Part I Intro: The Coaching Paradigm
I'm wondering about some of the absolutist statements made in the intro to Part I. For example, on pg 2, Stoltzfus says:If you approach leadership coaching as a set of toolsand techniques to add on to your existing ministry paradigm, you'll never be a coach. I can't emphasize this enough: leadership coaching is a whole new discipline, with an underlying philosophy and value set that most likely is far different than what you're used to
On page 4, he says:
It's when you believe enough in the coaching paradigm to reorder your own life around it that you'll truly be great at coaching others.
This raises some concerns for me. First, our ministry paradigm should be based on theology, especially if we are missional. Therefore, Stoltzfus must present a theology of coaching or a theology where coaching is the outcome to demand the kind of exclusivity he's talking about. My understanding is that only Christ and discipleship to him should be something you "reoder your own life around".
If coaching does not equal Christianity, it must, in my opinion remain a method. While it may join who we are, it can not be central to who we are. It is more marginal than our commitment to Jesus.
I'm not willing to go to back to legalisms of any sort, and the church growth movement was effective in making many people servants of way of doing things while claiming they were the way God would do them. I'm not particularly interested in those kinds of truth-claims for methodologies.
I would suggest a deeper look into the theological presuppositions underlying coaching. For example, on pages 2-3:
Simply put, coaching is a radical belief in people, practiced in a consistent, disciplined way in order to help others grow.
I'm not sure a biblical theology warrants a "radical belief in people." It would seem to advocate a radical belief in Jesus, and through him to the Father, but not in people. True, we may put faith in people, such the repeated apostolic commissions entrusting (in-faithing) the Gospel into human hands. But this is a faith in the participation of God in a person, more than it is a faith in people. It is a faith in new creatures, and not old ones. Therefore, like Paul told Timothy, such faith should only be put into those who have proven themselves trustworthy as new creations. Thus, theologically speaking, coaching is for those in whole, biblically, we may put our faith. Therefore it cannot be a complete paradigm for ministry, and while it may be part of our identity and we should adopt many of its values, it cannot be core.
I like coaching, I do it, and I know it works. But I think we need to take a step back from the fadish trust placed in it by corporate America and other places and put it in its theological place. (For Kent and Chadd, this was one of the things that made me very uncomfortable in San Antonio).
posted by soulster @ 2:00 PM
2 Comments:
Ben - You seem pretty riled up about this right off the bat! I didn’t take his introduction as strongly as you did—didn’t interpret it the same way.
What do I think?
1. I appreciate the moves that “coaching” seems to be pushing me to make. A move from mostly telling to doing a lot more listening…a move from feeling burdened to solve the problems of others to partnering with others as they work out what God wants to do in their lives…a move from merely a formula for fixing people to the attitude of a spiritual father…a move from feeling like I must be totally prepared for every conversation to having more expectation that God may use me without giving me the answer.
2. I was not bothered so much about the “radical belief in people” as opposed to a “radical belief in Jesus.” You make me think though. However, I think that both radical beliefs can sit together. It makes me think of the mystery of the incarnation—fully God, fully man. I’m ok with it being in tension unless someone forces me to go to one side or the other.
3. I agree that “coaching” can be too faddish. That part of this conversation (over the last few months) kind of gets on my nerves too. I’m not interested in being a professional “coach”—just in growing to be a better son and copartner with God.
4. For me this author is describing skills, paradigm and heart. There are specific coaching skills that I want and need to learn. However, it is more than skills…it pushes me to see a different paradigm—one that is more relational and other centered than I’ve embraced in the past--one that expects God to be at work in others more. Ultimately, this conversation is part of a larger one where I think God is helping me to have more of a father’s heart for those God places in my life. This is big for me.
I haven’t read on to see what you say next so forgive me if I’m missing the point!
Again, thanks for the invitation to discuss like this...
peace.
Good response, Chadd. Kent said a similar thing on the post after this one (above this one). He was saying it's having good results and that he can see it fitting into components of his theology (especially his idea of eduction leadership).
You probably know from being around me at conferences and stuff that I like ideas to be put through tough tests. Some might consider me critical, skeptical, or even jaded, especially when it comes to methodologies. I'm not one to simply let something go untested. If I've picked a methodology, I usually have tested it quite a bit for theological consistancy and coherence first.
I want to say I like coaching. I do coaching. I came by the values through conflict and growth theory while studying Alternate Dispute Resolution. My ministry philosophy was changed by that experience, and coaching training continues to polish that. In college, before I knew coaching, I was using it to develop peer-led communities on campus. Coaching is how I partner with people to plant churches. You can ask my wife: I coach at home. Even more, coaching fits my culture because I am very post-modern.
But I have heard a lot of things about coaching that concern me greatly, and so far, this book has reinforced those feelings in certain areas. Stoltzfus is right on in method, he knows what he's talking about, it's helpful, and he's teaching me. But it's the attitudes and mantras that don't strike the right cord. I'm beginning to wonder if coaching has imported humanism from its beginnings in corporate culture, and that worries me. Lest someone accuse me of being a hypocondriac, if talked this over with several people, and they share my concern.
I'm not saying that coaching shouldn't be done. (How could I, I'm doing it.) I'm saying I don't like its current position in ministry philosophy in the simple church, nor do I like the way it is being explained theologically. I'm also concerned about proper application and how it is intergrated into the communication of the Gospel.
Post a Comment
<< Home