Chapter 1: What is Coaching?
Throughout chapter 1, Stoltzfus differentiates between other modes of ministry and coaching, namely mentoring and counseling. This is very helpful. A sort of definition in terms. For example, concerning coaching and counseling he says:...counseling tends to concentrate on helping people get well, whereas coaching works with healthy people who want to further improve their lives [14].He also makes it a point to say:
Note that the coaching approach is not superior to the counseling approach, or vice versa. Both are valid, useful and different. Which one you use depends on the person you are working with and what you're attempting to accomplish [15].It would seem to me that this would indicate coaching is not an complete ministry paradigm, counter to the position in the first part's introduction. If you can change from counseling to coaching when the situation requires, how much has it become an identity -- i.e. who you are. I think I would recommend Stoltzfus tone down his original rhetoric in favor of advocating a really important methodology, rather than a complete ministry overhaul in exclusion of all other methodologies.
Eventually, I think practioners will have to ask this question. Are we talking about diversifying our methodolgies or specializing vocationally? This will especially have to be asked in the simple church and missional movements. If coaching does not cover everything in ministry, we cannot just replicate coaches and view ourselves as having equipped the church. The principles of simplicity and reproducability would be against specialization if coaching is one highly trained role (which it is if you look at the list on page 4).
If, instead, we should diversify our methodolgies with coaching, it must be paired down to be reproducable in every apostolically sent disciple. In other words, it would be better if it was communicated as a missional communication ethic or in the base narrative (though this is a challenge if we use the Bible as narrative, esp. because coaching is not extremely prevelent in the methodology of Jesus).
In another issue, I was wondering if you can make evaluations in coaching. For example, on page 14, there is this comment:
I agree--I've always known you to have a great work ethic, and I think being able to dream can only make you more focused and productive.This seems both evaluative and advice giving. Is this ok to do in the name of encouragement?
Again, I'm not sure if I agree with Stoltzfus' statements like:
Change is more a function of motivation than information.and
We know what we need to work on. What we lack is energy and motivation to get started and follow through.I think the first is a false dicotomy based on the failure of the current church system to produce transformation. I would argue, from experience and the biblical text, that change is more a function of relation than of either motivation or information. Coaching may work better than pedagogy, but perhaps that is because it is more relational. Theologically, the Spirit works mostly through the conduits of grace we call friendship and fellowship. Likewise, grace (karis) is manifested in gifts (karismata) given to humans so they may bless and nurture each other.
While what Stotlzfus is saying in the second statement is likely true for developed and mature individual leaders, it should not be universalized in the least. Jesus proclaimed a Gospel because the information of the Kingdom of God was a necessary precursor to change. Then, by implication, they were to enter the relationship of discipleship (where perhaps coaching occured, but according to the narrative it was more likely mentoring). Likewise, theologically, it is not energy and motivation that are the problem, otherwise we could justify ourselves by works (see Romans 7). It is rather our ability to surrender to the participation of God and join him in his Spirit and life that leads to justification in Christ (see Romans 8). Again, relationship is the change-agent.
This is tremendously important. We must have good theology in doing anything this early in what we are doing. The solution is not to dump coaching or this book, but to place it in context. I'm thinking it belongs in DNA (see here) as a component of Nurturing Relationships, but should not be universalized as the definition of those relationships.
If coaching fits in our Christology, it is what you do after the person has moved from servant of the master to friend (Servant to Son on Cheek scale). It is the equivalent of Jesus' relationship with the disciples after he ascended. He worked narratively in their lives with the Spirit, reminding, comforting, etc. Then his role, expressed narratively and in the Spirit, is closest to coaching. By implication, it would be after someone has been counseled and mentored in discipleship that they would move into coaching once they have come into their identity (Son on the Cheek scale).
posted by soulster @ 3:00 PM
8 Comments:
looking forward to reading more
Ben,
Thanks for setting up this forum for our discussion.
I appreciate your careful critique of what you are reading. I especially appreciate your concern that coaching be placed in proper context--and your sense that without this it could morph into something unhealthy.
From my perspective at this point, the kind of coaching described in this book is one vital function in the broader arena of eduction leadership. You will remember my definition: educe--to draw forth what is latent or potential in another.
I think a good case can be made that this process is at the center of what God it up to. We could start with the idea that we are God's beloved children, made in his image, headed from our current state to a future as part of the Bride of Christ, seated with God at the epicenter of the heavenly hosts, judging angels, enjoying God forever, etc.
Getting from here to there looks like it will take a lot of eduction. The latent seems a good deal more obvious than the potential, or to use a metaphore you'll appreciate, the nymph seems more real than the adult.
Good parenting is probably one of the better ways to describe the process in its totality. That may be one reason Jesus so presses the image of God as Father.
In my thinking, good parenting=eduction leadership. And depending on the stage of development, the process that will best draw out what is latent or potential will include: teaching, correcting, counseling, mentoring and...coaching.
I think the emphasis we are placing on coaching at this point is important for a number of reasons. Here are two: it is vital for the formation of mature individuals and the vibrant families of Jesus they form, and we have demonstrated that we are still pretty inept in this realm.
When we see leaders who will sit down and coach and members who are standing up to lead in their own gifting four and five generations deep in our networks, I'll feel like we are closer to understanding this subject.
Looking forward to our learning together!
Unfortunately, the term "eduction leadership" is new to me. I've never taken a class from you, and most of my time with you has been when other people are presenting or teaching. I feel like I have missed out. Maybe I should think about taking Maymester with you or something. But, I like you're definition.
Since it's new, I have one question: There is currently much debate over whether grace is the revelation of latent capacities or the bestowal of supernatural capacities. How does this eduction fall in this theological discussion and what would support this view?
Ben,
Good question. I'm not sure which conversation about grace you are referencing, but here's my present take on the subject.
In Paul's thought there are at least two sides to grace: the grace BY which we are saved (which thanks to the reformers we have heard much about) and the grace FOR which we are saved--which has been mostly overlooked.
So we generally stop quoting at Eph 2:9 and miss "For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago."
This is a theme Paul launched in chap 1 as he is speaking generally of the grace we have received in Christ. He will go on to illustrate it by his own ministry in chap. 3: “for I have received this grace—to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles . . .” Using grace in this sense, Paul believes he is God’s gift to the world.
In Eph. 4 after speaking about the blessings we all share in Christ, he goes on to state “For each of us have received a grace” He believes every disciple is God’s unique gift to the world.
He goes on to point out that the Church receives the gifts of various kinds of leadership precisely for the purpose of equipping each member for the work they have been given. As he unpacks this thought it becomes clear that he believes the formation of mature, fully formed incarnations of the body of Christ hang directly on this point—that each part is doing its God-given work.
I would suggest that the notion of equipping here could helpfully be rendered as educing. We, the leaders in the church do not give people good things to do to further our ministry vision. Rather, we draw forth the ministry that lies latent in each person—given them by Jesus the head of his church. In the process, we collectively discover what He is doing, and become a mature incarnation of his body in our setting.
(This is obviously an impractical plan if our primary objective as leaders is to see our own ministry vision fulfilled)
The grace for which we are saved is always accompanied by specific gifts (the equipment to carry on the grace) and specific assignments (the context in which to discover and use those gifts) on the way to becoming more fully who we are. Paul describes this elsewhere, e.g., Romans 12, 15.
Peter also affirms this understanding of grace in 1 Pet. 4:10 and following where he points out that we receive gifts according to, or corresponding with, the grace we have received.
As to whether this grace is latent or supernaturally bestowed, I would say, yes.
Blessings
I think Stoltzfus does a good job of trying to describe and demonstrate what coaching is and how it differs from mentoring and counseling. The conversation between the coach and Doug is helpful. Some of the specific skills are good for me to see in action in the story.
I especially like coaching in relationships with more mature leaders—those who have a stronger knowledge base—those who desire to see others mature and use their own giftedness.
It seems that (as you guys are suggesting) that teaching and mentoring are especially useful in the earlier stages of discipleship, when a seeker is growing in faith and obedience…becoming a servant. At this point, learning the story and seeing what it looks like to live into the story is key (teaching, modeling, and mentoring). However, at some point, it is better that the teacher/mentor shifts into more of a coaching posture…or that someone provides that. I like Ben’s connection in Jesus’ ministry with his disciples, Jesus’ leaving, and the coming of the Spirit.
Maybe this is one of the reasons its easy to get stuck with immature believers who don’t seem to grow up, use their gifts and develop as confident leaders—maybe most leaders stay in the teaching/telling mode too long instead of shifting into coaches for the developing leaders.
Kent:
Sorry. The conversation about grace that I was referencing is between some emerging church theology and more traditional theology. Some people in emergent are barrowing from the Rabbis and saying that the glory of God is buried in everything and must simply be uncovered. Therefore, a person is more or less created with the glory of God within, and you simply recognize it (like the divine bowing to the divine in Buddhist greetings). Others claim the grace is given only in Christ, and we only recieve God's glory when we join him in Jesus. This has been an important conversation with the universalists in the movement, and is also a big factor in soteriology for many others.
I agree with your reading of Paul. We are launching people into God's ministry, not ours (but not really theirs fully either). I have imagined equipping in a more literal way, as giving someone something to use for work. I guess, for me, the only time that eduction is possible is when the Gospel has been invested and taken root. When the grace BY which we are saved brings us into the grace FOR which we're saved, then we can draw it out of people.
Kent:
Also, I tried to find some information on eduction leadership and eduction in theology. All I could find were misspellings of "education". Do you have some material I could read or something to suggest?
Chadd:
Great comments. Given some theological and methodological convictions, I am thinking coaching is only for either mature believers, or areas where people are mature. I see our role in growth (and a theology of change)along these terms: building up -- calling beside -- encouraging along.
While coaching may be used in each area where maturity is present, it's main purpose is in spiritual friendships in the encouraging along stage. For example, you may still be in the first stage with someone's exposure to the Gosepl, so you they need to be built -- i.e. material needs to be added. If they are educational mature and mature in taking personal resposibility for growth, you can simply coach them through their encounter of the Gospel. If they are not mature, you may need to do other things like teaching, modeling, counseling. The same would be true in each area. Since encouraging along implies maturity in most things, coaching could be the predominant way of helping there, although I would recommend reframing it as skills of friendship.
Post a Comment
<< Home