Rethinking Leadership

Image

How many workshops, conferences, videos, and books have you experienced about “leadership?” Ten secrets of that, nine habits of those people, or seven principles about leadership that are sure to transform your ministry? Those who present or write those books seem so competent, so successful, so energized.

I want to tell them, “Chill out, won’t you? Stop with adrenaline already!”

I have long been disenchanted with the evangelical world’s obsession with leadership. Leaders have developed an entire (extra-biblical) leadership science. These secular principles are often “baptized” with Scriptural examples to give them an air of authority.

The emphasis on leadership means spotlighting particular leaders. Both the fundamentalist and evangelical communities are noted to gravitate toward the “personality cult,” a modern day version of, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos.”

Some people are drawn to the mystery and otherworldliness of the great leader. They are looking for someone who is above the fray of normal human existence. It is easy to admire a well-known speaker and/or author who is verbally gifted, filled with unbounded energy, and motivational.

But you don’t know what his family is like, what he is like when he is out of the limelight or in a grouchy mood. Perhaps unlike your pastor who serves a small church and is ready to quit every Monday, the mystery celebrity pastor seems a model for what could be, a man who has mastered life.

But all is not well in Camelot. As we hear about one famous leader after another (in both the Kingdom and in secular society) apologizing for sexual harassment, propositions, affairs, scandals, control-freak behavior, or addictions — the light bulb over our heads is beginning to blink a little.

It is dawning upon our society that ethics matter, and that perhaps developed leaders (who have been first faithful in little) are preferable to born leaders (many of whom must lead because they are incapable of being content while following).

This article from Forbes magazine suggests that even secular society has had enough of the over-energized, decisive, arm-twisting born leaders. Rob Asghar writes:

Good, skilled followers are able to nurture good leadership, by invisibly helping keep a novice leader upright and on track. It’s a lost art in our narcissistic times. There is a conundrum in leadership: Most of the people who naturally gravitate toward leadership roles don’t have the humility or decency you’d want in a leader. And most of the humble and decent people that we might want to see in leadership roles quickly feel chewed up by the tensions, the criticisms, and the thanklessness of the job. They soon retreat to safety or they end up curled up in a ball in a corner office. And only their more ruthless counterparts are left to compete for supremacy. If we want to have any hope of changing this, we have to do a better job of building up the people who aren’t natural leaders but who have qualities that can serve our organizations and our communities. (forbes.com)

The Bible has many examples of leaders, and helps us to understand that strong leaders often carry with them strong weaknesses. Samson, for example, got the job done, but was not a model leader. Neither was Saul. As a matter of fact, David and Solomon were compromised to varying degree. None of these leaders would have been qualified to serve in church leadership, according to the criteria of 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

I am not saying that “born leaders” cannot be godly, mature, or ethical. I could name several that, in my view, meet all the important criteria. In Scripture, Peter was an example of a born leader who was godly, albeit sometimes undependable.

Results do not vindicate a man’s character or walk with God. The 3 B’s (bodies, bucks, and buildings) do not a successful servant make. It is still the criteria of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 that are God’s rubric, and qualities like faithfulness, godliness, balance, relational skills, and wisdom that reign. Marketing expertise, charisma, decisiveness, or “ability to inspire” are not in the mix.

In the past, when we heard of highly successful Christian leaders who later were proven unethical, we marveled in unbelief. Nowadays, we add them to the ever-growing list. Our “results-driven” house of cards is beginning to tumble.

One example of a developed (rather than “born”) leader is Timothy, introduced to us in Acts 16:1-5. Timothy was a developed leader; he came up through the ranks. He was a young man of character, faithful in his local church. Because he was faithful in little, he had potential to be faithful in much — a great young man for Paul to mentor.

The Forbes article referenced above also explained why developed leaders seem so few. Born leaders usually come with a tough hide and amazing resilience. Born leaders do not struggle as intently with their self-esteem or doubt their competency, but often struggle with pride. Godly born leaders become more mature by growing in humility; godly developed leaders often must grow in confidence and develop that tougher hide over time — if they survive.

The sad truth is that churches can become meat-grinders for developed leaders. Few pastors enjoy critical church members. But developed leaders take criticism and discontent harder. Since they are — by nature — more humble, they are also more vulnerable. Many of them are driven out of ministry by sharp tongues and constant complaints.

Interestingly, according to the Forbes article, the same dynamics are at work in the corporate world. Discontented underlings (much like church members) make the work of the developed executive unpleasant and unbearable.

Thus corporations and churches lose some of their best potential leaders and are left with a higher percentage of “born” leaders. Although some born leaders are certainly ethical, others are not.

To escape this vicious circle, we need to stop admiring Christian leaders we don’t know and start modeling ourselves after godly Christian leaders (closer to home) we do know. These leaders may not be “super-human,” but they are more likely to be genuine. If your house is on fire, it is a real fire fighter who will help you — not a fictional superhero.

Second, we need to nurture our leaders and treat them as human beings, not functionaries who merely exist to get the job done.

Just as many ignore the criteria of 1 Timothy 3:1-7, so we tend to forget the family-like approach we are admonished to take toward church life (1 Timothy 3:5, 3:15, 5:1-2). The church is a body, a family, and a kingdom of priests — among other things; it is not a corporation, factory, competitive business, or production line. Developed leaders are often best when it comes to a family-like approach, because, they are by nature, family oriented (1 Timothy 3:4).

As long as the church continues to value the qualities of the corporate world, it will have the same kind of leaders as the corporate world.

Ed Vasicek Bio

Ed Vasicek was raised as a Roman Catholic but, during high school, Cicero (IL) Bible Church reached out to him, and he received Jesus Christ as his Savior by faith alone. Ed earned his BA at Moody Bible Institute and served as pastor for many years at Highland Park Church, where he is now pastor emeritus. Ed and his wife, Marylu, have two adult children. Ed has published over 1,000 columns for the opinion page of the Kokomo Tribune, published articles in Pulpit Helps magazine, and posted many papers which are available at edvasicek.com. Ed has also published the The Midrash Key and The Amazing Doctrines of Paul As Midrash: The Jewish Roots and Old Testament Sources for Paul's Teachings.

Discussion

Yes, this is way trite, I confess, but bear with me. I’ve had the feeling that a lot of churches are far more comfortable with the epistles than with the Gospels for a long time; that the lists of do/don’t do are easier to preach than the subtlety and relational dynamics of the Gospels. I wonder if a lot of the nonsense we see in churches would be mitigated—not ended, but maybe mitigated—if we had a renewed emphasis on the earthly ministry of Christ.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[TylerR] The point is that, in the military, you don’t lead by coercion. It wouldn’t get you anywhere productive if you tried. Anyone in the military who tries to lead by threatening someone with punitative action has either (1) lost control of the situation, or (2) is dealing with a deliberate troublemaker and some form of corrective action is appropriate.

Tyler, I would argue that while you don’t lead by coercion, coercion is at the very least implied in the order because the order is enforced by the UCMJ.

[TylerR] But, effective leadership is never doen[sic] by intimidation. If they don’t want to follow you, then you won’t meet your organization’s goals. You can’t intimidate someone into producing quality work. You can motivate and inspire them to do it, though. That’s leadership.

You can intimidate and coerce people, even in a church, and get what you want (i.e. to catch the vision). However, you have to violate Scripture to do so.

[Bert Perry]

Yes, this is way trite, I confess, but bear with me. I’ve had the feeling that a lot of churches are far more comfortable with the epistles than with the Gospels for a long time; that the lists of do/don’t do are easier to preach than the subtlety and relational dynamics of the Gospels. I wonder if a lot of the nonsense we see in churches would be mitigated—not ended, but maybe mitigated—if we had a renewed emphasis on the earthly ministry of Christ.

Bert, it’s not an issue of preaching the gospels versus preaching the epistles. Even in the epistles, you see how Paul interacts with recalcitrant sheep. More times than not, he doesn’t rely on his position and authority as an apostle, but rather relies on his personal relationship with his audience.

I recently preached a series of messages about the marks of a good pastor from 2 Timothy. “Leadership” is a good summary of the constellation of commands he gave in that book. I may convert these into front page articles in the near future.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Ed wrote:

The sad truth is that churches can become meat-grinders for developed leaders. Few pastors enjoy critical church members. But developed leaders take criticism and discontent harder. Since they are — by nature — more humble, they are also more vulnerable. Many of them are driven out of ministry by sharp tongues and constant complaints.

That’s why the dual-elder model is important. It isn’t one guy alone against the world.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

The person I learned the most about leadership from was The. Worst. “Leader.” I’ve. Ever. Seen. He was your typical Type A, “Big Man,” never-ever admit mistakes, blame others manager. Toxic is an understatement.

It has crossed my mind a few times to do a study of the gospels of Jesus as a leader. How did Jesus lead? How did He manage, inspire, develop, & mentor the people around Him, particularly His disciples?

Does anyone know of a good book or study on this topic?

Sorry I haven’t been interacting, just got back from Reston, VA. Had a great time at the Museum of the Bible in D.C.

When it comes to leadership, the Biblical picture is most often that of a shepherd and sheep. So much of what we embrace as good leadership principles comes from sources outside the Bible, and we need to keep that in mind. For me, Peter Drucker’s “The Effective Executive” (and the Practice of Management) left an imprint on me. But I remind myself that our modern paradigms of good leadership are not derived, really, from Scripture (although many good principles can be found in Proverbs, and certainly the rest of Scripture, particularly the epistles that address the church). Because someone is a Christian leader who is numerically successful or well-known does not mean he is the last word on leadership.

How someone who is not a natural leader is trained is beyond what I have tackled, but I guess another point is this: a “not born a natural leader” type should not model himself after a “born leader” type. We err greatly, IMO, because it is often naturally born leaders who write the books — not only on leadership, but a host of other church topics. Theological books and commentaries, etc., are more welcoming to other personality types.

So Aaron is correct in saying that I leave room for godly born leaders — there are many such people. But I am saying that the Bible leaves much more room for different styles of leadership. So let’s stop going ga-ga over the born leaders, and let’s stop trying to be like them.

If we ponder these matters, the relatively new obsession with leadership means that pastors centuries ago were, of necessity, poor leaders. They did not intentionally plan to “cast a vision.” They did not use terms like brainstorming, marketing, public relations, etc. Sure, some of those concepts may have been partly practiced under different names, but my point is that most of what we call “leadership” is of recent, western origin.

"The Midrash Detective"

Definitely agree in spirit. Much depends on the answer to the question “leading whom to what?” If a leader is, at the end of all the analysis, simply “someone who has followers” (I think I read the Chick fil A saying that recently), the difference between good leaders and bad leaders is partly where you’re going and partly how you’re getting there. You can lead very effectively to nowhere good, but if you lead very ineffectively, it probably doesn’t matter where you’re headed. You won’t get there (at least, not with anybody following).

A lot of the high octane leadership stuff I’ve seen is frustrating for us average people because it’s mostly the product of people who are already in the 95th percentile of leadership effectiveness trying to achieve still more excellence.

But, to circle back: as believers, it’s never enough to lead to the right place. We have to lead to the right place in the right way (arguably, if we didn’t lead the right way, we aren’t really reaching the right place either. Its character has been altered by the journey and the travelers).

Disclaimers, though: I’ve learned more about leading than I’ve acquired in leadership skill. Maybe this is partly because I learned it by process of elimination: by personally messing up and watching others also mess up.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.