Shifting Images of Church Invite New Leadership Frames

Sharon Henderson Callahan

In their review of leadership literature and in their work in organizations James Kouzes and Barry Posner, organizational consultants, discovered one competency excellent leaders agree is essential. They named vision, the ability to articulate and gain support for a shared goal, as the primary gift a leader offers to an organization. Vision implies that the leader "sees" something for or about the organization. It also implies that the group responds in some way to the image the leader articulates. As Kouzes and Posner reflect, leaders "see pictures in their minds' eyes of what the results will look like even before they have started their projects. . . . Their clear image of the future pulls them forward.”[i]

Relating leadership theory to church-pastoring, Lovett Weems, president of the Saint Paul School of Theology, affirms that leadership can never be understood apart from its mission and vision. Weems suggests that leadership never exists for itself or for the glorification of the leader. Rather, he states that leadership “exists to make possible a preferred future (vision) for the people involved, which reflects the heart of the mission and values to which they are committed.”[ii] Similarly, Craig Van Gelder, professor of congregational mission at Luther Seminary, links vision or image of church to the kind of leadership required to bring the image to reality.[iii] Embracing the connection that Weems and Van Gelder posit, Sharon Callahan, ministerial leadership faculty and Director of Degrees at Seattle University School of Theology and Ministry, researched the connection between ministers' image of church and their preferred leadership styles.[iv]

The research presented in this article suggests that how one images church influences how one leads within it. Drawing from the work of theologian Avery Dulles,[v] the article first outlines his models of church to develop the "pictures" of how believing communities organize themselves. Next, the article summarizes four frames of leadership as defined by organizational leadership consultants, Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal.[vi] These leadership "frames" collect a variety of skills and competencies together offering four distinct ways for leaders to achieve their visions. Finally, the article summarizes original research conducted in Western Washington. Callahan's research indicates that leader styles match their models, "visions", of church. Calling for more research, her findings suggest that seminary programs might connect studies in ecclesiology, or understanding of church, with education for leadership.

Models of the Church

In his seminal work, Models of the Church, Dulles considers the development of the Christian Church. As he reviews how Christian believers gather and organize, Dulles observes that throughout the history of the church people respond to tension between the impulse toward institutionalization and the impulse toward the Spirit. As he considers how the tension expressed itself in a variety of ways, Dulles suggests that different communities emphasize certain aspects of the Christian message while underplaying other aspects. He further postulates that certain denominations as a whole take on characteristics of a particular emphasis. Finally, he indicates that the ongoing history of the church in a changing world offers six models or configurations. Each "model" emphasizes a particular ideal around which a community of believers organizes its purpose, practice, and being. These models are named institution, sacrament, community, herald, servant, and disciple.[vii]

These six models or images of church have become useful in assisting people in articulating their own image of the church and have been used to assist people in naming their expectations of the church and leadership or ministry within it. Zenobia Fox, a representative on the United States Catholic Conference Committee on Laity, uses Dulles' images in her research about Catholic lay ministers. She stresses since “many would say that our images are more powerful shaping forces than our ideas, this would have an impact on the way they [the people surveyed] function as ministers.”[viii] Van Gelder affirms that it is "critical that we consider the nature of the church before proceeding to define its ministry and organization."[ix] The chart found in Appendix One summarizes each model's strengths, weaknesses, characteristics and implications for leadership.

Model One: Institution

Based on largely European structures of government, the institution model of the church resembles monarchical governments which vest all power in a supreme leader and subsidiary power in appointees who report to that leader. According to Andrew Greeley, a Catholic priest and sociologist, this model stresses

loyalty, the certainty and immutability of answers, strict discipline and unquestioning obedience, a comprehensive Catholic community, suspicion of the world beyond the Church, the avoidance of the reexamination of fundamental principles, and clearly defined models of behavior that were appropriate for the various levels of the church structure. . . The whole set of beliefs, roles, and practices were all tied very closely together, and they were justified, for the most part, in terms of extrinsic loyalty to the Church, not in terms of their intrinsic rationality.[x]

While the institution model is considered to be almost exclusively Roman Catholic, the Reformation also invoked hierarchical styles of leadership that have impacted contemporary mainline Protestant churches. Indeed, the hierarchical culture of the Western world during the 1540s-1950s affected most organizations, including the church.

Based on the concept of a perfect society with organizational emphasis, the institution model maintains that the church functions as the means to salvation. Thus, the ordained hold the mission of sanctification, evangelization and authority. Within that purpose, some are ordained to preach, teach, and heal in order to save, and some are “the saved”. The structure of the institution ensures stability as power and responsibility are delegated from the top of the structure to the lowest level. The ordained distribute and acknowledge gifts and determine the vision and the mission; the community receives instruction and salvation.[xi]

The model provides stability in a changing and challenged world context. It offers the community a strong sense of corporate identity and historical continuity. On the other hand, the institution model of church can lead to clericalism, juridicism, application of yesterday's theological thinking to contemporary issues, and legalism.

The leader-follower dynamic implicit in this model resembles that of the transactional leadership style defined by leadership expert Douglas McGregor in 1960.[xii] Prevalent in most organizations before the 1960’s, this style allocates to the leader knowledge, power, and wisdom. In contrast the followers are perceived as ignorant, dependent and in need of guidance.[xiii] (Bass 43; Burns 39-40). Since in this model, the church functions as the means to salvation, leaders hold power, knowledge and wisdom, while, as Greeley states, the people know their places, and all is ordered so that the mission of saving souls can be accomplished with organizational dispatch.[xiv] (17).

Model II: Sacrament

Dulles’ second image of church, sacrament, is closely related to the notion of the “people of God” concept promulgated by Vatican II. It is evident in many of the more liturgical churches. In this model the emphasis on sacramental celebrations as the mediator of grace helps connect the institutional inheritance with the newer emphasis on community. Dulles based the image on theologian Karl Rahner's proposition that Jesus is the Sacrament of God and that the church is the Sacrament of Jesus incarnating God. Therefore, as sacrament, the church loves as Jesus loved. The sign of the church effects the grace of God in the world, thus drawing the whole universe into a new reality of grace.

According to Dulles, in this model people gather as Mystical Body to mediate God's grace and presence to the world, transforming the universe from profane to Sacred. In this context a commitment to social justice emerges as redemptive and important to the whole church and world. Community, ritual and mission to incarnate God in the world become very important. Liturgical roles remain a priority and to the extent they are exclusive, they keep a distinct barrier between ordained and non-ordained. This model relates the community model to the institution model, linking the work of the Spirit to the work of institutionalizing. On the other hand, it can become inward looking, and can lead to an unhealthy divinization of the church.

Leadership in this model is more relational, inclusive and shared. According to Fox[xv] (225-228) and Barbara Fleischer, Director of the Master of Ministry program at Loyola New Orleans, this model requires leaders who employ collaborative leadership styles which encourage shared responsibility and calling forth the gifts of the people.[xvi] (35). In this model, the leader operates out of a well-defined vision and demonstrates the communication skills of listening, conflict negotiation, and team building. In addition leaders need to demonstrate skills in creating symbolic gestures, preaching and bringing people together ritually.

Model III: Community

Dulles' third image, the community model, emphasizes the church as “the communion of the members with one another and with God in Christ.”[xvii] (Models 61). Like the sacrament model, this image stresses the relationship of persons in the community. Baptism and Eucharist bind the people together. In this model the Church is a living organism. The leader must attend to the care of each person, provide a welcoming and reconciling environment often achieved through team ministry, empowering the gifts of all the members, and encouraging shared decision-making.

Grounded in New Testament Scriptures, the community gathers together to break open the Word, share at table and care for each others' lives (1Cor 12; Rom 12; Jn 15). The organization relies on the bonds of the Spirit, who is the interior grace of Christ. Spiritually animated by charity and faith, members' communion with each other in Christ leads them to the divine. The members of the community engage in mutual service.

This model is more ecumenically fruitful than the sacrament model because it accents the personal relationship with the Spirit and those relationships are not hierarchical. It includes insights from Bonhoeffer and Tillich, and can include Anabaptist understandings of community as a spiritual communion divorced from the institution. Leadership in this model requires the abilities to listen, to call forth and appreciate gifts of the people in the community, and to give and receive feedback.

Model IV: Herald

Dulles names the fourth model herald. Radically centered “on Jesus Christ and on the Bible as the primary witness of him . . . It sees the task of the Church primarily in terms of proclamation.”[xviii] (Models 71). Dulles observes that this model clearly emerged during the Reformation and proved foundational in the formation of many of the Protestant churches. In this model the mission of the church is to proclaim. Rooted in the prophetic tradition, this model challenges the institution model in much the same way that the Jewish prophets challenged the Israelite monarchy. Thus this model draws from Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos, John the Baptist and Paul. Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, and Wesley, initiate this model during the Reformation. Barth and Hans Kung carry forth the tradition in more contemporary times. Roman Catholics rediscovered this image of church after the explosion in biblical studies initiated by Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. The recent growth of small faith communities, gathered around the Scripture and committed to proclamation and action, indicate that this model lives in the United States, Asian countries, Central and South America, and Africa.

Like John the Baptist, the herald church proclaims Jesus, not itself. Since it acknowledges its own emptiness, the church is not a stable entity that becomes the object of faith. The dominant theology of the herald model is that of the cross. Because church is not identified with Christ, it is not divinized, not an object of faith in itself, and not the kingdom realized on earth. Rather, the church witnesses the message of Christ, calling people to salvation and faith. Embracing the mission to proclaim and witness through the word, the herald model fuels multiple missionary movements.

Leadership in this model is visionary and dynamic, outward looking, rooted in and demanding knowledge of the Scriptures.[xix]. (Models 71). In the contemporary church the phenomenon of small faith communities reflects the characteristics of this model of church. Theologian Edward Kilmartin notes that the leadership competencies of the Latin American and African base communities would also include courage and political acumen for moving toward systematic change.[xx] (488-89). A new study of small Christian communities, published by theologian Bernard Lee of Loyola New Orleans, indicates that leadership in these communities includes outreach to social justice issues and attention to the larger community, both civil and sacred.[xxi] (14-18).

Model V: Servant

Dulles described the servant model as appropriating “the most fundamental mission of the church . . . that of reconciliation, the overcoming of the various alienations that vex humanity today . . . altruistic service toward the poor and the oppressed. This service can include prophetic criticism of social institutions.”[xxii] (Models 104). The servant model emphasizes the importance of diakonia as the way of being. Based in New Testament images such as Jesus' feet washing in John's Gospel, and Paul's "I am all things to all people", the servant church proclaims and stands with the "last who shall be first." Articulated by many faith traditions in this century, this image of church becomes the model of human service to the world.

Leadership theorists cite Greenleaf's efforts at elevating the concept of servant leadership.[xxiii] His leadership theory matches the models emphasis on skills of listening, serving, and calling forth the gifts of all the people in the community. Carol Becker, church leadership researcher and author, cautions women leaders who identify with servant models that the image of servant leader can perpetuate women as "less than,”[xxiv] She urges women, therefore, to thoroughly understand and explore the implications of this leadership style. Similarly, Eric Law, multicultural church leader consultant, proposes that leaders who are marginalized might claim more voice while leaders in dominant groups might more fully embrace servant leader images and practices.[xxv] Callahan also discovered dissonance around this image both in her Delphi study and in her work with students in pastoral leadership. She concurs with the cautions raised by Becker and Law.[xxvi]

Model VI: Discipleship

After publishing his first five models, Dulles continued to reflect on the organization of the Church. Eventually he suggests a sixth image, discipleship. Capturing the notion that the church walks forward on a journey, the model views the People of God as learners (disciples), open to the Spirit, and committed to the way of Jesus. Rooted more in the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24), this model envisions the church as an alternative society.

This image builds in room for failure, since it posits the need to learn and grow. It calls disciples to remain attuned to the ongoing revelation of God in their lives and in the world. This model places more emphasis on the community as the group that discerns the movement of God, rather than investing discernment totally in individual revelation. Baptism is the sacrament of ministry, reconciliation helps the community grow and move forward while matrimony and orders assist the mission of the Church. Using Bonhoeffer's language concerning the cost of discipleship, Dulles considers this model a contemporary development that pulls together many aspects of the other models.

The disciple model reflects language similar to the newly developing theories of transformational leadership which incorporate lifelong learning and organizational transformation. Peter Senge, an innovative leadership theorist and consultant, appropriates Scriptural language such as "diakonia," "koinonia," and "disciple" to engage leaders in contemporary society in leading as lifelong learners utilizing multiple intelligences.[xxvii] Margaret Wheatley, an organizational development consultant and author, also contributes to the notion that the organization changes according to an inward dynamism that orders and shifts as needs and resources vary.[xxviii] Drawing from the insights of quantum sciences, Wheatley encourages leaders to develop lifelong habits of learning and flexibility. These habits resemble those of disciples who attend to God's activity in life and the universe, transforming themselves and others.

Summary: Models of Church

Avery Dulles defined six models of church, each with implications for how leaders and followers might vision needs, mission, and community dynamic. Since the 1950's, the church has undergone changes in emphasis. Using Dulles words of "Institution" and "Spirit", John Shea, Catholic theologian and storyteller, summarizes the tension of change in the Catholic Church:

The Catholic Church in general and the local parish in particular are in transition from a hierarchical to a community model. This means not that one model replaces the other, but that the values of both models are held in tension so that the mission of the Church can be carried on more effectively. Ideally, the values of the Pauline vision - recognition of diversity of gifts, service, mutuality, cooperation, emphasis on the local church - interact with the values of the hierarchical model - direction, authority, correction, emphasis on the universal church - to create a new embodiment of the Church in history.[xxix] (ix).

This notion of movement from one dominant model (institution) to a variety of models (more infused with Spirit) ultimately invites more ecumenical exchange. The benefits that Shea listed in the community models are gifts offered to the church since the Reformation. Moreover, more theological exploration is surfacing additional models and understandings of church. Theologians such as Catherine Mowry LaCugna, Shirley Guthrie and Miroslav Volf offer new insights grounded in Trinitarian theology. Their theological exploration impact understandings of communal models of church.

Similarly, the Western world has shifted its reliance on hierarchical models of leadership. Describing the organization as an organism seeking equilibrium, Wheatley warns that once the organism attains that stability, it teeters in the moment between life and death. She notes that if the organization opts for stability it dies; if it follows the challenge to new order and embraces chaos, it finds life.[xxx] (76-78)

The tension of equilibrium resembles the dynamism between Institution and Spirit as Dulles defined it. As a living organism, the church finds itself caught in moments of tension that spell life or death. It is precisely this dynamic tension which moves the church from one image or model to another.[xxxi] (Models 27) This tension demands multiple leadership skills and intelligences, as Bolman and Deal have carefully described. It is this tension that invites contemporary leaders and followers to dream their visions and to develop the kind of communities that can realize them.

Bolman and Deal Leadership Frames

Through their work with organizations, Bolman and Deal developed a theory of leadership frames to assist people in identifying how to be more effective leaders in a variety of situations. They surveyed organizational and leadership theories and offered the four frames as ways to organize skills, competencies and natural qualities in response to specific situations. They defined the four frames as structure, human resource, political and symbolic. A summary found in Appendix Two lists the basic gifts and weaknesses of the leadership frames.

Frame I: Structure

The structure leadership frame emerged out of time management studies. The structure frame emphasizes organizational roles, goals and technology. It looks at the purpose and the environment of the organization asking questions concerning how the work actually gets done. Structure leaders offer clarity, fixed division of labor, predictability and stability. In its worst incarnations this frame can resemble the power distribution articulated by Douglas McGregor as Theory X. The implications for leaders and followers closely resemble those of the institution model of church.

Frame II: Human Resource

During a time of church renewal (late 1950’-70’s), general leadership theories also shifted toward more communal models. Organizational development theories and evolving psychological theories challenged the confinement of old structures. These leadership theories connected the disciplines of leadership, psychology, group dynamics, and quantum science. During this time, theorists began to observe that people used more than one style of leadership. Thus Blake and Mouton developed a grid that described two dimensional leadership-followership relationships built on achieving task while maintaining relationship. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard moved the model of task-relationship further. Norman Shawchuck[xxxii] adapted their language and examples for church leadership, thus creating a tool for evaluating styles of leadership directly related to church ministry. As the research on the two aspects of group interaction increased, more work emerged articulating the human relation aspect of leadership. Bolman and Deal cluster much of the human relation work into their human resource leadership frame.

This human resource frame emphasizes interdependence between people and the organization. Leaders using this frame start from the premise that peoples' skills, insights, ideas, energy and commitment are an organization's most important resource. Those who operate out of this framework ask why people behave as they do and what can they can do about it. According to the values espoused in this frame, the leader identifies peoples' gifts and seeks to fit gift to task. As a result leaders operating out of the human resource frame assume benign intent and competence of their associates. The human resource frame, incorporating communication skills, listening, interpersonal feedback and conflict negotiation most closely aligns with the sacrament and community church models.

Frame III: Political

Leadership theorists such as Warren Bennis, James MacGregor Burns, Max DePree, Beverly Forbes, John Gardner, Robert Greenleaf, James Kouzes and Barry Posner have developed more refined analyses of leader qualities, skills and competencies.[xxxiii] They have contributed to a body of leadership theory calling for transformational leaders. These theorists agree that leaders need to demonstrate competency in communication skills, listening, interpersonal feedback, shared decision-making and conflict negotiation. In addition, they suggest that leaders can train themselves to develop vision for an organization, to speak and motivate others toward organizational mission, and to formulate and preside over organizational ritual.

Bolman and Deal acknowledge the contribution of these and other theorists as they formulated the final two frames, political and symbolic. These frames begin to move leadership out of a two dimensional dynamic toward a multidimensional endeavor. They address issues and leader intelligences that were often ignored in previous leadership theories.

The political frame recognizes the importance of power in the leader-follower relationship. It posits that communities compete for scarce resources. Since scarcity demands that organizations vie for the resources, political leaders rely on highly developed conflict negotiation skills. This frame suggests that people and organizations operate in a network of interdependence. Within this framework, communities respond to great visions for change. Often charismatic leaders articulate a strategy for achieving the vision, and they are extremely skilled at building coalitions and networks. On the other hand, leaders who operate exclusively in the political frame can underestimate the significance of rational and collaborative processes and that can lead to cynical and pessimistic organizations.

The leader in the servant church model utilizes skills from the political frame as well as from the structure and human resource frames. In the political arena, for example, servant leaders must know where power is and how to work within its confines as people of integrity. Similarly, servant leaders might examine ways to effect systemic change for the common good and draw upon structure frame skills of identifying job descriptions, allocating authority, and determining efficient flow of resources to need.

Frame IV: Symbolic

Finally, Bolman and Deal articulate a fourth frame grounded in the culture of the organization. The symbolic frame names gifts and abilities that assist a group in describing and appropriating meaning together. In this frame, the leader creates images, stories, and rituals to root the organization in a shared history. Drawing on cultural and social anthropology, the leader assists the group in interpreting and illuminating the basic issues of faith and meaning. Accepting ambiguity, the leader addresses what decisions, visions, mission, and life for the group mean.

Leaders comfortable in this frame see life as fluid. Max DePree's two texts, Leadership as an Art and Leadership Jazz, suggest the kind of leader that uses the symbolic frame well. In these, DePree notes the power of the story of the organization to shape the future. He also depicts a successful company that attuned itself to that reality, and developed strategies for initiation and renewal that called upon the power of ritual, story telling, and image. When used appropriately and well, leaders operating out of a symbolic frame can unify a group through shared participation in the history and identification with the process. The leader's use of story and ritual can lead to creativity and a highly developed sense of mission. At the same time, reliance on the traditional rituals and stories without attention to their capacity to renew, can also deaden a group and condemn it to status quo thinking, thus blocking adaptation and learning.

This frame relates to each of the models of church. Indeed, this leadership frame relates to the Judeo-Christian renewal processes that begin with the great Shema (Deut 6:6-9) and the Israelite renewal events patterned after Joshua 24. That ritual reinitiated the entire Jewish community as they heard the story and made it their own. The Christian Church relies on this principle as it celebrates the Paschal mystery. The rituals of the more liturgical churches more emphatically embody this frame, thus the sacrament, institution, and community models draw more explicitly from this leadership frame. On the other hand, the herald, servant and disciple models require the story-telling and tradition holding elements of the symbolic leadership frame.

Frame Summary

Ultimately Bolman and Deal argue that excellent leaders must demonstrate ability to utilize skills, competencies and knowledge bases from each of the frames as needed. While acknowledging the gifts inherent in each style or frame, they assert that leaders in this century will move organizations to new realities. They urge leaders to develop the facility to move freely within the frames in order to guide organizations into their visions.

Research Connecting Models of Church and Leadership Frames

The research reported in this article was conducted in two ways. First, the author conducted a stratified random sample three-part Delphi survey in Western Washington. Second, the author collected data from students in her classes in Pastoral Leadership at Seattle University's School of Theology and Ministry. The two efforts offer both quantitative and qualitative data toward the thesis that ministers' images of church relate to their valuing particular leadership styles and competencies. Relying on Dulles' models of church and Bolman and Deal's frames of leadership, the research effort compares ministers' models of church to their stated ranked competencies.

In 1995 the author asked 176 leaders in the Archdiocese of Seattle to identify competencies for leadership of the Catholic Church as they envisioned it in the year 2000. Using a Delphi method to structure a “paper conversation”, each participant named five competencies they felt were essential to leader-ministers in parish communities. After a team of experts collated the competencies submitted in response to the first questionnaire, the participants used a second and third questionnaire to rate the competencies and comment on them. The Delphi methodology uses this series of questionnaires with written dialogue over a short period of time (six weeks) to generate consensus about disparate items. The group of respondents reported in this research article identified and ranked thirty-five leadership competencies. Of the thirty-five listed in the study, twenty-three are used in this article. These twenty-three all received rankings of four or higher on a scale of one to five. Based on their standard deviation, they also represent the most consensus among the respondents. They are listed in rank order in Appendix Three. In addition, the researcher ascribed leadership frames to each of the competencies. The delineation of frames by competency is included in the table in Appendix Three.

As part of the first questionnaire in the Delphi study, each participant identified both their current model of church (1995) and the model they felt would be operational by the year 2000. This article reports the findings based on the images of church the participants in the study predicted for 2000 (Table One). As the table records, over ninety percent of the participants, who completed all three questionnaires (n=111), chose either servant or disciple models. This research affirmed other research conducted at national levels among various Roman Catholic populations from 1985 through 1997 by Fox, Fleischer, Louise Bond[xxxiv], director of the National Association of Lay Ministers, and Philip Murnion of the National Pastoral Life Center.[xxxv] The findings in each study confirmed that the predominant images of church currently held by lay leaders in the Roman Catholic church in the United States are those most closely related to community, disciple, and servant. This fact creates important challenges for seminaries and universities as they attempt to form and educate the future leaders of this changing church.

Table 1

Delphi Respondents Model of church

(n=111)

Image No.	Image Name	Image 1995 199	Image 2000
1	Institutional	21	2
2	Community	24	8
3	Sacrament	7	7
4	Herald	2	5
5	Servant	12	22
6	Disciple	40	63
Total		106	107

Subsequent to the Delphi study of 1995, the researcher sought to discover if the models of church and their implications for leadership development affected the catholic ecumenical student body enrolled at the School of Theology and Ministry. Using a tool designed to assist people in identifying their images of church as defined by Dulles, students determined their preferred model of church. As part of the class structure, the ministry students were then divided into subgroups according to their preferred models. Each group was asked to write a definition of leadership and to draw an image that expressed their vision of church. While over sixty students have participated in this exercise, the material used in this article reflects the most recent class group of eighteen students (Table Two) enrolled in Pastoral Leadership in Fall, 1999.

Table 2

Pastoral Leadership Class

Model of Church

(n=18)

Image No.	Image Name	Image 2000
1	Institutional	0
2	Community	6
3	Sacrament	3
4	Herald	2
5	Servant	3
6	Disciple	4
Total		18

Institution and Structure

In the Delphi study this author conducted in 1995, the move from institution to other models of church is so startling that it suggests a paradigm shift in understanding church in Western Washington.[xxxvi] (87, 257). Only one person enrolled in the past two sections of pastoral leadership (n=40) self-identified with the institution model of church. Interestingly, this person was preparing for ordination in the United Church of Christ. Table One reveals that only two respondents in the Delphi study imaged the church of 2000 as institution. The numbers in both areas of study are too small to demonstrate correlation between the image of church and the leadership frame.

Table Three reveals the rank order of the top sixteen leadership competencies as rated by the Delphi respondents (see Appendix Three for the top twenty-three competency statements). The first column lists the rank order from competencies one through sixteen with the leadership frames identified by name and abbreviation. Each subsequent column lists the competencies by number as they appear in Appendix Three, but in the rank order as the respondents within that model of church rated them. A quick glance reveals that respondents who identify different models of church vary in their valuing of the common competencies they surfaced as a whole. The limited number of respondents in the institution model preclude careful consideration of the data in the table related to that image of church.

Sacrament Model and Human Resource and Political Frame

As previously discussed, the human resource frame of leadership by its nature attends to relationship-building in an organization. The sacrament model of church emphasizes the mission of the church as sign to the universe. Relationships within the community and the distinct role of the leader as ritual celebrant combine elements of relationship-building and symbolic presence.

Those Delphi respondents choosing the sacrament model ranked fifteen competencies higher than the rest. A close examination of the data in Table Three reveals that among these leadership competencies, nine are directly related to the human resource frame of leadership, while five are connected to the symbolic frame. This suggests close congruence between their vision of church and their expectations of leaders within that model. As discussed earlier, the sacrament model posits the church as symbol of Christ on earth. Sacramental and liturgical celebrations become key to embodying this reality. Thus the symbolic frame with its emphasis on ritual, myth and story readily enhances the leadership role within this model of church.

The students in the Pastoral Leadership course confirm this emphasis. One group (n=3) out of six identified itself as imaging church as sacrament. The students in this group were Roman Catholic (n=2) and Unitarian Universalist (n=1). Their drawing depicted a partial body with arms outstretched in a ritual expression of inclusion and prayer. Their definition included words such as "invites . . . nurtures . . . accepting . . . loving . . . welcoming . . . including." These descriptors are consistent with Bolman and Deal 's competencies collected in the human resource frame. They also reveal the weaknesses inherent in both the model and the leadership frame. The drawing and words don't describe an external mission but concentrate on the intimacy within. And as Bolman and Deal warn about the human resource frame, the attention to peoples' needs can lead to unrealistic optimism about the ability of the organization (church) to respond to those needs. Both the Delphi group and the Pastoral Leadership group value the leadership competencies closely connected to the model of church they espouse.

Table 3

Delphi Study

Leadership Competency Rankings

By Models of the church

Total Respondent Ranked Competencies See Appendix Three (n=111)	Institution (n=2)	Sacrament (n=7)	Community (n=8)	Herald (n=5)	Servant (n=22)	Disciple (n=63)
Comp #/Frame (Structure=str)	Comp # Frame	Comp # Frame	Comp # Frame	Comp # Frame	Comp # Frame	Comp # Frame
1. Symbolic (Sym)	1. Sym	1. Sym	1. Sym	1. Sym	1. Sym	1. Sym
2. Symbolic (Sym)	2. Sym	7. Sym	2. Sym	4. HR	2. Sym	2. Sym
3. Human Resource (HR)	11. HR	2. Sym	3. HR	2. Sym	5. HR	3. HR
4. Human Resource (HR)	3. HR	4. HR	4. HR	3. HR	3. HR	4. HR
5. Human Resource (HR)	14. HR	5. HR	8. HR	7. Sym	6. HR	5. HR
6. Human Resource (HR)	20. Str	14. HR	11. HR	6. HR	13. HR	7. Sym
7. Symbolic (Sym)	4. HR	18. HR