(a) What
are the unique challenges in trying to train new members of the Church in
Malawi?
When considering the challenges facing local leadership, it
is wise to remember that, in many instances, local leaders in Malawi are new to
the Church—frequently called to hold positions, sometimes very important
positions, in the Church after being a member for less than two years, a year
or six months or even shorter periods of time.[1] This of course poses challenges for them as
new leaders. Many of the things they
are called upon to do they have never done before--and even more startling is
that they have never seen everyone else do it before. Examples abound: conducting a meeting;
holding a disciplinary council; sealing a wedding; training and working with an
executive secretary and clerk; handling church monies; holding personal
priesthood interviews; assessing family and individual welfare needs. They have no prior Church experience to
which they can turn to help them know what to do. And often the problem is that they
themselves don’t even know what they don’t know. The Church has its own culture, language and
life style, and it takes time to learn it and to become comfortable in
navigating around—what is appropriate, what is not; what really matters, what
is less important; what might be cultural, and what is core to the Church
doctrines. New leaders have much to
learn and this understandably puts pressure on the Church to ensure that they
are trained as quickly as possible, utilizing all available resources,
including tapping into the strength of the resident senior missionaries.
(b) How
deep is the bench strength in Malawi?
Are there seasoned members who have a wealth of Church experience,
available to serve as local leaders, to counsel them, and to help them find the
way?
Where the Church is well-established, newly-called leaders
have usually had years watching others preside and conduct, teach and train,
and minister to the needs of others.
For example, most bishops, before being called, served in a line of
priesthood callings, preparing them for their tenure—serving as executive
secretaries, young men presidents, clerks, bishopric counselors, high council
men, and gospel doctrine teachers.
Through those positions, they have watched and learned from others
(often many others), as those other leaders struggled, grew and excelled in
their callings. This makes training
newly-called leaders much easier, because they have far less to learn.
Does Blantyre have such bench strength to which it can turn
for leadership? The short answer is yes;
there is considerable experience and with time that experience will be
broadened. Since 2004, the Blantyre
District has been sending out missionaries, most serving in other Africa
countries, but recently several have gone to England and the United
States. Based on a quick informal survey,
the Blantyre District has 21 active returned missionaries attending the
District’s branches, and 11 Blantyre-based missionaries now out on missions.[2] Malawian returned missionaries constitutes a
wonderful pool of talented, committed members, suitable for holding important
Church callings, and available for training others with less experience. This pool will only increase with time as
more missionaries go out and return.
(c)
Do the new members have the skills necessary to
hold important Church positions?
Most local leaders have solid social skills—they are well
spoken, poised and able—and, at the same time, have characteristics we
associate with inspired Church leadership—humility, a spiritual character, a
firm testimony and a reliance upon the Spirit.
They are knowledgeable about the scriptures, and have great interest in
learning the word of God.[3] Even though some are very new to the Church,
they have wonderful skills and it is not hard to see why they were called to
hold the positions they do. Most are
anxious to learn their duties and have no hesitancy turning to others,
including senior missionaries, for support.
The Lord often works through the weak and the humble, endowing them with
a spirit and skills far beyond anything they might imagine for themselves.[4]
(d) How
important is it to prioritize the items of concern that senior missionaries
wish to share with local leaders?
Sharing long lists of concerns with local leaders is a sure
way to lose their attention. Such lists
are daunting, and most local leaders, while open to help, can easily be overwhelmed.[5] To be effective, senior missionaries must be
prudent both in selecting the issues they want to discuss (meaning, a short
list of the most important issues) and finding an optimal time for raising
their concerns. Local leaders need time
to process what we have to say and need to have us help them in “prioritizing”
what really matters. It is impossible
for any leader to address a multitude of issues simultaneously, and this is
especially true where church leadership is still in an embryonic organizational
stage, where most responsibilities still falling on the shoulders of a
relatively small handful of individuals and families. Only as the Church matures does it move
towards a model where responsibilities are more broadly delegated to
counselors, high council men, auxiliary heads, and others. When that occurs, the District Presidency is
better equipped to move concurrently on several fronts, without overwhelming
either decision-makers or doers of the word.
Carole’s list of concerns, and mine, have almost become
legendary with President Matale—not a positive development. Whenever we get a few minutes for private
conversation, he is fearful one or both of us will pull out our lists,
peppering him with question after question.
His responses are light-hearted, but I fear there may be some teeth
behind them. Long lists are often the
measure of a lack of meaningful access.
When local leaders and senior missionaries meet on a regular basis,
usually it is possible to manage better the buildup of issues.
(e)
Do senior missionaries have to guard against
vanity when working with local leaders?
If so, how may vanity interfere with their efforts to give support to
local leaders?
Senior missionaries most likely have the best of motives
when attempting to train local leaders.
They need, however, to be beware of how easily unrighteous vanity or
pride can slip into their conduct, often in the most subtle ways. Sometimes, senior missionaries are
uncomfortable when local leaders struggle in their callings. They wish to help, both to assist the local
leaders learn their duties, and also to facilitate the orderly operation of the
Church. But, when local leaders
struggle, senior missionaries should be hesitant to act too quickly. Sometimes, local leaders need correction, but
as often as not, with time and just a little experience, they will get it right.
Senior missionaries need to be patient and to tolerate some
mistakes and missteps. The Lord
certainly will be. But many of us are
impatient and far too quick to interfere.
Perhaps, many senior missionaries are too set in their ways and may even
be accustomed to being “front and center.”
It is hard for them to be in the background, even the idea of “shadow
leadership” for some is hard to take.
We would prefer teaching the Sunday School class as a way of showing
members how it should be done, than working with them privately and letting
them teach with class with our suggestions.
Teaching the class allows us to exercise control, satisfying in part the
urge to dominate or to exercise our will.
Teaching a member “skills,” helping them be out front, building up their
confidence are much harder tasks, requiring a greater degree of self-sacrifice
and modesty, and greater commitment to the one being taught. It is much easier to do the job than to teach
another to do it.
Moreover, leaving it to another to perform gives them all of
the credit. As far as the class or
other members know, the local teacher is the only one allowed to shine. That vanity and pride might creep into our
considerations is recognized by the Lord, when He says: “Behold, there are many called, but few are
chosen. And why are they not
chosen? Because their hearts are set so
much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they
do not learn this one lesson—That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably
connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be
controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is
true; but when we undertake….to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to
exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of
men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves;
the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the
priesthood or the authority of that man.”[6] I do not mean to suggest that many senior
missionaries are given to gratifying their pride or exercising dominion over
others, yet they need to be vigilant, watching for any signs that they have
crossed the line between being helpful and being controlling.
(f)
Why is it generally counter-productive to
correct local leaders in public?
Except in rare cases, which I will briefly address below,
senior missionaries should not publicly correct or admonish local leaders. Public criticism rarely has the desired
effect. Those criticized are
embarrassed, feel resentful or hurt, and sometimes feel vengeful, consumed by a
desire to strike back or somehow get even.
Rarely if ever do they respond positively to the criticism, whether it
is merited or not. In many cases, I
doubt they even listen to the substance of the criticism—all they can hear or
see is that they have become the victim of a personal attack launched by senior
missionaries. Instead, if something is
amiss in a local leader’s conduct, it should be handled in private—between
fellow saints, in a sense of love and unity.
There are a few instances where public correction is
appropriate. If an ordinance is not
properly performed (such as a sacrament prayer, baptism or confirmation), this
should be brought to the local leaders’ immediate attention. It is best to do this on the spot,
immediately after the ordinance has been done, so that it can be correct, and
thus used to instruct all involved as to the proper procedures in the
Church. If false doctrine is taught
from the pulpit, and there is a risk that members in the congregation might be
confused, someone should make a public statement before the meeting is concluded. In short, whenever an official action is
taken, that would be not effective in the form taken, it is appropriate to
correct publicly. But even in these
cases, care should be taken to be sensitive.
The purpose is not to embarrass those involved, but instead to instruct
and uplift, while at the same time, preserving the order in the Church.
(g) How
do senior missionaries muster up the patience needed to work with local
leaders, when they are resistant to help or for other reasons can’t incorporate
the counsel given into their callings?
In Malawi, where the Church is so new, senior missionaries
need to have the patience of Job. While
the Church is wonderfully robust in Malawi, there are still many ways in which
it needs to develop. The auxiliary
programs--from primary to young men, young women to relief society—are still in
need of much work. Members though
blessed with wonderful spirits are not yet consistently reliable. So, as with all charity work in Malawi, the
threshold question is to define precisely what you want to work on, because you
can’t work on everything at once.
Moreover, one needs to tolerate mistakes and messiness, while sorting
through the various problems. Being
impatient is not constructive, leading to frustration and often bad
decisions. What makes the process even more
troubling is knowing that sometimes allowing local leaders to stumble comes at
a cost to others. Primary children may
suffer while new primary instructors learn their duties, and slowly catch the
vision of what it means to prepare before class. Patience requires that we tolerate mistakes
and performances less than ideal; we allow others to take central stage,
knowing we could do a better job; we wait for others to have trust in us before
foisting ourselves upon them as teachers; we are prepared to let our examples
speak louder than formal teaching opportunities; we restrain ourselves from
criticizing in public but wait for a quiet moment to give suggestions and
counsel. In short, patience requires
that we put people, and their feelings, ahead of programs and looking for
Westerner efficiency.
(h) How do senior missionaries keep from being
sucked into doing more than they should?
The image of a “tar baby” is apropos to illustrating the
next challenge I wish to address. As
noted earlier, even when it is appropriate for senior missionaries to help out,
they should interfere with local leader’s performance to the “least extent”
necessary. Certainly, there are
instances when some guidance is needed—even where it is appropriate for senior
missionaries to step in and help out—as opposed to just giving advice. But
once that has been provided, senior missionaries should “step back” and allow
the local leader to resume the job.
Yet often, this does not occur. Once the senior missionary “begins” to help,
it is as though the senior missionary has touched the tar baby and cannot extract
himself—having preparing the agenda for the branch council, the senior
missionary helps to led the discussion, rather than turning it back to the
branch president; having outlined how to address a difficult welfare problem, the
senior missionary now feels compelled to prepare the written outline to submit
to the Mission President and Area Office Presidency; having started inspecting
potential sites for a new meetinghouse, the senior missionary wants to continue
with the project, instead of asking local leaders to pick up from where he has
left off. It is natural, and certainly
not sinister, for us to want to “finish” what we have “started. Likely it grows out of a desire to leave our
imprint on our own “work product” (it’s our and we have a compulsion to do our
own “stuff” in a particular way) or not to leave “unfinished” a job we have
started to do or to be reliable when we find that others struggle with being
reliable. Yet whatever the motive may
be, this impulse—to keep going on with the projects—has several undesirable
consequences. First, it does interfere
with what should be the duty of others; second, it keeps them from “learning”
their duty by “doing” instead of “watching;” and lastly, the interference may have
the effect of “freezing” the local leader.
It is likely, especially, when the local leader is new, that the local
leader will not be able to do the “job” as well as the senior missionary,
either now or, for that matter, at any time in the future. This may be so apparent to the local leader
that he “freezes” up, deciding it would just be best to leave the task to the
senior missionary. Why try, when one
can’t ever imagine duplicating the “modelled” performance. So the help of the senior missionary, rather
than being “empowering,” has the opposite effect.
This discussion is perhaps too abstract. How much help is enough help? How does stopping “middle stream” really
help—won’t local leaders learn more if the entire task is modelled, at least
once for them? Is it really wrong to
do our “best” for fear of “freezing” local leaders? Shouldn’t we have more confidence in their
abilities, and in the Lord’s willingness to “bless” them, when it is their
turn? When thinking about these
questions, the following concepts are helpful to keep in mind. First, some tasks are relatively “confined,”
and are certainly “repeatable.” They
are done over and over again in the Church—sometimes even weekly; examples
include: conducting meetings; preparing agendas for branch presidency, PEC and
branch council meetings; the right (or at least an appropriate) way to correct
mistakes in the performance of Church ordinances—such as the speaking of the
Sacramental prayers or a baptism; how to sustain a member in a new calling; how
to do “sharing time” in Primary. It
certainly makes sense to model or teach these behaviors, until they are grasped
and can be “repeated” by local leaders without further prompting. Even writing the proper protocol work, so
the local leaders have a crib sheet, may be helpful. But once the task has been modelled, senior
missionaries should expect local leaders to take over. They should be empowered to “duplicate” what
they have seen.[7]
(i)
What can one do to enhance the “sustainability”
of any training the senior missionaries do?
And, what will happen when we are gone?
Some may think the only role senior missionaries should play
is to develop in local leaders “sustainable” skills, with the expectation that
local leaders will be able to deploy those skills after senior missionaries
have returned home. If what the senior
missionaries are doing does not lead to such “sustainable” skills, they should
do something else. Trumpeting
“sustainability” as the critical concept is hardly novel to the Church. Indeed, sustainability has been heralded as
the key criterion for assessing the success of many modern development projects
in third-world countries, such as Malawi.
Many prior projects have floundered precisely because some critical
aspects of the projects’ ongoing viability were not sustainable after the
charities left—equipment broke down; replacement parts could not be located;
locals were not adequately trained and equipped to handle routine
maintenance. So things were not much
better a few years later than there were before the projects were done.
Some in the Church have carried over the concept of
“sustainability” as a guide for determine how to train local leaders and
members. Many think each act of training
should be preface with the question-- what will happen when senior missionaries
are no longer around to help. How will local
leaders solve the problem on their own? If training is not geared to address that
eventuality, their efforts are misguided.
Sooner or later, local leaders and members must be fully self-sufficient
and self-contained, without relying upon foreigners for support. While there is likely much truth to this
approach, I find it to be too constraining.
Surely, training should be directed at building up the skill sets of local
members. But at the same time, it
should be designed to provide the best possible training available, without
trying to prejudge how much of that training can be replicated in the future. One does the best one can and hopes the Lord
will make up the difference. One should not sell the local leaders short; often
their performance will far exceed anything one might have imagined.
(j)
What can senior missionaries do when local
leaders notoriously abdicate their responsibilities?
Local leaders, on occasion, just don’t step up and fulfill
their responsibilities. Various reasons
can be given for these failures—some members are not committed; they are not
willing to prepare for assignments or even to show up when they have jobs to
do;--some lack basic skills and may be incapable of doing what they are asked
to do;--some are dishonest and, if given the opportunity, will steal from the
Church and their fellow saints. Some,
even if committed and possessing sufficient basic skills, are cowered by senior
missionaries. They may find it easier
to let senior missionaries take charge if they will, arguing to themselves that
this is really better for the Church.
[1]
For example, one of the four branch president has been a member of the Church
for less than two years. Three of the
four have never served missions, and do have have the seasoning and experience
that comes with missionary service.
[2] See
“Today’s Membership in Blantyre—Returned Missionaries,” supra.
[3]
See “Today’s Membership in Blantyre—Scripture Literacy and Knowledge,” supra.
[4]
See D&C 1: 19; 23.
[5]
My current list of concerns for the District Presidency illustrates the
problem. It is simply too long to be
helpful, requiring that it be distilled down to a handful of issues, before
being shared with the District Presidency.
Obviously, I can carry forward issues to a latter date, if I think they
are still important enough to keep on the list. Issues for discussion include: (i) asking
the District Presidency to follow up with callings of two new counselors for
the Blantyre 2nd Branch; (ii) preparing for the visit of Logan Hugo,
a real estate specialist in the Johannesburg Area Office, who will be in
Blantyre to look at potential sites for new buildings; (iii) hosting a dinner
for the new District Presidency; (iv) coordinating with the Blantyre 1st
and 2nd Branches the operations of the meetinghouse library; (v) the
District’s sponsoring a special meeting of returned missionaries; (vi) cleaning
out the “cleaning” closet in the Blantyre meetinghouse; (vii) changing the
authorized signatories for the Blantyre 2nd Branch; (viii) arranging
for President Chinyumba to host and take care of Elder Chatora during his visit
for the December 5th-6th District Conference; (ix)
getting a piano keyboard for the Zingwangwa Branch; (x) making sure that
Sacrament meetings run the full hour and 10 minutes; (xi) arranging
District-level teaching of the branch primary leaders; (xii) training the
branch presidents on Church welfare principles and policies; and (xiii)
distributing old priesthood manuals to the members of the Blantyre 1st
and 2nd Branches. It doesn’t
take too much imagination to see how such a list could be viewed by a new
District President as either daunting or as intrusive.
[6]
D&C 121: 35-37.
[7]
Sometimes, this does not happen despite one’s best efforts. Local leaders may refuse or be unwilling to
do their duties. See “_______________.”
[8]
Zingwangwa has made great strides with its primary program. Thoko Mzunga, the current president, has
[9]
In late March, Carole and I began splitting our time between the Blantyre 2nd
and Zingwangwa Branches.
No comments:
Post a Comment