Leadership, power, authority, structure -- four interrelated words, which together form a cluster that has been highly significant throughout Assembly's history. In the beginning, the L-word was religiously avoided, but leadership was present all the same. Over the years our ambivalent feelings have meant that we have wrestled with the cluster again and again, in one form or another. It has been something we have been very aware of, something we have put very careful thought into and done well with, yet it is also something we have been cautious and suspicious about as a congregation.

At times the ambivalence and negative feelings about leadership and power have lead to disempowerment, and to too much time spent on an internal focus, inventing and tweaking structures. At the same time, our heightened attentiveness to power and authority issues has served us well. Our nuanced awareness has meant openness to new ways of doing things, flexibility concerning structures, and the richness of new gifts discovered and developed. And despite our congregational ambivalence about leadership, we have been blessed with life-giving leaders over the years. Lately we seem to be feeling more relaxed about leadership issues. Perhaps we are ready to move on, grappling with the other side of the leadership coin -- what it means to be healthy followers.

"Where we stand depends on where we sit," Ted Koontz said in a sermon while I was working on this essay. He was drawing on his early political science training to make the point that our perspective is influenced by the roles and positions we are in. In the essay that follows, I interweave my personal story of involvement and leadership in the congregation with my perspective on Assembly attitudes towards leadership. Where I "sat" during different periods undoubtedly affects that perspective, so it seems important to include both story and analysis. I hope that this also serves to put some flesh on what otherwise might be dry bones.

Early Years: 1974 - 1979

I came to Assembly as a college freshman, in the fall of 1975. The congregation had been meeting on Sundays since January 1974, but was still in the early stages of taking shape, with a lot of flexibility about how things were done, and a lot of space for energetic college students to be very actively involved. I was attracted by its energy and vision, by the combination of small weekly groups and a larger worship service, by the interest in discovering and encouraging people's gifts, by the focus on walking our Christian walk together. Like many other students in that time period, I quickly became involved in leadership roles -- serving on worship committee and a mission task force, chairing a lifestyle committee, leading worship, serving as a small group representative. At the time, however, I did not think of these as leadership roles, because in those early years we all carefully avoided the L-word.

Two very different strands were influencing attitudes towards leadership in these small groups and house churches. The first came from within the Mennonite church. In Goshen, especially on the college campus, H.S. Bender's Anabaptist Vision and the Concern movement of the 1950's and 1960's had led to an intense interest in a renewed vision for the church. Koinonia groups formed among faculty members and other participants in the College Church; the house church movement flourished on campus. There was a strong focus on seeking to follow Christ in life, of renewing our Anabaptist roots. For some, there was scrutiny of what was happening with current congregational structures, and the sense that earlier energy and vision had been lost, that something new was needed. There was an emphasis on the universality and diversity of gifts, drawing on scriptural passages from 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Romans. Paul's instructions for orderly worship in 1 Corinthians 14, as well as the passages on gifts, were understood as encouraging a plural rather than a hierarchical leadership. Authority for decisions should rest in the congregation, rather than solely with leaders, and there should also be dialogue and consultation with other congregations and other believers.

Interwoven with this was a strand from the broader society, the antiauthoritarianism of the Sixties. Authority and power structures were to be questioned and challenged. Reflecting on Quaker attitudes towards power in institutions during the Sixties, Paul Lacey, then professor of English Literature at Earlham College, tells of a discussion on individualism, institutions and power that took place in one of his classes during this time period:

After a time, to focus on the problems of authority and power, I threw my book into the middle of the room and asked my students to imagine that it represented the power to do whatever one wanted with the college. All anyone would have to do would be to pick up the book, in order to have power to affect whatever he or she wanted. How the power was to be used would depend on the ethical standards of whoever picked up the book. My students were rather sobered at the prospect I was offering them, and for a time no one moved. Then an older student -- a former career navy man now a pacifist -- tentatively made a motion to stand up. Immediately another student, who had insisted that there was not enough support for individualism in American society, leaped from his chair, rushed to the center of the class, and stood on the book!

Let me emphasize my point. My student was deeply suspicious of the exercise of power. He would not, therefore, pick up the book and acknowledge that he was willing to be treated as one with authority. He was not willing to stand for what he believed in, but he would prevent everyone else from acting on their beliefs. He would not act affirmatively, but he would block any action. He would deny his use of power in the very act of preventing anyone else from doing it. ¹

While I don't recall Assembly ever having a comparable discussion on leadership, power and authority, certainly similar attitudes have been present at times. The Sixties gave us a mixed bag -- they brought a healthy awareness of power structures and possible abuses, while simultaneously bequeathing us a fair amount of ambivalence about publicly acknowledged leadership. Reading various proposals about structure and presentations on leadership from those early years (for example, proposals by Marlin Miller, Henry Landes and Harold Bauman ² ), one sees a nuanced, astute view of leadership, an awareness of both the strength that can come from it and the possible problems. However, for many college students and for others who had come from situations where power had been abused, at a gut level the equation was stark: power and authority = bad. The L-word should be avoided at all costs.

These two strands -- the renewed Anabaptist vision and the Sixties antiauthoritarianism -- came together in Assembly's attitudes towards leadership. One result was a lot of flexibility about structure and openness to trying new ways. This flexibility, plus the excitement of being in something young and new, freed a lot of energy -- though some of that energy was then inevitably immediately absorbed in just figuring out what we were doing.

There was also openness to exploring people's gifts and discovering leadership capabilities in new places. While much of the early verbalization of vision was done by men who were already in leadership roles elsewhere -- Norman Kraus, Marlin Miller, Al Meyer, Paul Gingrich -- on-the-ground leadership was coming from young people and from women who had been stay-at-home moms. In the Campus Cluster, Elizabeth Bauman blossomed in her role as chair of the small group reps and then as administrative elder; Mary Ellen Meyer gathered in newcomers and needy folk of many different kinds. In Community Cluster, Denny Kaufman and Dana Miller provided leadership; Ann Gingrich became the first counseling elder. In 1975, Tom Rutschman, then a recent GC graduate, was the first person Assembly hired, with an assignment to analyze needs and services in Goshen. The document he produced still influences the work of La Casa, according to long-time La Casa director and AMC member Arden Shank. Countless other college students and recent graduates took on a wide range of leadership roles -- guiding committees, leading worship, planning retreats, organizing dance group, serving on reps or coordinators.

But it wasn't all sunshine and roses. Sometimes inexperienced people could get placed in impossible situations, with little support and vague assignments. During my senior year, I served as chair for a wealth and lifestyle committee. I well remember the frustrations of trying to figure out what we were supposed to be doing, given an assignment of "bring us a proposal about lifestyle," and the subsequent discouragement when the proposal we brought was rejected. And our congregational ability to recognize and thank people for the contributions they were making was sometimes woefully lacking. One long time Assembly member, then a recent GC grad, remembers planning and coordinating all the meals for an annual retreat, and never hearing so much as a simple "Thank you". On the whole, though, while our ambivalence about leadership created some problems, our emphasis on gifts and on involving many different people enabled the development of many people as leaders, whether we used the L-word or not.

Settling Down: 1980 - 1988

After the initial rush of energy and excitement and the flexibility of the first several years, Assembly began to settle down, developing routines and customary ways of doing things. I remained in Goshen for a couple of years after graduation, but a year after I married John Glick in 1981, we left for graduate school and were away until 1987. While we retained associate membership with Assembly, much of my knowledge of this period is second-hand.

The '80's was a fairly stable decade. But leadership/power/ authority/structure concerns were a reoccurring theme through this time period. In 1980, the leadership group (then known as coordinators) initiated a study of leadership issues, recognizing that we had some areas that needed attention. The study brought out the need for recognition of leadership gifts and more deliberate inclusion of some tasks. It was at this point that we moved to having a number of specific assignments--preaching/teaching elders, counseling elders, and an administrative elder, in addition to an elder for each small group and the overall coordinating group of congregational elders. The use of "elder" required some discussion. Some were sure that this was a slip back to more authoritarian structures, but eventually accepted it as a word that could have new life breathed into it.

In 1984, the leadership issue came up again. There was some fine-tuning of structure, but the major question was ordination. A member of the congregation, Vic Stoltzfus, had become president of Goshen College, and the college wanted to renew his ordination. The request for this needed to come through the congregation. Until that point, and despite the fact that a number of people in the congregation had been ordained in other settings, ordination had been another of those forbidden words. For some people it was too tied in with past abuses of power and authority, while for others it was seen as at odds with Anabaptist understandings of the priesthood of believers. Predictably, we did a study, which resulted in some needed clarification about expectations for various leadership roles, and which gave a cautious yes to the possibility of ordination in certain circumstances, such as Vic's. The possibility of requesting ordination for someone doing pastoral work in Assembly was mentioned, but not pursued at that time.

By now we had settled structures, involving many people -- nearly a quarter of the congregation was involved in some leadership role, many of which involved weekly or biweekly meetings in addition to our weekly small groups. A lot of energy was going into mechanics.

There were also the beginnings of a demographic shift. In the earliest years, the congregation had been 40-somethings and college students. Those former 40-somethings were now moving on with training and moving into new jobs (in the case of previously at-home moms) or were busy with major responsibilities (seven heads of Mennonite institutions were part of Assembly during those years -- Paul Gingrich at Mennonite Board of Missions, Marlin Miller at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Vic Stoltzfus at Goshen College, Al Meyer at Mennonite Board of Education, Harold Bauman and then Gordon Zook at Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries, Jim Lapp as Executive Secretary of the Mennonite Church). Former college students were beginning to trickle back from graduate school, and were beginning careers and families. Each year there was a new pool of students, and there were enough positions that there was plenty of room for "beginners", but student schedules also seemed to be busier than they had once been. Especially among those who had been fully involved from the beginning, people began to experience burnout, and to feel that our structure demanded too much.

So in 1987-88, a task force did some major work looking at our structure and leadership expectations, and proposed a streamlining. They noted a need for us to do some vision work, but felt the work on structure was more urgent. With the acceptance of their proposal, we moved from having biweekly meetings of small group elders and congregational elders, involving about 25 people, to monthly meetings of cluster elders (along with the specialized-task elders), who then also came together monthly to serve as congregational elders -- involving about 10 people altogether. John and I had recently returned to Goshen after graduate school, and I became a congregational/cluster elder under the new structure.

Increasing Tensions: 1989 - 1995

As I experienced the late '80's and early 90's, it was a time when we had a good working structure and good leadership -- for example, we were able to agree to a major building renovation/addition and to carry it through without undue conflict, involving much volunteer labor. At the same time, however, we were in some sense spinning our wheels. Vision wasn't particularly clear and it tended to remain fuzzy. The vision from the early days of Assembly no longer quite fit, and we weren't sure where we were heading. Other things tended to seem more urgent then sorting that out -- first streamlining the structure, and then, after the Walnut Hill Daycare burned and we suddenly had sixty preschoolers in our building every day, the building renovation. We had fewer people in meetings, but our leadership was still diffuse, involving quite a few people, all of whom were also busy doing many other things. Congregational life went on and good things happened among us, but in many ways we were lacking energy and vision.

And now some tensions that had been present all along began to loom larger. One was a concern about "the heavies". It is difficult to sort out the history of a particular phrase, what it meant when to whom. Somewhere along the way, someone used "the heavies" to refer to those members who, through age, experience or position in the wider church, had some added "weight". In the early days, it was almost an affectionate term, a way of acknowledging that when some spoke, it influenced us more than when others spoke. Acknowledging and speaking of it allowed us to take it into consideration and to poke a bit of fun at it.

My personal experience in the early years was that the older members used their "weight" to encourage younger members, to create space to give them a voice and to explore and develop their gifts. During our lengthy and heated debates over whether or not to buy a building, my perception of congregational discernment was deeply shaped by the way the arguments and concerns raised by college students were an integral part of the discussion. We weren't just patiently listened to -- our concerns shaped the discussion and the decision was not made until we were all able to come to an agreement, young and old alike. "The heavies" played a critical role in leading us through a discernment process that gave those who were not heavies not only a voice, but also weight to their voices.

At the same time, the term could have a negative edge. In some ways, the term offset whatever power a "heavy" might be supposed to have. It was clearly not a good thing to be a heavy. For a few people, it was a totally negative term, and one they used to raise consciousness about power issues. It was also a rather vague term. "The heavies" were never specifically defined. Some people avoided taking on leadership roles, or being in too many active or visible roles, because they did not want to be seen as "heavy". Others who did serve in leadership positions continuously wrestled with questions of "Am I being too pushy?" "Am I being seen as a 'heavy'?"

Because so many people were involved in leadership, and because leadership generally was fairly informal, issues of influence and power and authority were often hard to grasp and sometimes were downright messy. What is properly delegated authority and appropriate leadership? What is inappropriate power in the hands of leadership? What is inappropriate power improperly being wielded from behind the scenes? We have not always been able to talk openly and healthily when problems have come up. Talk of "the heavies" was only a symptom of uneasiness with a broader problem.

Some of these power complications came to the fore in the late '80's and early '90's. In the community cluster, there was controversy over the theological stance of a member proposed for elder. Some of the older founding members were uneasy with the direction they felt the congregation was moving theologically. While other factors were also involved, this concern over leadership and theological direction was one factor in the departure of some of these members at this time -- Millers and Gingrichs transferring to Belmont Mennonite Church in Elkhart, Kraus' moving to Virginia for retirement.

At the time the campus cluster appeared to be booming, but small strains eventually led to big rifts. When John and I left Goshen for a year of leading SST in 1992-3, the campus worship group was thriving. By the time we returned the following August, the group had imploded. A number of key families had completed studies at GC or AMBS and left the area; others left for personal reasons or for concerns over the direction of Assembly. Those who had been giving leadership to the campus Sunday School were now gone, and a number of families moved to the community group for the Sunday School. The size of the Sunday morning campus gathering dropped from over a hundred to less than 50 and kept dropping. Those who remained were not able to agree on what form their vision for working with college students should take, and seemed unable to grapple openly with their conflicts.

For a number of years we had not been able to fill all the specialized-elder positions. In late 1993, we abandoned the structure of cluster elders and the Sabbatical Sundays where the two clusters worshipped together. Congregational elders continued to serve the whole congregation, and worship committees picked up the specifics of Sunday morning worship, but there were some pretty big gaps in our structure. In early 1994 I was asked to serve as chair of elders. I hesitated, knowing the tensions about leadership within the congregation and being aware of my own ambivalence about such a leadership role. I did, however, feel a sense of call, that this was my piece to pick up for a time. I accepted, serving in that role and then as a staff person through the next intense years.

Transitions: 1994 - 1998

One of the first issues that came up as I began chairing elders was once again related to leadership. The elders had been proposing that Mary Lehman Yoder be named a pastoral elder and that we pursue ordination for her. Though we had earlier agreed that we might do such a thing, the reaction to the recommendation meant that we once again needed to discuss ordination. After a brief study and longer discussions, we agreed to move ahead with licensing and ordination.

The next issue to come up was how to respond to gays and lesbians, a controversial discussion that had been brewing below the surface for about a decade. Bringing it back to the surface led to renewed stresses on group dynamics. After elders had gone in circles for months, unable to sort out how to talk together about it, in early 1995 we invited Mark Chupp, a conflict mediator, to help us design a process for working through our disagreements.

As he worked with us, Mark was able to alert us to a number of ongoing dynamics and dysfunctional patterns. He noted that our strong emphasis on seeing all as equal meant that we were valuing sameness more than affirming the uniqueness of each individual and the gifts they brought. Leadership gifts were especially ambiguous. In some areas they were acceptable -- we were all able to celebrate the leadership that Dana Miller gave to the renovation project. In other areas they were viewed suspiciously -- a number of males then in their 40's were consciously choosing lower profiles in order to not be perceived as throwing their weight around. Women in their 40's were moving into leadership positions, but struggling with what that meant, and how the congregation perceived leadership. Mark observed that there seemed to be difficulties with the transfer of leadership to these 40-somethings. The older generation no longer felt it was in leadership, but the middle generation didn't feel they had been given or could take the authority to pick up the reins of leadership. In turn, this meant that the middle generation was not using its' "weight" to pass leadership along to the youngest generation. In the imagery of Paul Lacey's story, they were standing on the book.

Mark also noted that our formal leadership positions were quite diffuse -- 3/4 FTE was spread among four people, and unpaid positions such as elders also involved four or five people. Informal leadership was coming from people not in formal positions, who had time to write papers or who felt passionately about what we should do on specific issues. As a result of his meetings with us, Mark gave us a number of recommendations for clarifying our mission/vision, leadership structure, and decision making processes, and for structuring the homosexuality discussion. In the fall of 1995, I was hired part-time to facilitate our adoption of the recommendations, and a transition elders group was named.

As one of the final pieces of implementing the recommendations, in January 1997 a task force made up of J.R. Burkholder, Arden Shank, Kathy Meyer Reimer and myself picked up the question of the leadership structure. By this time, the campus cluster had closed and we were meeting as one Sunday morning gathering. The task force proposed a leadership group of four elders and one or two apprentice elders, and a three person pastoral team (1 FTE). Each member of the pastoral team was to have a clear job description, tied to the particular gifts they brought. In the early days of Assembly, "pastor" was yet another word we carefully avoided. The task force deliberately chose to embrace the word -- though we still went with a team rather than a single pastor, and deliberately chose not to name any one of them as the lead pastor. This proposal was pulled together in record time by the task force (two weekend sessions -- surely a record for Assembly!) and quickly accepted by the congregation. Mary Lehman Yoder and Lois Kaufmann became co-pastors in October 1997, and were joined by Karl Shelly in August 1998.

We seem to have moved towards a more relaxed attitude toward authority and leadership, though there are still traces of that knee-jerk assumption that any little step that clarifies or centralizes leadership is immediately moving us directly into hierarchical, authoritarian patterns that ought to be avoided at all costs. More strongly these days though, there is the interest in authorizing leadership to lead us in ways that bring life and growth. We're not "standing on the book" anymore -- we're ready for leaders who will pick it up and use it well.

Looking Ahead -- 1999 and beyond

Perhaps, as we move into the next decades, we will be able to turn our attention to the other side of the coin, the question of followership. During the sessions with Mark Chupp, someone commented that Assembly is 90% leaders. Most of us are involved in leadership roles of one kind or another, either within Assembly or in other settings. This means we have a lot of leadership gifts to draw on. It can mean that we have empathy for those who are in leadership. On the downside, it can also mean we are so used to being leaders that we don't know how to follow delegated leaders.

We don't want to be sheep, following blindly. What does it look like to be intelligent, supportive followers? What are followership responsibilities? As I have moved out of leadership roles in the past year or two, it has been interesting to think about leadership and followership from this new perspective. In the Interplay technique that the dance group works with, we sometimes dance in pairs or other groupings, and work with this idea of being leaders and followers. Through movement we work with some of the questions the congregation faces: What does it mean to lead? What does it mean to follow? What does it mean to move between the two roles?

There are several followership responsibilities. The first is that we continue to hone our skills of discerning leadership gifts, looking for the unexpected and for the ones that need encouragement. At Assembly we have generally done well at calling out new gifts. With the current large worship group, there are many gifts to draw on, but it may also take extra effort to find and allow those gifts to be tested. There is a delicate balancing act here. We want to encourage tentative new gifts -- we also want to encourage people to use gifts that have already been developed.

We also need to hone our skills at discerning who is called to exercise leadership gifts in this particular place, at this particular time. Knowing that this particular piece of the puzzle is mine to pick up at this moment implies knowing that at another moment, or in another area, leadership of another particular piece is someone else's to pick up. We should be able to trust our discernment, and to give authority as well as responsibility to those we have asked to lead us, and to accept it when it is given to us. This would be true valuing of gifts and of call.

We can also develop skills in honest assessment and feedback that builds up the body. We know we don't want to be blind sheep, following by habit. Being too nice can be deadening. Sometimes there are problems that need to be addressed, or strengths that could be built upon. At the same time, we want to avoid being either overly critical or moving into a mode of I'll-just-sit-back-and-wait-until-I'm-in-charge-again. How can we speak to one another in love, stirring each other up to acts of love, building one another up? Group Lite gave us an example in their support of elders during the difficult homosexuality discussions. They committed themselves to praying regularly for elders, and every now and then dropped in on an elders' meeting, bearing Dilly Bars and bringing a blessing to read to us. We knew they weren't giving a blanket endorsement to whatever the leadership group decided, but we certainly felt their care and encouragement for the task we were involved in.

During the time I was serving on staff and as chair of the congregation, my prayer was "Lord, let me lead by being a strong follower, a follower of you." First and foremost we are disciples, followers of Christ. Whether we lead or follow as we pick up particular pieces of the congregational puzzle, may we all keep our eyes focused on God, seeking to be 100% followers in all that we do, as we grow into the fullness of Christ.

CHRONOLOGY AND TERMINOLOGY

Jan 1974
- the Assembly begins -- one Sunday morning worship group, many weekly fellowship groups
- 3-4 servant administrators
- task force groups

Dec 1974
- 3 congregations (Sunday morning worship groups), small groups
- small group representatives, meeting weekly
- various committees and task force groups
- 6 coordinators, 2 per congregation, meeting biweekly
- Sabbatical Sundays begin (all worship together every 7th Sunday)

fall 1976
- 2 Sunday morning clusters (campus, community), small groups
- small group representatives, meeting biweekly
- various committees and task force groups
- 6 coordinators, 2 + 1 apprentice per cluster, one from group named chair, meeting biweekly

~ 1978
- staff coordinator begins meeting with coordinators and taking care of follow-up work (volunteer position)

1980
- 2 clusters, small groups
- cluster elders, consisting of 1 small group elder from each group, plus teaching elders, counseling elders, and congregational elders; meeting biweekly
- various committees and task force groups
- congregational elders, 2 from each cluster, plus administrative elder (after 1981 the administrative elder was a ¼ time paid position); meeting biweekly

1988
- 2 clusters, small groups
- cluster elders, consisting of 2 congregational elders, counseling and teaching elders; meeting monthly
- small group representatives join cluster elders for part of each monthly meeting (community cluster) or every other month (campus cluster)
- congregational elders, 2 from each cluster, plus chair and administrative elder; meeting monthly

1993
Parallel cluster structure and Sabbatical Sundays dropped. No cluster elders or rep meetings in campus cluster, counseling and teaching elders not replaced in either cluster.

1994
Pastoral elder named, ordination process begun. Staff: ¼ FTE pastoral elder, ¼ administrative elder, ¼ MYF sponsors

1995
Interim congregational elders group named, meeting monthly. Staff: ¼ FTE staff elder (to facilitate recommended changes), ¼ administrative elder, ¼ pastoral elder, ¼ MYF sponsors.

1997
Campus cluster comes to an end. New leadership structure agreed on:
3 member pastoral team, 4 elders + 2 apprentice elders (monthly), small group representatives group (monthly). Staff: 3 pastors, each 1/3rd time, ¼ time MYF