One of the most valuable lessons I ever learnt about leadership was that leadership is not simply about getting people to do what you want. Rather it is about uniting people to a common goal that people want to be a part of.
Consequently leadership is not about manipulating, shouting, authority, hierarchy, subordination, emotional games, bullying, rules or laws. I learnt this from the Bible!
Some of the discussion that we have had during the Blog Conference has demonstrated that there is considerable confusion about the nature of true leadership. Jesus gave us a clear example of this through his ministry. We never see Jesus bullying or pulling rank. We never see him playing emotional games. We never see him placing people under laws, other than the simple command to love one another. Yet Jesus is the leader of the single most influential movement on earth over the last 2000 years. He sets us the greatest example of leadership that there has ever been.
Paul makes it clear to us in his letter to the Romans that when people are placed under the law, when they are “told what to do”, then sin increases (Romans 5:20). It has something to do with our rebellious nature that does not respond well to authority (Romans 1:28-32). Leadership that pushes or pulls people in directions that their hearts do not want to go will only self-destruct. This type of leadership only brings self-righteousness, anger, resentment and/or passive aggressive behaviour.
Jesus knew that the only way to lead us was not to pull rank on us, he knew that this would only lead to more rebellion. The OT bears testimony to this very fact. So Jesus did something that would change our hearts, in fact give us new hearts (Ezekiel 36:26). He died on a cross, so that we could be free from our poor performance, and so we could experience the love of God, a perfect love that drives out fear and enables us to love and follow him (1 John 4:16-19).
I have found that the hardest thing about leadership is letting go, and letting others share in the partnership, the vision and the journey. I have learnt though that when you do let go and let people choose to get on board with a common vision the results are amazing. When you accept and love people as they are, they grow and change.
This brings me back to what is it that an elder is supposed to do. If it is through what Christ has done that we are changed into people who want to serve God, then we need to be reminded of what God has done in Christ Jesus, as we so easily forget! Acts 20:25-32 outlines the important role Elders have, to point people to Christ. Elders are the custodians of the Gospel within the Church. For Elders to simply try and manipulate, pull rank or outline rules and regulations is to undermine the Gospel. Christlike leadership is important within the body of Christ rather than authority and hierarchical constructs.
Related posts:
Amen to servant leadership Dave. There is much lip service but not much action. But perhaps i can be picky. Since you are so picky with words
, perhaps you shouldnt use ‘leadership’. Dictionary entires for this word indicate ‘authority’ and a ‘position’ both of which have been controversial in these dialogues of which you don’t like to associate with leaders. 
forgive me for my cheekiness
Gab, you are forgiven for your cheekiness!
I must confess that my dictionary (Pocket Oxford, as I have used before) defines “leader” as a “person followed by others”.
It defines “to lead” as “bring or induce by persuasion or example or inference or by supplying motive”.
Nowhere does it indicate “position” or “authority”, but I think backs up the idea of servant leadership really well.
Perhaps the batteries are flat in your dictionary?
Tomorrow when I am in the office I will check my Webster Dictionary and get back to you! And yes, amen to servant leadership!
I can remember when ‘servant leadership’ was coined to use in church staff training. I remember the guy who coined it and why. He was the master leadership trainer.
But it is an oxymoron and does not work because the leadership part always rises to the top. Not the servant part.
It was meant to be a softer gentler approach to authority in the church but, It is putting lipstick on a pig. Let’s think about it…it is so hard to give up that ‘leadership’ description. What if the REAL description was lowliest servant to others? Not real glam, huh? The lowliest job for a servant was washing feet.
“Leaders” in the Christian sense are those who go before us. Those who wash feet. They live the way of the cross. It has nothing to do with a title conferred by men but a way of life.
I believe that root to all our problems in Christendom is our understanding of authority. If we get that wrong, we eventually get it all wrong: The Body of Christ, men and women relationships, etc.
There are places for authority in our lives with the government, being parents, etc. But when it comes down to adult to adult within the Body we are on dangerous ground when we set up earthly authority figures to follow. Jesus Christ is our authority in the Body and in marriage. Nothing else will do we are serious about the way of the Cross.
But when we focus on who has authority or who is a leader it gets in the way of others growing in Christ. Our goal should be that those whom we minister to in the Body will outgrow us in holiness if that is possible. Who is going to fight a turf war over being the lowliest servant of all?
We come to this problem with worldly thinking that someone HAS to be in charge of the adults. But we DO have someone in charge: Jesus Christ. If all believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit then why would the Body need human authorities? Each one is seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all things. But that is not the way it is because we have set up human authorities to do that for us.
Submission is voluntary. And anyone seeking the Kingdom of God would rush to submit to one who is going the hard way of the Cross!
But it will always end up being a fight for those who teaching an authority/submission paradigm.
Hi Lin! I agree with everything that you have said. I have found this topic confusing because I naturally like to not have confusion and contradiction in my thinking, but my background has taught me conflicting things about leadership.
I think leadership is a valid Biblical term. I think it is a gift that few have who are in leadership “positions”. I think the most important “type” of leadership in the NT is to “lead” people to the cross. It is something that is done through the Holy Spirit working in us. It is leading that relates to introducing non-Christians to Jesus, but also relates to making sure the body of Christ remains attached to the head (the topic of Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20)!
I was planning on doing a second post that will look at how this “leadership” is lived out within the church, and I think one of the points that I will be making is that this “leading” to Christ is something every part of the body does when functioning in the Spirit.
Lin, you said,
“We come to this problem with worldly thinking that someone HAS to be in charge of the adults.”
I have noticed that!
Gab,
I checked my Webster’s Dictionary for “Leadership”. It is big, fat and impressive looking. As I went through the definition I did eventually find a reference to “authority” and “position”. Webster’s did not say that these two things were always a part of leadership. This makes sense when you consider how a tour guide, for example, might be “leading” a group, but this does not imply authority or position.
Dave,
Don’t take me too seriously, im just trying to use your own point against yourself. I dont think all leadership has those two qualities either, but the word ‘leadership’ is just another of those terms that people use interchangeably intending different meanings- as Lin has pointed out. But i do agree with your point that ‘Leadership’ is a biblical term, or at least a word used to describe what the bible teaches about the issue.
I agree with what Dave says about ‘leadership’.
‘Leadership’ is a quality. It espouses new ideas and initiatives, which sets it apart from ‘authority’, ‘power’ and ‘position’. In contrast, ‘authority’ and ‘position’ do not directly describe a quality per se.
An authority that is good must be one that provides a good leadership. The converse is not true — A good leadership is good, irregardless whether an authority exists.
One can takes a lead to wash other’s feet, to set an example for everyone to follow. I don’t see how ‘authority’ has to do with such a ‘leadership’.
Hi Guys, I came to my position mainly from being a corporate trainer in Leadership and teams for 18 years. I was in the early movement of bringing servant/leadership to churches.
I regret that. It does not map. And mainly because of the ingrained thinking on leadership. America is a celebrity culture and we have transferred that celebrity to business leaders and also to church leaders.
It does not matter if it is positional leadership or influential leadership…. We automatically transfer authority and power either out of fear or admiration. Both can be serious sin traps in the Body of Christ.
If we could change the ingrained definition of leadership to include making tents so as not to be a burden, being poor, washing feet, being beaten up, snuck out of the city in a basket, having a serious illness given to you by God to keep you humble, etc, then maybe it would work in the Body.
)
You are right Lin, authority is too attached to leadership and the whole concept of authority and leadership is ingrained in our culture, both secular and church. I have learnt a lot through these discussions over the last few weeks and I have found that it is important to have a good understanding of the words that you use. It is important to know that leadership does not mean authority (thanks PC for your insight!).
In the next few days I am going to post part 2 of my leadership mini series. I hope Lin that by putting some arms and legs on the way “leadership” works within the church it might help us use the word more consistently. If I am understanding you correctly, the problem is not leadership itself or even the idea of servant leadership, but opur sinful fallen inability to view leadership the way it was intended. Pls clarify if I am hearing you wrongly!
I personally do not see ‘leadership’, whether positional or influential, an issue in our church. Rather, the issue is a lack of followers.
Problem is, most people won’t even go along with church leadership. Say if a pastor organises a social event to bring church members closer to each other, how many would turn up? A figure of 30% max pops in my mind. Such a low turnout would no doubt be regarded a failure in the corporate world, won’t it?
If punishment can be meted out to those who don’t turn up for a church event then leadership would be more effective. But of course we don’t do this.
I imagine there is a point when a ‘critical mass’ of followers may dangerously transform a church leadership to a cult-like status. But I doubt many churches have such a ‘critical mass’.
Dave, you heard me right. There is a biblical leadership and it is living out Christlikeness. There is no authority attached to it. Paul did a lot of persuading and pleading in his letters.
PC, I don’t know where you are from but I personally know many mega churches where the leadership can deliver thousands of votes for a candidate with one mention. And where the followers would turn out enmasse just to be in the same room with the leaders. And most of these pastors have personal bodyguards.
In Sydney, Hillsong mega church attracts about 20,000 worshippers to its Baulkham Hills and Waterloo churches. Is this a big deal?
Sydney population is more than 4 million. Hence the only mega church, (too far for me to travel to anyway) attracts less than 0.5% of the population.
I suspect most churches have fewer than 100 in the congregation. I’ve heard a Korean church has over a few thousand attendees…glad to hear the body of Christ is growing there.
Perhaps I do like a bit of this leadership issue that a mega church may experience from time to time, due to a large population. We can worry about it then.
Jim Jones was not a mega church but he was able to convince a few hundred people to move to Guyana and drink kool aid.
A mega church is anything over 1000 people and there are tons of them here.
The two fastest growing religions in the US are Mormonism and Islam. Both are cults. Both are big into authority. People want to follow humans. They like rules, formulas and roles because it is easier to follow another human that Abide in Christ.
> I have found that the hardest thing about leadership is letting go.
Good on ya Dave – I’ve been out of college 8 years and still just working this one out!
Hey Wayne – good to have you drop by!