make my point clearer. Suppose you were to use your metaphor to describe not the church, but a family. Suppose further that a young father reads your post and goes home determined to make his family work like a chamber group. At first he has great enthusiasm, but eventually discovers a tremendous amount of noise in his family. His wife doesn’t cover for him very well. His children have radically different ideas of what it means to lead and get quite jealous of one another when a sibling shines. Worst of all, the young father finds a lot of noise in his own heart. He sometimes hates his wife. He is amazed at his own self centeredness. He is disappointed by his children because he bets his own pride on their success. How can he apply the metaphor given that his family, his flesh and blood family, doesn’t work the way he expected it to work when he first read your post?
Bonheoffer, somewhere, describes an idealistic man who begins his Christian walk with great passion. He then starts castigating his brothers and sisters in Christ because they fall short of the love and community that he sees described in the scriptures. He ends in self hatred and disillusionment.
How would I apply the metaphor? Unfortunately, I’m much better at posing questions than giving answers. The key, I think, is to find what the metaphor means in the context of a flesh and blood community. The father should not give up his enthusiasm for what the family can be. He needs to find that enthusiasm in the context of his very sinful family and self.
April 24th, 2007 19:49
Man alive, this is some good cooking. DED: I can almost feel what you are thinking.
Let me say this: I am an idealist and a romantic at the same time. I have cast my pearls before swine and taken the hits so am a little skeptical.
When I look in the mirror, I don’t see the bruises but I feel them still underneath my skin.
I think a distillation of all this is that we are all looking for something that works and the simpler the better. Organic, YES! Something that glorifies Christ and validates us at the same time. Something that we can be passionate about—write books and poetry and sing songs about and not have it be like mayonaise. But like hot sauce—something that wakes up our taste buds.
What amazes me is the many diferent ways that we all have of approaching the same thing.
When I first read the book of Acts after being born again, it was like I was really there as it was being writen—the words literally jumped off the page at me.
How far away that time seems and I guess that is the very point—unless we approach things as a little child, maybe we won’t get to where we need to be.
I appreciate the comments and look forward to our collective journey.
April 25th, 2007 06:58
Alan,
We are never more ourselves (and never more Christ-like) than when we are lving in that ideal. Absolutely!!
If we do not come to understand that we do not keep God’s ways since we cannot–our efforts are all for naught; rather we must become God’s ways through identification with the in-dwelling life-spirit of Jesus. He is the living, ideal reality.
April 25th, 2007 07:29
Steve,
If the metaphor becomes practice as leadership in a Christian meeting, several characteristics might be postulated (idealistically):
1. The premise is the movement of one member into “momentary” leadership is an inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus Jesus is the leader and all persons present are followers of Him.
2. All present bear the responsibility to speak gracefully and build the harmony.
3. Weaker members who have difficulty contributing are supported/encouraged by more mature members.
4. Everyone learns to practice forbearance as individuals seek understanding of that which God leads him or her to contribute.
5. God-authored giftings will make room for themselves and be heard in the mix, encouraging all.
6. The giftings themselves are never saluted as bringing more honor to the members who contribute their particular gift.
7. Problems in the sound of the meeting will be addressed ad hoc, again under the supervision of the presence of Jesus’Spirit.
8. Individuals will grow in the Spirit as each accepts responsibility for being a contributor in the Spirit.
April 25th, 2007 07:38
This has been some very good discussion here, and I appreciate everyone’s input.
ded, your last comment sounds a lot like a great summary of portions of 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Thus Jesus is the leader and all persons present are followers of Him.
Oh, that we would all get to that point!
April 25th, 2007 07:38
Terry, I like your enthusiastic response! Good to have you on the journey, too, brother.
When I look in the mirror, I don’t see the bruises but I feel them still underneath my skin.
I know.
I understand a lot of that. And I’m sorry for what you’ve been through. There are many with bruises underneath. Keep looking to the Healer, though. He is making all things new.
April 25th, 2007 07:41
Craig, thanks for the continued dialogue. You pose some good questions:
How can he apply the metaphor given that his family, his flesh and blood family, doesn’t work the way he expected it to work when he first read your post?
I think part of the problem is that we look at principles such as this in isolation. There is a totality of approach regarding walking/living in the Spirit that addresses this.
See ded’s comments in this thread. I think he says it quite well.
April 25th, 2007 09:50
Excellent, and I like Alan Knox’s response. With man… impossible. With God, Possible!!!
April 25th, 2007 12:37
I like Ded’s posts as well and appreciate his insights and approach. Two things occurred to me last night as I was mulling on our discussion. First of all, I wonder if I might not be missing the point a bit. I didn’t take your metaphor to be saying anything about the structure of a church. In other words, taking the lead isn’t, the way I took it, the same thing as being called to a specific office in the church, such as being an elder. Anyone may be called to take the lead, but only certain people are called to be elders. To use (perhaps misuse) the metaphor, an office is like a specific instrument (say the piano). The members of the group take the lead at different times during the performance, but they don’t switch instruments. For me, the metaphor leaves questions about the structure of a congregation open, but I suspect I’m misreading it here.
Secondly, as I thought more about applying the metaphor I realized that I wasn’t being very clear (So what else is new? I went to seminary for three years to learn how to speak unclearly and I’ve often been tempted to get some more schooling so that I’ll be totally unintelligible). Terry’s reminder of approaching things as a little child sparked some thoughts. It seems to me that this approaching as a child may be what Kierkegaard calls a double movement. We are called to both mature and continue to approach as a child. It’s when we try to stay as children (or recapture our early enthusiasm for the Lord) without at the same time maturing that we can get stuck in a useless form of idealism or a metaphor that doesn’t seem to match our actual experiences of life.
April 26th, 2007 15:44
Enjoyed the post! Leadership labels tend to become prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Often one gets named as a leader without regard to the fact that no one is following him.
If the church makes a practice of humbly using leadership labels (”elder”, “deacon”) descriptively of those who fit the bill, then there will be much less gunning for a position of power.
April 28th, 2007 17:04
David, welcome to the blog! I apologize that your comment slipped under my radar in the course of discussion on some other posts.
I appreciated your comments over at iMonk’s, too, and look forward to interacting with you more in this environment.
You are right about labels needing to be applied to those that “fit the bill” rather than positions of power. Thanks for sharing those thoughts.