Collegial Leadership among 1st and 2nd Generation Chinese Leaders

by Craig A. Smith

Over the last thirty years, the Western world has experienced a huge influx of immigrants from mainland China and Hong Kong. This diaspora of Chinese immigrants found fertile soil in Western countries, which is reflected in the plethora of churches scattered throughout. These churches are comprised of first, second, and 1.5-generation leaders and congregants.  

Over the last thirty years, the Western world has experienced a huge influx of immigrants from mainland China and Hong Kong. This diaspora of Chinese immigrants found fertile soil in Western countries, which is reflected in the plethora of churches scattered throughout. These churches are comprised of first, second, and 1.5-generation leaders and congregants.  

For a number of years, I co-pastored, with a Chinese woman, an English-speaking congregation in a Chinese church. It was during this time that I started to notice problems in these churches which had leadership comprised of first and second-generation pastors. I listened to their stories.

Second-generation pastors wept as they shared their hurt and how they believed they had no voice in the leadership of the church and how they felt unsupported in their ministry. Some were frustrated because their leaders could not understand their situation and the difficulty of being a Western Chinese. Others said they were exasperated because the leaders would not allow them to create services that reflected them, their context, and their Christian worldview. Some concluded they would have to leave.

At the same time, I listened to first-generation leaders communicate their pain and frustration.  They revealed how their heart was to see the gospel preached and have people come to Christ.  They expressed their passion for the Kingdom of God to take root in their community and struggled as they watched the younger generation leave the church. They felt confused why the second generation questioned the decisions of the leaders and believed they did not have enough respect for the authority of scripture and enough interest in embracing Chinese culture.

How Did this Situation Arise?   

There are many factors which have contributed to this situation; it is beyond the scope of this article to explore all of them. The following is one common scenario that illustrates the problem.  Suppose a first-generation leader comes to the U.S. to lead a church. His church consists of first, second, and 1.5-generation Chinese congregants and also has a second-generation pastor.  

How will he lead the church? He will do what is familiar to him. He will keep the church Chinese and maintain the Chinese culture and norms that he has embraced from birth. He will lead in a way that is familiar to him—according to the model he received through his church in Southeast Asia and according to the teaching from the seminary he attended. He will wrestle internally as he is daily confronted with a very different culture than the one he has always known. 

At this point, he will do one of three things: (1) he will grow more entrenched in his position and ignore the ideas of those around him who desire to do things differently; (2) he will listen to the second-generation pastor, promising him what he hopes for but always deferring on his promises; or (3) he will listen and work in a collegial manner with the second-generation pastor and together find God’s will for the church that they both love.

How will the second-generation pastor respond? Remember this pastor has grown up in U.S. He has experienced and lived his entire life in a very different culture from the first-generation pastor. He has been educated in a Western setting and has been taught to question, analyze, reflect, and collaborate.  

Suddenly, his cultural framework is being superseded by another which is not his. So what does a pastor like him do? There are three possibilities: (1) he will conform to the culture of the first-generation pastor and wait for his chance to be in the power position; (2) he will react and confront and live with the conflict and tension; or (3) he will leave.  

These leaders share the same purpose—they are devoted to God and to aligning themselves with God’s purposes to build his Church. Over the years, I have discovered that it is not the why question that divides these leaders since they share the same purpose. Rather, the question that divides them is how are they going to build this church?

The situation of the first and second-generation leaders reminds me of the book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. The author’s point is that men and women are inherently different so that they think differently, process things differently, speak and act differently, and have different desires. Both are being true to who they are; however, in order to become one and work together, they must understand one another. In the same way first and second-generation leaders are different. They need to learn how to understand one another and become one in purpose.  

Difficulty for Leaders Working Together 

This problem is not new. Jesus knew it would be difficult for Christian leaders to work together so much so that he prayed, “Holy father, protect them by the power of your name so that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11). 

The Bible is full of stories in which leaders had difficulties working together. In Mark 10:35-45, we see the disciples arguing about who is greater; they are more concerned about who is in the power position next to Jesus rather than being servant leaders. On another occasion, Peter rebukes and argues with Jesus, telling him what his ministry should look like. 

Judas struggles so much working with Jesus that he plots Jesus’ death. Paul and Peter are at odds about the Jew-Gentile issue so that Paul literally condemns Peter to his face. Mark sets off as an assistant with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. A mere eight verses later, scripture says, “Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Why? Most scholars believe they had an argument. Was it because Mark and Paul came from different cultures, Jerusalem and Tarsus respectively? Did Mark not get enough preaching time? Did Mark struggle with Paul’s leadership style? Did Paul struggle with Mark’s attitude?

This same painful struggle of working as colleagues has also plagued church leaders throughout the ages. Just as Martin Luther struggled to work with his colleague Ulrich Zwingli, today we see leaders struggle to work with one another. The tension of these relationships is painful to watch, and even more painful to experience. The real damage that is often overlooked is the result of these tensions: they have a profound and detrimental effect on the Church.  

There are two things that are very clear with respect to this situation. First, these are real issues and they will not go away by ignoring them. They will not go away by demanding one’s own position either from the top down or from the bottom up. Second, first and second-generation leaders need to find a new way of doing ministry together. 

Hope

When I looked for solutions to this problem, I realized that the relationship between Paul and Timothy served as a good model for first and second-generation leaders. As first and second-generation leaders examined and engaged with Paul and Timothy’s relationship (coupled with embracing some advice Paul shares in 2 Timothy), I have discovered that these leaders can find a new paradigm for ministry which is for their personal good, the good of their leadership relationship, and the good of the Church.  

Need for a Collegial Attitude

The relationship between Paul and Timothy began when Paul passed through Lystra on his second missionary journey, around AD 50, and decided to take Timothy along with him as part of his ministry team. Initially, their relationship was one of a mentor/mentoree or teacher/student in much the same way the disciples were in relationship with Jesus (cf. 1 Cor. 4.16-17). 

Timothy was a great student and he learned quickly. He grew so much in his understanding of the gospel that he co-authored six letters with Paul. When Paul needed a trustworthy person to send in his place to troubled churches like Corinth and Ephesus, he thought of Timothy first.  

The point I am making is that the relationship between Paul and Timothy became less of a teacher/student relationship and more of a collegial one. Nowhere is this more evident than in 2 Timothy. Paul, an older man, was looking to his younger brother, beloved friend, and trusted colleague for comfort and help. 

Even though that culture, like the Chinese culture, was one in which the elder was honored, his wisdom to be heeded, and and his decisions not questioned, Paul did not speak with Timothy in this manner. Paul did not lord his authority over Timothy. When Paul asked Timothy to do something, he expected obedience not so much on the basis of his authority, but on the basis of their collegial relationship. 

Collegial relationships like this are difficult for first and second-generation leaders to achieve.  This is partly due to the influence of their Confucian and Shamanistic background. In Confucian culture, a teacher is highly valued and revered, which is almost unconsciously applied to the lead pastor (first generation) who is then raised up on an unrealistic pedestal which precludes healthy ministry relationships with other leaders (see Smith and Lee 2011 114-128). 

Similarly, in Shamanistic culture, a Shaman is considered a medium through whom blessings and good fortune can be conferred. Sometimes, the senior pastor can be looked at in this way.  The result is a large gap between the senior pastor and the rest of the leaders. The only way off this pedestal and finding collegial relationships is through humility and accountability. 

Nurtured Intimacy

Relationships that are strong and vital require love. Paul and Timothy quickly bonded, and two years later, Paul referred to Timothy as his son whom he loved (1 Cor. 4:17). This intimacy remained throughout their ministry together (2 Tim. 1:2-4). In Philippians 2:22, Paul described the intimacy of his ministry with Timothy “like a child with his father.” Love was at the heart of Paul’s thinking.  

For Paul, the greatest expression of love was Christ’s sacrificial death (Rom. 5:8), which is mediated to believers through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5.5; 1 Tim. 1.7). All believers are expected to love both God and humankind. The relationship of Paul and Timothy, as leaders, worked because they loved and respected one another. There is no room in a collegial relationship between leaders for passive aggressive behavior, talking behind each other’s back, gossiping, stubbornness, pettiness, or authoritarianism.  

There is only room for love in order to build up each other so that together they can build up the Church. Without both parties submitting to the one who is love, first and second-generation leaders will remain divided.       

Wisdom from Paul’s Virtue List

In 2 Timothy 3:10-11, Paul included a virtue list which catalogued eight areas that were important priorities for a servant of the Lord, which Timothy had observed in Paul. Two of them are particularly pertinent to the situation of first and second-generation leaders.  

First, patience is an attribute of God (Rom. 2:4; 9.22) which Paul experienced personally through his conversion (1 Tim. 1:16). Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit and is required of all believers (Gal. 5:22). It is to be expressed particularly towards other believers (Eph. 4:2). First and second-generation leaders must be patient with each other as they become colleagues.  

I have observed that changing to a collegial form of leadership for first-generation pastors is difficult. But I also concluded that the onus of responsibility to make this change, to understand second-generation pastors and to help them fulfill their purpose and the purpose of the Church, is theirs.  

I say this for two reasons. First, they are typically the older of the two and are typically the lead pastors (and therefore should be the more mature ones). Second, first-generation pastors are also in power positions. Power in the church should not resemble examples of power in the world. 

The biblical understanding of power and authority is found in Philippians 2 and exemplified by Jesus. The essence of God is the willingness to give up the right to be God to serve others. Therefore, those in power are to humble themselves by becoming the servant of others. Jesus was God; yet in the ultimate position of power, he humbled himself by becoming a human being and by becoming a servant. That is real, authentic power.

To be a first-generation pastor in a Western context is to become like a missionary involved in cross-cultural missions. The onus of responsibility of being patient, therefore, is on the second-generation pastor as he helps and encourages the first-generation pastor on this journey. 

Second, endurance is an attribute of God (Rom. 15.5) that he wants his servants to pursue (2 Cor. 6:4; 1 Tim. 6:11) because it is fundamental for spiritual growth and godliness (2 Tim. 3:12). The soil in which endurance grows best consists of trials, persecutions, and challenges. The result of endurance is a refined character and a more profound hope in Christ (Rom. 5:3-4).  

On many occasions, Timothy watched the endurance of Paul; it is this virtue that first and second-generation leaders will need to create and sustain a collegial leadership relationship and a healthier church.  

Another way of stating endurance is “stick-to-it-ness.” It means staying the course when it gets rough. It means first and second-generation leaders settling in their mind that they are going to work at having a collegial collaborative relationship for their sake and the sake of the Church.  

My experience has been that when first and second-generation pastors approach leadership in a collegial manner, nurturing intimate relationships as leaders, approaching their challenge with patience and endurance, then the church grows and second-generation leaders and congregants remain in the church.  

Reference

Smith, Craig A. and So Ra Lee. 2011. “Significance and Implications of Paul’s Concept of Leadership for the Korean Church Today.” Trans. 28(2):114-128. 

. . . .

Craig A. Smith teaches Biblical Studies and co-directs the DMin program at Carey Theological College. He was formerly a missionary with the C&MA. He has published many books and articles, most recently 2 Timothy: A New Biblical Commentary with Sheffield Phoenix Press.