Yesterday’s News & Ideas posted an article commenting on the symbolic leadership of the royal family. It raises some interesting questions for religious leaders:
[Monarchs] can't compel anyone to do much of anything. That can leave a monarch [insert pastor] an empty, vacuous vessel, or, as in the case of Elizabeth, evoke innate, real nobility that exercises a benevolent, non-coercive influence that far exceeds command and control...Influence without control permits those who observe those embodied symbols the freedom to respond with their best instincts. The Dalai Lama fills this leadership model as did Nelson Mandela while he was yet a prisoner.
And then there is Jesus, of course.”
And then there are pastors. Aren’t pastors in a similar position? Like modern royalty, they no longer have the power and influence they once possessed by virtue of their office. They can’t coerce or compel anyone to do anything. But don’t the best ones lead like Elizabeth, exercising “a benevolent non-coercive influence” and bringing out the best in people? What does that look like across the landscape of North American churches?
