Our family was invited to perform some service a couple weeks ago, and we quickly accepted the opportunity. Simple really. Meet at the church, and help clean.
While we were there, I thought about how the process of gathering people for this service could be improved. I had seen sign up sheets about it in the past, but we got a phone call. Maybe the sign up sheets hadn't worked. I wondered if it would make a difference if it was laid out how often our congregation had the responsibility, and if everyone were asked to perform this service once, possible twice, through the year.
The person in charge was there with us, and I asked if she gets a lot of excuses when she asks for help.
"Yes, I do. Or people just don't call back." She mentioned later that she's done it all herself before. With our crew, it took us two hours. That would be a big job on your own.
As I thought more about it, I wondered if things would be different if someone else were making assignments. My mind went through a list of people, and and I imagined possible scenarios if they were in charge. Some gathering friends, some guilting people into helping, and some like this one, performing the service on their own if necessary.
This all brought me to another, bigger question. Why do we choose whether we follow based on the person leading?
True, some people are natural leaders. They gather people easily, and people are quick to follow. I've noticed that I love to see someone with a vision actively working towards that, and it is especially effective when they are sharing that vision (i.e. vocal about it!).
There are others maybe not as charismatic, not as readily noticed. They perform their duties more quietly, yet placed as a leader for a time, they are moving forward as well. Is their effort less? The result also accepted? Leadership in a widow's mite-ish sort of way.
I guess the biggest question is where your loyalty lies - the person or the cause.
