The Problematic Approach to Leadership Selection in Mike Breen's Model
Introduction
In his book Launching Missional Communities (co-authored with Alex Absalom), Mike Breen outlines a model for selecting church leaders that raises significant concerns. Notably, this model appears to discourage questioning authority, a stance that has far-reaching implications for the health and integrity of church leadership. A key passage from the chapter titled “Who Can Be an MC Leader” encapsulates this issue:
Are they willing to be accountable? - You can assess this by directly asking your potential leaders, as well as listening to what others say about them. Put another way, how well do these potential leaders submit to those over them? Are these potential leaders loyal, constructive, and servant-hearted, or are they proud, challenging, and disruptive? People who lead the potential leaders will usually be very insightful about this.
Redefining Accountability: A Misstep with Serious Consequences
The word “accountable” is heavily emphasized in Breen’s model, yet it is not used in its true sense. Accountability traditionally means being responsible for one’s actions, being answerable, and providing justification for decisions. In Breen’s model, however, accountability is conflated with submission. This misinterpretation is not a minor error; it fundamentally alters the expectations placed on leaders, favoring compliance over critical thought.
The Risks of a Submissive Leadership Model
Breen’s emphasis on loyalty and submission over challenge has profound implications for the church’s leadership culture. By prioritizing these qualities, senior leaders may create an environment where dissent is not only discouraged but actively suppressed. This shift poses several significant risks.
Suppressing Healthy Dissent
When leadership selection prioritizes submission, the environment becomes hostile to healthy dissent. Constructive criticism, essential for organizational growth, is stifled. This lack of diverse perspectives leaves leaders insulated, potentially blind to ethical issues, safeguarding failures, or strategic errors.
The Echo Chamber Effect
A leadership culture that values loyalty above challenge risks devolving into an echo chamber. In such an environment, decision-making is compromised by a lack of critical voices. Leaders surrounded by agreeable subordinates are likely to miss opportunities for growth and innovation, resulting in narrow and flawed decisions.
Undermining True Accountability
When compliance is the primary criterion for leadership, true accountability is undermined. Leaders selected for their willingness to submit are unlikely to hold senior figures accountable. This dynamic erodes the church’s governance structures, concentrating power without sufficient oversight and allowing mistakes to go unchecked.
Increasing the Risk of Power Abuse
A culture that discourages challenges to authority is fertile ground for the abuse of power. Even well-intentioned leaders can drift towards authoritarianism when they are not questioned or held accountable. This erodes trust within the church community and alienates members whose concerns are ignored.
Stifling Innovation and Growth
Churches, like all organizations, must evolve to meet new challenges. Leaders who are not challenged are unlikely to innovate or adapt effectively. Without a diversity of viewpoints, creativity is stifled, leaving the church ill-equipped to respond to changing circumstances.
Isolating Well-Intentioned Leaders
Even leaders with the best intentions are not immune to the negative effects of an unchallenged leadership culture. Over time, these leaders can become isolated and less attuned to the needs of their congregation, leading to decisions that go unchallenged and potentially harm the church.
Conclusion
The approach outlined in Mike Breen’s model subtly, yet effectively, discourages challenge and elevates submission as the ideal. If adopted by senior church leaders, this philosophy risks creating a leadership environment that is less transparent, less accountable, and more susceptible to dysfunction. For the church to thrive, it is essential to cultivate a culture where accountability is more than mere submission, where challenge is valued as a critical component of growth, innovation, and safeguarding.