Leadership Coaching Review Blog

Chapter 2: What is coaching? Part II

I really like the fact that Stoltzfus is explaining the process using Doug as an example. That really works better than pure theory.

I think it might also be important to note, given all my critical comments, that I believe in and practice coaching skills, though I do not always do so in the context of strict coaching (in fact I don't do too much that is strictly one discipline or method) and would not generally label them coaching skills. Just to make this clear, I got all the trigger statements in the exploratory conversation. Not bragging. Just letting you know I'm not blowing this off. I think, given the way I'm reacting, it would be reasonable for my co-readers to provide a little accountability.

I firmly believe in intuitive listening [21]. I think it is a skill that is absolutely essential to life and mission. However, we chould be careful not to make it the sole property of coaching, or not work it into many daily manifestations outside of coaching relationships. For example, I have heard many people refer to intuitive listening in the grocery store line as "coaching." It is listening, but given the absence of time and the complete process, it does not, in my understanding equal coaching.

Again, Stoltzfus is making statements that are theologically hard to back up. For example, I would challenge any Christian anthropology that claims:

People can solve their own problems [21].

While it may be that Christianity needs to move away from "clergy can solve everyone's problems" and "professionals can solve your problems," I wouldn't go so far as to endourse the statement above. What are we talking about? Humanism or Spirituality? If the former, sure, humans can solve their own problems. If the latter, no they cannot. They can only solve problems in the context of participation with God. (Everything that is not faith is sin.) Therefore, prayer, meditation, and all spiritual disciplines must be part of the process. Likewise, you might want to encounter revelation somehow. Maybe Doug's example is just one and these things are assumed, but as far as coaching encapsulates much of the decision process, it concerns me that these are not present. Coaching without these is humanistic and will lead to deism, methodologically if not ontologically.

I would agree with Stotlzfus that coaching works in cross-cultural situations [22]. In NYC, I have worked with several people from different cultures to plant churches. All of them have been older than me, and a few have been more educated then me. In almost all cases, it is impossible for me to be an authority, though, given relational effort, I can be an influence. (Yep, I agree with Stoltzfus that influence is more important than authority [28].) It has worked well. However, there are difficulties present because I do not have influence in certain areas -- especially in regards to information.

I'm wondering a little bit about why we need "coaching" as a container at all. It is likely to become a subculture of its own that will bite us in the rear. Why couldn't we just add ministry values like: Intuitive listening [21], exploratory questioning [23], valuing personally unique spiritual development [23]? Then we can simply develop methods to express these values. Doing so might be more reproducible in the long-run.

I will say that "Let the client do the thinking [25]" is important. Actually "let the other person do _______" is a really great rule. I think it is an ethical implication of Jesus' calls to practice non-manipulation and non-coercion and his methodology in involving his followers in his ministry. However, coaching is not an answer to Jesus' art of doing beside someone. Currently, there are few places in Christianity were co-mission is practiced, which should be a great concern given its centrality to theology and Jesus' practice. This is perhaps where I am the most frustrated with my own methodology at the moment.

Again, I'm not sure I agree with Stoltzfus' anthropology or philosophy of ministry when he says:

Letting go of responsibility is what allows you to believe in the client unconditionally [29].

For one thing, I question how releasing responsibility is Christ-like. While I agree we are not to blame for mistakes people make in the growth process, responsibility has little to do with blame. It is the "ability to respond," and if we give than up, I'm not sure we follow a Jesus who said, "I haven't lost any that you've given me." (No blame, because it didn't include Judas, but faithfulness shown in remaining in a position to respond.) Likewise, I'm not sure how much we should believe in people. Sure we can believe in them as they participate with God. But without participation, humans are broken and incomplete.

Now, I understand Stotlzfus isn't quite meaning things the way I'm taking them. He's assuming all I'm saying. But that's just the problem. Such assumptions only work in a shared matrix of experience. As soon as this process is taught in a context that does not assume this, it will lead to bad things. Both inside and outside the church, this context (of mature, spiritual people) is pretty rare. I think this book and methodological package is ripe for a movement like the simple church to pick it up, apply it too broadly, legalize it, condemn those who don't use it and be a bonofied cult (think ICoC [wiki]).

Stoltzfus makes my point about relationship in the last post pretty well:

Coaching is relationship... the biggest reason Christians in general experience so little transformation in their lives is that they ignore the Bible's relational mandate for how to effect change [29].

I would like for us to be careful, however, with making coaching all the solution. We should not professionalize spiritual friendships, nor make it something for which you need special training , other than working out the Gospel in your life. Much of what Stoltzfus talks about rightly belongs to friends and co-journiers as their responsibility, and to the care and discernment power of community. And, yes, "fulfilling your destiny is only possible in community [29]" is true, but coaching=learning community may not be. Coaching can occur in a learning community, but a learning community should not be assumed when two individuals get on the phone and one moves the other through a goal-seeking process.

I know. I'm doing just what Stoltzfus doesn't want me to do. I'm straining out methodologies, values, and techniques from coaching, but not really buying in like he wants. Sure, he and others will say I have to take the whole package or it won't work. Before I do, he'll have to convince me in more ways than using glowing testimonials, repetion, and bold, but theologically unsupported statements. Until he shows me why it should be moved to the core, it is just methodology. Otherwise, it will have the same idolatrous effects as group theory did when it was the latest fad. Sure, it made a great tool. But when we placed it at the center, it became a cruel master, bending us to itself and distracting us from the pursuit of God with fake fixes, psuedo-life, and false or unchristian community.

Can coaching help you follow Jesus? Sure. Can it help you reach your individualistic life goals? Yes. But we must learn to know the difference between these two, and so far American Christianity has faltered much in this distinction.

posted by soulster @ 5:49 PM