By Fr Mathew Thankachen O. Praem. –
The Catholic Church in India with its triple rites, having an apostolic origin, traces back its conception of ‘Leadership’ from the ‘Good Shepherd’ imagery that in turn has an origin in the Old Testament (OT) in which the pastor ‘moves ahead of the sheep’ carrying the ‘weakling’ on his shoulder as ‘a protector, saviour and guide’. And much later, in the history of the Church, when the ‘Good Shepherd’ took the aura of ‘Royalty’ under the spell of Constantine emperor, the ‘leadership in the Church’ took a new turn of ‘Divine empowerment’ coupled with ‘autocracy, pomp and paraphernalia’, identifying with ‘monarchical system’.
Despite the introduction of a new ‘paradigm shift of leadership from Royal to Diachronic’ (servant model) since Vatican II, the ‘tyrannical model’ of leadership still prevails and struggles in a democratic society in need of implanting the ideal of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ in its right perspective’ conjoined with duties and rights in view of promoting the ‘culture of life’ for which the Word became Flesh. The recent ‘pastoral guidance of parish administration’ promulgated by Pope Francis on July 2020 further increases the scope of pastoral administration in collaboration with the laity to those dioceses running short of clergy, envisages what could be called a ‘Congregational Leadership’ to meet the pastoral demands of the region.
I notice the following pattern and evolution of leadership and administration in the pastoral field which is inextricably linked with the idea of Ecclesiology and Missiology each epoch emphasized. It is interesting to note all the various patterns proposed below prevails in one or the other forms or a combined leadership is followed in our missions in India.
- The Good Shepherd pattern
In this model of leadership, the whole ‘administrative responsibility’ is cast on the pastor. The congregation is passive and onlookers. They are mere ‘Sunday Christians’ with “yes father and “No” father”. Their involvement is least in the Congregation unless they are asked for. Their experience and expertise are not made use for the welfare of the mission of the Church and the parish. The priests involve in every aspect of the parishioners’ life and he often expects platitude and praise from the congregations. His overflow of mercy and kindness at times becomes a hindrance in the personal and congregational management and skill development among the congregation. At times when things go wrong, the pastor is without much congregational support. In this pattern, the “weak remains always weak” as they are more used to “receive” than to stand up on their own. This kind of leadership is often conditioned by the illiteracy and economic and cultural backwardness of the congregation. Patriarchal cultural dependence of the joint family system and the Jewish tradition that has a deep root in the culture of Kerala too play a big role in maintaining the ‘deductive leadership’ as in the case of education method of the past.
- The Royal pattern
In this mode, the pastor/bishop, like a ‘Pharisee’ tries to ‘show off’ his ‘spiritual, money and muscle power’ over the congregation with external paraphernalia and liturgical rigidity. He exerts his ideas and visions on the congregation and anyone who questions him is considered an enemy to be annihilated. His hegemonic control over the people and resources/facilities of the parish brings abut ‘conflict and disunity’. Co-operation of the congregation is not “willed”, rather “forced upon”. The congregation may reveal an “external calmness” while may “boil rebellion within’ against the pastor. Blind followers and “click groups” within the congregation with selfish and petty ends may bring about “division within the congregation”, giving rise to “rumour mongers”, creating “politics and scandals” in the larger society. The very life-style of such hierarchy – priests and bishops may become a ‘chorus in the street’. Congregation will wait for opportunity to “teach the pastor a lesson” and they will be the first one to rejoice when the pastor fails in the pubic eyes.
In this system of leadership, as we have seen above, the unity and development is affected while pastors find ‘self-satiation’ of their ‘egoistic poverty’ for love and recognition. The royal pattern of leadership is absolutely unfit in a democratic society and conflict is bound to arise. This pattern of leadership is conditioned by the Indian culture of ‘Brahmin domination of priestly class in line with the hierarchical hegemony supported by Canon Law, the Jewish thinking mode of ‘Natural Law of Orderliness’ and ‘vocation’ in the Church as a ‘personal choice of God’ in which the Congregation has no role to play except the customary questioning at the time of priestly ordination. The ‘self-identity of priests’ as the one ‘called by God’ makes him less responsible to the expectations of the people to be fulfilled in him and thereby to certain extent, making him “prophetic” in a positive sense and “irresponsive and autocratic in the negative sense”. The ‘caste-driven’ mission station with ‘tribal- conflict and animosity’ may find a ‘hero’ in the short run, but the values of ‘humility’ and ‘inclusive mission’ may suffer under this pattern of leadership.
In both the pattern 1 and 2, there are two positive elements to be considered viz. compassion and care, viz. “Jesus felt pity for them” Moral certainty and Divine conviction (authority) (exousia Gk) is another point. We find those followed Jesus amazed at his “authority and new way of teaching”. However, when these gospel values are enjoined in the ‘mission of management’, the leader should be able first and primarily to “convince the congregation to make his values accepted” as a plan of action for the congregation. Herein lies the significance of leadership.
- Servant pattern (Jn. ch.13)
In a ‘Democratic society’ with its slogan of ‘Equality, liberty and Fraternity’, the servant model of leadership is preferred, but not without limitations. Theologically, Jesus seems the ‘forerunner of socialism and democracy’ when he called God “the Father” and “humanity, (Mt.11,29) His children”. He told his disciples, “I call you friends…” Again He told them that all men are equal when he said, “what though you do greater than a pagan to love those who love you… and so he concluded, “Love even your enemy” to be “perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”. When Jesus told to “hate the sin”, but “Love the sinner”, He was introducing a “new socialism even in heaven and on earth”. It was again clarified, when he said, “the rain falls on sinner and saints alike”, Thus, making even a sinner equally the “son of God”, “eligible to inherit the kingdom”. Jesus is presented implicitly in the gospel as the “Socialist and Democrat par excellence”.
In the above Diachronic model of leadership, the leader comes to the level of the congregation to “raise them up” just as Jesus did after his Resurrection and before ascending to heaven. Here, the leader becomes one among the congregation. It is based on ‘incarnational approach’ of ‘self emptying’, “coming down” to the level of congregation imbibing their attitude and capability level. While a section may appreciate the ‘simplicity’ of the pastor, the ‘hyphenated section of the society’ may look down upon. Here too, a priest cannot escape from criticism of the “Crosses”.
The following qualities are found in the leader in a Diachronic pattern:
- The leader comes down to the structural and mental level of the Congregation
- He has a docile mind, ready to ‘give and take’
- He is optimistic in views and finds optimism in others
- Very quick in “identifying, encouraging and getting connected” the various talents of individuals, experts and other available human and material resources within and without the congregation.
- He promotes local leadership
- He has a clear idea of the mission he wants to accomplish and the means to achieve it.
- He foresees various hurdles and finds tactics to overcome them
- He is very dynamic and has approachability
- He deals everyone with equanimity and takes care each groups’ needs and aspirations
- He is up date with knowledge and technology
- He is “compassionate” but “firm”
- Shared vision and transparency
- Team spirit and mutual accountability
- He has a fair combination of “head and heart”, “shrewd like a serpent and innocent like a dove”.
However, this system too is not without limitation. When certain ‘talents and skills” are promoted in certain members of the congregation, ‘jealousy and back biting’ may prevail and the pastor should be able to handle such problems through his ‘human resource management skills’ like considering the ‘less able’ and providing a ‘forum’ to his ability and skills etc. Some may underestimate his humility as incapability and thereby bypass the leader.
Many more qualities could be attributed and in my assessment, he should be “ultimately, a man of God and Holy Spirit dwells in him”. “Peter, do you love me more than….” “I f you love me, keep my words and I will come and make my home with you”. “And when you love one another, they will know you are my disciple”. We find both in the OT and NT, God chose those leaders like Moses and Peter who were incapable one way or the other to lead the congregation from slavery to freedom through ‘His Empowerment’.’. Hence the question to Peter, “Do you love me more than…….” Probably, we note with all the “scientific and administrative skills” on the pastoral fields, the Church failed in Europe because, “they failed to love Jesus” which they had in the past that brought about European missionary activities in Asia and Africa.
- Congregational Leadership/Distributary pattern
The congregational leadership is best abstracted from the spirit of Vatican II in which the very nature of ‘Trinitarian’, “Eucharistic’, ‘mission via communio’ is propounded as the ‘theological foundation’ of leadership. So, we find various commissions and committee in the administrative set up of parishes and diocese such as ‘liturgical committee, educational commission, pastoral committee, general body, financial committee, ecumenical commission etc. The role of the leader is primarily ‘co-ordination and collaboration’ of the various committees of the parish/ diocese. The qualities and skills found in the above leadership mentioned could be made use of in this approach too. In the Church in India, we have the parishes patterned on the basis of ‘BEC (Basic Ecclesial Community) or SCC (small Christian Communities). As already seen, the caste system, gender discrimination, economic disparity etc. are a hurdle to establish a true ‘Eucharistic community’ in the parish level.
For instance, in Tamil Nadu, the high caste and the low caste has separate places demarked in the Church and at the burial ground. In Kerala, often the ‘men folk’ will not attend any congregational meetings, because they think themselves superior to women and is below their standard to sit with women in a common forum. The poor on the other hand, fail to collaborate as they always have an eye on ‘material gain’ in any participation. The rich, on the other, don’t feel the need of any involvement in the church activities as they are educated and economically self-sufficient. Electronic Media highlighting church scandals are yet another factor to be considered.
Despite the above mentioned crisis in the Church in India, congregational leadership seems the best suited in which the “neither the leader is ahead of the sheep nor the Leader is behind the sheep”. In the congregational leadership, the priest is the “co-worker and co-runner” moving “side–by-side”. Here, the “responsibility of the mission” is shared to the congregation and congregation becomes aware of their duties and responsibilities.
For a Congregational leadership, besides the positive attributes mentioned above in 1, 2 and 3, the following are to be considered: –
- A new mind set of the leader/pastor to accept ‘feedback’ negative/positive from the congregation with an attitude of openness and tolerance
- Certain educational and economical level of congregation is the best suited
- Common ‘mind set’ among the bishop, priest and congregation. At times, the bishop may remain in his mind set with pre-Vatican/stubborn/ demanding to follow the letter of the law/ authoritarian and the parish priest is so ‘dynamic’ in his leadership with the people, motivating, renewing, organizing etc. may bring about conflict of priest with the bishop and it may create a ‘counter value’ of disunity when finally the people may stand with the priest and challenge the bishop and ultimately, the priest will be victimized, leading to insanity, suicides etc. that are seen in the Church of Kerala at times. Herein lies the significance of a ‘Triple dimension of change of vision and mission ‘among bishops-priest-congregation.
- If the leader/pastor is proved less efficient, it is possible that each committee or the sub-leaders may act independently of the pastor while the ultimate responsibility as far as the parish and bishop is concerned, will fall upon the Pastor. However, if understood well, each committee can enjoy freedom and creativity in decision making and execution, but preferred always with prior communication with the pastor. The Leader may still have to “hold the strings” of various committee, depending upon the maturity he assesses and ‘reference of action’ he set aside for each committee.
To conclude, no single pattern of leadership could be suggested the best as each system has its ‘own limitations. Combine the best in all the pattern with love and Compassion of Christ seems the panacea to overcome the conflict-situation of the leadership in the Church with keeping in mind what Jesus prayed in Jn.17, “that all may be ONE”.