What you wrote here about goats reminds me of a truism we would often remind each other of when I served on a particular church staff – often the people who “push back� the most against your leadership are the ones most ready to take on more leadership responsibilities. So instead of being made to sit down, be quiet, and get with the program, they need to be encouraged to step up and lead more. But it takes a pastor with a healthy sense of ego to do this, especially when it’s possible that said goat may actually do a better job at the task than the pastor himself!
The difficulty in pastoral leadership, at least at times, is discerning which indigenous leaders are helpful but occasionally annoying (goats, rams) and which are subversive and self-serving (wolves in sheep's clothing).
Jamie, you're absolutely right that the discernment begins with a little honest self-evaluation by the pastor. Is the real issue that I am threatened by other leaders? That I have to "have it my way"? That is not a once-and-done reflection. It's ongoing and situational.
But there is also discernment required concerning the leaders. I need to see in emerging indigenous leaders that they bring a certain willingness to honor and submit to body as a whole. Those who push back through continued criticism, who can never seem to say, "I'm wrong," who insist on working the sidelines where they feel unaccountable, need to be marginalized in terms of formal authority whenever possible. As pastor, however, we sometimes still need to allow them limited spheres of influence (to limit the damage of their frustration and to allow them an opportunity to grow) and, perhaps more importantly, need to keep in touch. I'm thinking of one such leader now I need to call up for a lunch appointment. I think his intentions are good but he has a hard time submitting to and honoring the body. Yet he does have a small group of sheep for whom he is clearly the goat.
The tension here is that within my power (and I have more of it with 15 years of longevity) I can't allow leaders who are "all about me" to have too much influence. On the other hand, the greater danger as time passes is that I become "all about me" - resisting the emergence of any indigenous leadership at all.
I agree with much of what you have written. There is another factor relating to ‘goats’ in the church and that is whether they are willing to accept the power and the responsibility of that position. If a shepherd entrusts his flock to a goat for a short period of time and something bad happens to the flock, the responsibility still rests on the shepherd, not the goat. In a church, if a pastor entrusts part of his ministry or ministry responsibilities to a goat and it fails, is the pastor to blame? Usually he is, whether or not he is at fault, because he is the lead shepherd. Therefore, I believe some pastors do not pass on positions of power to goats because if something does go wrong, they are the one who is ultimately responsible. So, out of self-preservation, they keep the power positions with the most responsibility rather than delegate.
On the flip side, many younger goats in the church want power positions without responsibility. I believe this is one of the challenges leaders face today concerning younger generations: giving them the power and authority to lead as well as the (public) responsibility of success and failure. My experience is that younger generations want power without the responsibility. However, older generations want responsibility without the positions of power or authority. It is the role of the pastor and elders to hand over both, power and responsibility, to those whom they fully trust, while still overseeing them. The goats must be allowed to lead and protect, always knowing the shepherd is nearby. The greatest pastors I know have all strategically guided goats into leadership positions, giving them both the power and the responsibility, for the better or worse.