To the best of my knowledge, there were less than a dozen of us.
At times there might have been more than that and if visitors and guest came in, it could literally be up to three times that number. Regularly though, on a week to week basis, I don’t think there were more than a dozen of us.
It made sense, in a way, that there was only one person in charge of us. Even then, though, there was something about that one person being in charge that was a little unsettling. What was unsettling was how he was happy for it to all hang on him. It just felt a little unsettling that he would want to have that degree of power and control. Others were to know their role and that was essentially to be subservient to him. He didn’t cultivate a sense of team where each person in the group felt a degree of responsibility and saw their contribution as vital to the whole picture. It was definitely a hierarchy. He was happy to be at the top of the pile and there was only room at the top for one.
Nominally he was accountable to a larger organisation, but they didn’t seem to mind that arrangement at all. They appeared to endorse that approach and encouraged folks to get the impression that this was the way.
That wouldn’t be so bad, if it wasn’t for the fact that the source for the organisation’s existence clearly did not support such a model. In fact there was quite a lot of evidence to suggest that this model would be very unhealthy for the organisation. So it didn’t come as a surprise that despite warnings this particular group rather than growing, it collapsed in on itself as a redundant and irrelevant entity other than for the small gathering who still met.
It’s always good to go back to see what the example and intent was for the organisation, so that it would at least see how it could function in a thriving way.
For His Name’s Sake
C. L. J. Dryden