the postmodern pop pastor

we gave a camera to our kids. this is of a cigar store cowboy, taken by Meg, age 4.

I think too much about the organization. Part of that is because the organization so fervently devours the time and energy of ministry leaders. Organization serves the gospel mission which is about the rescue for image bearing human beings through the proclamation of Jesus’ Lordship over creation, the devil, sin and death.

Organizations become self-perpetuating and authenticating for the few at the top. The top down model of leadership, which has been uncritically imported into the church, flies in the face of Jesus’ explicit teaching in Mark 10 and Luke 22. There may be many ways to govern the church but top down is clearly not one of them.

That trouble is that it is safe for the leader to be in charge. It is safe for the congregation, who wants someone else to do the work of ministry, and safe for the leader. You are protected when you are above the rest. Unfortunately for the leader who would rather not feel the pain of someone else’s screw ups, Jesus forbids this structure. Top down leadership will not bring about the eternal fruit of the kingdom.

The fruit of the eternal kingdom comes about by leaders being the servant of all. This is how Jesus did it – and there was pain for him. A student will not be above his master. Leader as one who serves will bring suffering. It is not safe, but it is good.

So, asking, “Who’s in charge” is a asking a wrong and very dangerous question. Asking it probably reveals that fear of pain motivates the leader as much as love.

Perhaps, as servant community structure would be turned on its side. Instead of energy, vision etc coming from the few at the top to the many at the bottom (a violently unbiblical picture), it could be from left to right. Leaders would work among their community moving the common mission.

No one is above, but some are gifted to preach, guide, care etc. While these do the task of “leading,” other community members apply their gifts, side by side, on the same mission. Each serves the others for the good of the body.

Now, that is a governing structure that values the community of equal people and portrays a gospel rather than an organizational mission.

So, instead of asking, “Who’s in charge,” we can each ask, “Where can I serve?”

When we analyze, we tend to abstract out particulars like “leader.” In the big picture, the whole picture, the real picture there is a community. The leader exists within a community. Rather than speaking of leader and follower, it might be better to speak of leader and community.

Leadership gifts are spiritual gifts given to members of the body for the good of the body. There are gifted individuals within the body who are part of the body and mutually dependant on the body. Context (1 Cor. 12) forbids us from thinking that this gift brings with it an elevation of status.

We still need more work done on leadership terms in the NT.

Rulers. Used of political rulers, Jewish religions leaders and demonic powers. Never of church leaders.

Leaders. As in Heb. 13 and Luke 22 (Mark 10). These deserve respect, their faith ought to be imitated and their instruction obeyed. According to Heb. 13, they keep watch over souls as those who give account. In Luke 22, Jesus explicitly distinguishes this leader from the top down rulers. “Not, in this way, among you.” They exercise Lordship as one above, while Christian leaders serve from among the community. That is the way Jesus did it and they way Jesus’ leaders will do it. We simply may not lead from above, that is clearly sin.

Administrators. As in 1 Cor. 12:28. The TDNT describes this gifted person as one gifted to be a director of order. This deserves some more thought, especially because I dislike administration so much. What did that look like in Paul’s context? What transfers to our present context? That person, in Paul’s day, was certainly not the administrative pastor of a mega church. What can we justifiably extrapolate? We do know that this is a spiritual gift in, of and for the body.

Overseer. 1 Tim. 3:1f. Also translated as bishop. Both of these English terms have immediate connotations. Bishop to the Catholic Church and overseer to the factory. He is the one who makes sure the work gets done. Again, TDNT, The overseer is shepherd terminology. He is a watcher and protector of the people.

Rules well. 1 Tim. 5:17. The term is probably the most used of leadership, cf 1 Tim. 3:4-5; 1 Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:8. The term is variously translated as lead, have charge over, rule and manage. In 1 Tim. 3:4-5 the term is specifically for the way a man manages his family and then is explicitly connected to caring for the congregation. Ruling well is caring for. It is to be done well. It is worthy of honor, especially for those who preach and teach.

Trying to bring this somewhere. Church leaders are gospel serving watchers and protectors. They open the Scriptures, read them and say, “Do this.” They live it themselves and pour their hearts out equipping people to do the work of ministry. All the while they pay attention to enemy movement and fight against enemy attack.

In so doing, the community of Jesus, not the leader, becomes visible.

Now, here is Guy Saffold’s definition of leadership.

Leadership is taking the initiative
To know God
To reflect his holy character in life and
Through loving relationships
To draw people together
To further God’s purposesThroughout the world

Reflecting on leadership from Langley B.C. as being lead by Dr. Guy Saffold.

Leadership is an influential togetherness. It is, and must always be, multidirectional. Leaders and followers (if those are appropriate distinctions) are always together in relationship. There is not a body over which the leader stands, but the leader who leads does so from within the same body. In that case, the follower always influences the leader who influences the whole.

Mother Theresa once made a clear distinction between herself and Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher was on top, leading people from above, she was one of them. A leader is always “one of them.”

This reveals a need to delineate a line which distinguishes between leading people and leading organizations. There is a reality that when a group reaches a certain size, the leaders become distanced from the people and then seeks to influence and care through organizational structures rather than face to face, one of one interaction.

Thinking in relation to the church, we understand that the value of people in the image of God and the church as the community of God has resulted in leaders who are identified primarily as shepherds. The idea of leadership in NT is slight and some more study needs to be done on the terms used. The main term for ruler (aρχων) is never used of those who guide the church. The term that is used (nγέομαι), Jesus insists that these will be servants (Luke 22:26). Pastors are not the only leaders in the church, certainly. When the people become an organization other types of leaders are needed. Yet, we must consider the consequences of that. If non-shepherd leaders are running the church organization where and how will they lead? Will they lead the people or the organization? Is a highly efficient organization that could easily become increasingly impersonal what we desire in the church?

Mother Theresa (we watched an A&E biography on her) refused to get involved in the big theory discussions on justice that some believed would have served to help more people than she did by caring for them one by one. I think it would have been disastrous for her to do that. Theories about justice could have brought about some governmental and organizational change but organizations cannot love hurting and dying people! Organizations cannot give a cup of cold water in the name of Jesus.

Leadership in the church is simple and must never get so involved in theory etc to stop washing the feet of the saints and showing hospitality to strangers.

Disciples – the only proper goal

Finally, we turn to consider the goal of the Christian leadership team that functions relationally within community. It is true, that where one begins determines where one ends. Achievement is the ultimate goal of the corporate business model of leadership. Productivity does not define success for the plurality of elders. In fact, allowing achievement to define success inevitably leads to failure. Marshall Sashkin warns that managers who have an extremely high need to achieve tend to burn out.[1] They get frustrated over things not getting done efficiently and effectively. As a result, they try to do everything themselves.

The church fosters this mentality by looking for type A personalities who are charismatic and draw a crowd. The Christian leadership team will consist of a myriad of personalities who together portray a living and communal picture of the gospel, drawing people to Jesus. There is often a dramatic difference between what God expects of us and what the congregation expects of us or even what other pastors expect of us.

When production is the overriding value, we often neglect to ask the hard questions.[2] Stacy Rinehart warns that poor behavior is overlooked because the star functions well. He or she produces quality work and draws the crowd. We define success differently within the church.
“Fruitful leadership – defined not as the ability to “produce results,” but as the capacity to bring those I lead to their deepest enrichment and highest fulfillment. Fruitful leadership is not getting other to fulfill my goals…but helping others to realize God’s creative intent for their lives – personally, domestically, vocationally and eternally.”[3]

The measure of a leader’s success will be the people formed spiritually by his or her ministry. If our version of leadership blurs this focus, we slide back into the secular box and will ultimately fail to hit the target at which we profess to being aiming.

[1] Marshall Sashkin and William E. Rosenbach, Contemporary Issues in Leadership, (Nashville, TN: Westview, 1993), 96.
[2] Stacy T. Rinehart, Upside Down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership, (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1998), 36.
[3] Jack W. Hayford, “The Character of A Leader,” Leaders on Leadership, 67-68.

Friday is for photos.

http://flickr.com/groups/friday_photo/

Labels: photos

Team – the only proper structure

Christian leadership originates in theological reflection, is relational in manner, takes place within the context of community where the supporting structure is that of a leadership team. Team, again, calls to mind the business world. Protestant Christian leaders have instead spoken of a plurality of elders leading the congregation on the mission of the kingdom.
Team leadership is shared among certain members of the community recognized as being called and gifted for the role of exercising authority in the community. These are likewise believed to possess the necessary character to model the beliefs and mission of the congregation. Some offer the very definition of leadership as communal, such as Moxley:

“The definition of leadership offered in this book – two or more people sharing power and working independently toward a shared goal.[1]”

Mutuality, and multidirectional influence necessitates a structure of shared power. Shared power aids the leaders themselves in the tasks at hand. An individual leader ruling from the top violates nearly all of the theological principles which introduce this paper. Leaders are teachers, not controllers. It may not even be possible to lead an organization from the top.[2]

Team leadership does not mean that the team itself does not have roles and responsibilities. Neither does it insist that the word of one carries the weight of another. Experience, skill and wisdom may enable one member of the team to speak more authoritatively to an issue than the others. It does create a structure in which one member does not dominate in all things and in which the circle of influence and friendship continually shapes each leader.

Larry Osborne, though not a part of the required reading, presents a very interesting illustration for the way that teams relate at different stages of congregational life and the size of the leadership team. His premise is that ministry growth is not simply adding players, sometimes it’s a whole new ball game. [3] A solo pastor is independent like a track star. A small staff team performs relationally like golfing buddies. The larger team would be like a basketball team where no one expects to be friends with everyone else and where, to be a winning team, you need a star or two. Finally, very large teams are like football teams in which offense and defense are playing the same game but have little in common otherwise. I find Larry’s analogies to be intriguing, strangely accurate and somewhat disturbing, particularly the reference to the necessity of “stars.”

Stars are not necessary in a team structure of leadership. In our present world, Sally Helgesen argues, the top down (star) leadership style is yielding to a networking style in which everyone is a resource for everyone else.[4] On a team, there is no place for competition. Collaboration works against competition. The team serves on the same mission. Team members model (again) collaboration by valuing each others contribution.[5]

[1] Moxley, Leadership and Spirit, 182.
[2] Terry, Authentic Leadership, 40-41.
[3] Larry Osborne, The Unity Factor, (Vista, CA: Owl’s Nest, 1989) 157.
[4] Sally Helgesen, The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership, (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997), 37.
[5] George Cladis, Leading the Team-Based Church: How Pastors and Church Staffs Can Grow Together into a Powerful Fellowship of Leaders, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999), 14.

Community – the only proper context

Biblical leaders and followers are called to participation in the community.[1] One is neither a biblical leader nor follower outside of community. The gospel call includes a call into the community of brothers and sisters who likewise respond to that gospel call. This would be the church’s version of the mutual purpose explained above. Guy Saffold has argued well that, “Jesus died to create community.[2]” While this statement does not summarize the entirety of Jesus’ atoning work, it celebrates the truth and beauty that we are a chosen people, a holy priesthood, a royal nation.

While leadership is relationship, a leader only shares friendship with a few. Community speaks of the broader web of relationships that connect one individual to another, with whom they do not share close friendship, and connects the leader to the whole group of followers. In community, there is structure, authority and status. There is likewise participation, group identity and storytelling that supports group identity.

The mission of the church is the going of the gospel, the corporate telling of the rescue story of God in Christ. Through His redeeming efforts, the world reflects His likeness more fully, thereby honoring Him and becoming more glorious itself. God in Christ is reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their sins against them (2 Cor. 5:19); Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). Displaying this gospel in word, deed and structure is the mission of the church. Organizations encourage or discourage through structure. If structure is overused the focus on people is filtered out.[3] This will always be the danger of gathering in the church. Church, the organization, requires structure in order to exist and function. The metaphor of organization defines place, communicates role, and delineates accountability and authority. Community invites – even elicits – broader and fuller participation. It holds before us the idea that leadership is shared and happens in a collective.[4]

Some leaders will never be hyped about the business aspect of church ministry. We, for I am one, need to remember structure is not irrelevant and evil in and of itself. We need to remember that efficient structure does aid the going of the gospel. On the other hand, when structure begets structure, the going of the gospel is in jeopardy. And when the called and gifted shepherds of the church spend their time and energy planning, strategzing and voting - the people of God suffer loss. Communty leaders structure sufficiently for the going of the gospel in their context and then stop. When things grow or change so that the structure no longer fits, reform it and then stop. When business leads, the gospel loses.

In the community organization certain individuals carry authority. Authority is distinguished from power in that power imposes the will of the leader on the follower, while authority is used by the leader to shepherd both self and follower toward the commonly agreed upon mission. In the church community, authority is exercised by human leaders as seen in the titles: apostles, bishops, overseer, shepherd.

In the church community, all are under the authority of Christ which He presently exercises through the inspired Scripture. Metaphors like sheep, soldier, and steward remind us of that common place under Christ. [5] Within a community equally under Christ societal pressures arise to equate authority with status. David Bennett reminds us that, “Disciples are on the same level in relationship to God even though they may have different areas and amounts of responsibility.[6]” He continues concerning the status of the believer:

“Whatever may be their differences in social status in the eyes of society, or their various responsibilities within the church, they are first and foremost partners, fellow workers, fellow-heir, children of the same Father.[7]”

Authority and role are clear biblical principles, exemplified in multiple Scriptural stories, letters and commands. However, they must not foster the denial of essential equality between leader and follower.

Leaders lead a community by creating culture. Group identity comes about as Leaders convey a sense of coherent identity to the wider public and help others achieve a sense of integration.[8] Culture is created and reinforced by the telling of stories. [9] In my present ministry context, each time the elders and pastors gather for retreat and planning, one of the long-standing leaders tells stories of the church in the past. This serves to unite us and connect us to the mission of the whole. For this reason, there is validity to the concern that the one who tells the stories has the power. Stories do not come into being with one person alone and a chorus of voices often better tells them. The chorus of storytelling voices serves the mutuality of purpose and the multi-directional influence. It will likewise continuously check power in that those who form the simplest identity story are often recognized as true leaders, regardless of title.[10] The team of leaders who tells a good story will also embody the good story.[11]

[1] David Bennett, Metaphors of Ministry: Biblical Images for Leaders and Followers, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 185.
[2] Guy Saffold, “The Godly Leadership Community,” Unpublished.
[3] Ibid, 197.
[4] Russ S. Moxley, Leadership and Spirit: Breathing New Vitality and Energy into Individuals and Organizations, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 187.
[5] Ibid, 187-188.
[6] Ibid, 189.
[7] Ibid, 190.
[8] Howard Gardner, Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, (Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 1985), 52.
[9] Moxley, Leadership and Spirit, 205.
[10] Ibid, 64.
[11] Guy Saffold, “The Godly Leader’s Identity.” Unpublished.

Leadership is multi-directional. One believing person who has been given responsibility to lead, is yet significantly formed by the spiritual community share with those being led. A follower must be able to influence other followers and influence the leader. “If a relationship is one-sided, unidirectional, and one-on-one, those are clear signs that a relationship is not leadership.[1]” Again, the word “tyrant” may offer a better description of that relationship.

Multi-directional, though not equal, influence will create a low control environment in which believing adults are free to participate and make decisions. They are valued for not only who they are but for the contributions they bring to the body and the mission. It would be the height of arrogance for pastor/ leaders to consider their trained and educated abilities the only ones, or even the best ones, working within the congregation. Such a view is what fosters a high level of control. Something significant and theological is lost in such a case. In a high control environment, what is personal and sacred is denied.[2] The intrinsic value of the image bearer is denied.

Peter Block seeks to change the imagery of leadership from that of the corporate world to the metaphor of stewardship. Stewardship addresses practices of control. It calls believing leaders to allow adults to be adults and to govern themselves. He suggests, “Stewardship questions the belief that accountability and control go hand in hand…We are reluctant to let go of the belief that if I am to care for something I must control it.[3]”

It will be the leader’s personal modeling, much more than the leader’s power, that motivates another to act or to change. Burns has commented that people move to a higher level of involvement only when they see their leaders modeling what they teach.[4] For the Christian leader, it is a matter of practicing what you preach. A follower will practice hospitality if they see their leaders being hospitable. J. Oswald Sanders, the patron saint of Christian leadership urges that if our folks are to practice a virtue, they need to see it first in their leaders.[5]

There is no need for Christian leaders to dominate other believing adults. Leadership relationships involve a shared purpose. Leaders share mutual purpose with followers which are developed over time in numerous interactions.[6] These true relationships naturally develop as we live and worship and work together. Unfortunately, mobility of the community and size of the church will affect the kind and frequency of interaction. In a true relationship, however, we are neither retiring nor fawning nor manipulative. We work together with mutual respect and honesty to achieve common purpose.[7]

Leaders often dominate out of fear or mistrust. Sometimes out of the misguided belief that they are the only ones truly committed to the mission. There is some logic to this for the professional pastor for whom life and sustenance are tied to the well being of the congregation or at least the well being of the organization.[8] Seeing followers likewise committed to the mission of the kingdom and of the particular local congregation ought to give great comfort to the leader and so encourage the risk of trust and partnership.

On the other side of the argument, a follower who desires influence in the life of a leader must accept the responsibility that comes with such influence. A simple discouraging remark on a Sunday morning could distract the pastor which then affects the service of worship for the entire congregation. A consistently negative and self-centered influence on a leader will ultimately have negative impact of that leaders view of his job or her congregation. The follower must battle personal self-interest by committing to the common cause.[9] One cannot be a meaningful member of a community without feeling the need to do something about the common purpose.[10]

The return of influence upon a leader comes from those friends that he or she has within the congregation. Friendships are, of course, limited in number. A leader cannot be friends with everyone within the congregation if that congregations is over 100. It is simply not possible. These friends will have greater influence on the leader than the remainder of the congregation. Leaders need friends in a balanced life.[11] They will maintain the leaders connection to the whole. Leaders learn from their friends. They must learn because they and the community are dependent upon the contribution of others.[12] Friends are both the leader’s greatest resource and greatest fruit. Oswald Sanders writes that, “You can tell the stature of a leader by the number and quality of his friends.[13]”

[1] Ibid, 105.
[2] Peter Block, Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest, (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1996), 8.
[3] Ibid, 18.
[4] Burns, Leadership, 429.
[5] Gene Gets, “Becoming a Spiritually Mature Leader,” in Leaders and Leadership: Wisdom, Advice and Encouragement on the Art of Leading God’s People, (Ventura, CA: Regal), 92.
[6] Rost, Leadership For the Twenty-First Century, 118
[7] Chaleff, The Courageous Follower, 10.
[8] Some may make this point to argue against a professional clergy and it would be a good one.
[9] Block, Stewardship, 10.
[10] Max Depree, Leading Without Power: Finding Hope in Serving Community, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997), 78.
[11] Bill George, Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value, (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 52.
[12] Joseph A. Raelin, Creating Leaderful Organizations: How to Bring out Leadership in Everyone, (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2003), 16.
[13] J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership, (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1989), 89.

Relationship – the only proper manner

Leadership is relationship. Leadership involves the manner in which one person relates to another. In fact, it is quite questionable if the actions of a leader upon a person with whom they have no relationship can be called leadership. Outside of one human being knowing and seeing another, there are dangers of forgetting our theological foundations, particularly the value of the other individual.

The leader/ follower relationship is a unique relationship. The relationship will never involve equal influence. Leadership is a relationship of influence. Some writers, such as John Maxwell, propose that influence defines leadership in its entirety. Joseph Rost has defined influence as,

“The process of using persuasion to have impact on other people in relationship.[1]” In the context of the church, the gifted, called and trained leader will always have more to offer in the work of the church than the average congregant, at least in terms of time and knowledge. The following reflections address issues raised in the leader/ follower relationship.

One primary characteristic of relationship is that of power. Power is relationship among persons within a social context. [2] A person does not have power unless there is another over whom they exercise it. Likewise, whenever there are two or more persons in relationship, there is a relationship of power. Power is not always a negative in relationship, though it has tended to be. For example, Christ exercises power over his people, this being a particular application of the power and authority of God over all things and all people. Some attempt to distinguish between power and authority in order to maintain the positive in light of a multitude of negative examples.[3]

How then do we use power in the work of the Christian leader? The use of power will remember our grounding theology concerning the value of each individual image bearer. It exercises humility because of our mutual ruin and common submission to Christ. [4] The use of power must follow the exemplar of the incarnate God who did not exert lordship over others, but instead took on the very nature of a servant. The way of the Christian leader is not the way of upward mobility in which our world has invested so much, but the way of downward mobility ending on the cross.[5]

A true Christian leader does not, indeed cannot, impose his or her will upon another. Robert
Terry writes:

“The test of the leader-follower is how the leader uses power. Someone who imposes his or her will on another is a tyrant…The follower must be able to resist, debate and voluntarily follow. Only then is the person who uses power a leader.[6]”

The distinction between leader and tyrant is a delicate, but important one. There is both a right and responsibility of the follower to influence the leader in return as well as the right and responsibility of the leader to be influenced by those he/she leads. If the leader appears to have total power, this can be very dangerous for the follower. The power of the follower is unequal to that of the leader. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that way exists for the follower to exercise power for the good of the mission. Ira Chaleff sees power in the follower’s commitment to purpose, knowledge and skills, personal history with the organization, faith in the mission, speaking the truth, to follow or not to follow, networks of relationships they possess, the power to organize others of like mind and the power to withdraw support if the leadership’s actions violate values.[7] Followers give power and it can be taken away when it fails to be exercised in the manner agreed upon.[8]

Followers do not simply act as counter balance to the leader’s power, as in a lay elder bearing an equal and opposing authority to the senior staff pastor. The consistent influence of one upon the other makes both more effective in the task at hand. If a person feels that they can no longer have influence then their enthusiasm will dissipate.[9] So too will their exertion toward achieving the common mission.

[1] Joseph C. Rost, Leadership For the Twenty-First Century, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993), 105.
[2] James McGregor Burns, Leadership, (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1978), 12.
[3] Henri Nouwen, Reaching Out, (New York, NY: Doubleday1975), 79-100. Len Hjalmarson does the same in his essay “Poets, Pastors and Prophets,” NextReformation, [WWW]: http://nextreformation.com/wp-admin/resources/poets.pdf, accessed October 12, 2006.
[4] John Stott, Basic Christian Leadership: Biblical Models of the Church, Gospel and Ministry, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2002), 114.
[5] Henri Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus, (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1998), 62.
[6] Robert W. Terry, Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action, (San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1993), 44.
[7] Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders, (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 1995), 15-16. The power to “organize others of like mind” is called division in some cases. That would assume the rightness of the leadership position. Of course, if the organizing follower is in the right, then the leader is being divisive.
[8] Ronald Heifetz, Leadership Without Easy Answers, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap/ Harvard, 1994), 57.
[9] Norman Shwchuck and Roger Heuser, Leading the Congregation: Caring for Yourself While Serving Others, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993), 154.

took this pic from the backseat while driving under the monorail in seattle. the beauty of the concrete caught my attention and begged for a grainy black and white.

Labels: photos

These thoughts are growing out of the reading I have had to do for ACTS Seminaries Doctor of Ministry Course on “The Person and Work of the Leader.” The course pack includes articles and book chapters chosen and collected by Dr. Guy Saffold. It consists of 775 copied pages equaling about 1500 standard book pages of the best writing on the topic of leadership.

I enjoy thinking it out this way before it transmutes into academiceze. And I appreciate your input

Theology – the only proper beginning place
The leadership discussion got its start in the business world. As a result the language of leadership is that of the corporation. We speak of teams and strategies and committees developing plans to achieve goals in the organization. The translation of these concepts into the world of the church is a delicate one. It is delicate because the church is not simply an organization, at least it is not supposes to be. We who lead in the church do our work in a world in which God exists, has spoken, called a people to himself on a particular mission. Theology is, therefore, the only proper beginning place for the leadership discussion for Christian leaders.

What follows is a running survey of the readings from the course pack that address and substantiate a need for a firm theological foundation for leadership. Every attempt has been made to note both source and quotations sufficiently.

We all begin our thinking somewhere, this has been called our presuppositions. As Christian leaders, we begin with God. The leadership discussion, however, has been formed inside what Dr. Saffold calls the secular box. The secular box excludes God from the discussion in that it assumes his absence and the sufficiency of fallen human thinking. It diminishes all human beings, both the leaders and those being led, in that it removes from them their inherent worth in the image God and can far too easily relegate them to cogs in the corporate wheel. In the secular box, the importance of the leader is exaggerated because he or her ultimately replaces God as the divine and final authority in regards to the corporate mission. Dr. Saffold offers this warning in summary:

“Christians who hope to think clearly about leadership must face the brutal fact: it is utterly impossible to develop a Christian understanding of leadership from inside the secular box.”[1]

We hold to the doctrine of original sin. We start from a place of ruin, which affects each and every part of who we are and disrupts each and every action we attempt. Without considering the reality and influence of the human depravity that infect both leader and follower it is impossible to come to a Christian, and I would argue a correct, view of leadership. So says Dallas Willard:

“One of the greatest obstacles to effective spiritual formation in Christ today is the simple failure to understand and acknowledge the reality of the human situation as it affects Christians and nonChristians alike. We must start from where we really are.”[2]

Fallenness and ruin are not the sole characteristics of human leaders and followers. We believe in both the true moral guilt and in the nobility of mankind. This nobility belongs to us as a corollary of the image of God in which we were created. All of God’s work shares a common creaturleiness, but mankind uniquely bears this image and the resulting value as the highpoint of God’s creation.

Dr. Stanley Grenz presents a masterful theological explanation of the image of God in man. He traces both the history and the theological argumentation behind seeing God’s image in man as a functional reality. That is, the image of God refers the task which mankind was given to do in God’s world. We act as God’s representatives, acting as God would act towards God’s creation. In my own writing, thinking and teaching, I speak of acting like the Trinity in our relationships to God, self and others which naturally plays out in the way we relate, participate and lead.

Grenz lends significantly more weight to the view that proposes the image of God to be social, based upon the social relationships of God in the Trinity. [3] God relates and we, therefore, relate. In that light, we act toward one another as God acts within the Trinity. Perhaps one might extrapolate that a leader acts towards a follower in a manner similar to the eternal Father’s relationship to the incarnate Son. The Father exercises authority over the Son as one who shares eternal and ontological equality yet has submitted for the sake of the mission, the share a common goal.

Whichever view of image of God is adopted, it has significant impact on leadership thinking because it endows human beings with special standing, a unique value and that value belongs to both leaders and those who are being lead.[4]

[1] Guy Saffold, “Buckets, Blind Men, and Tigers,” from A Theology of Christian Leadership, unpublished.
[2] Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart, (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 2002), 45.
[3] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 177.
[4] Ibid, 175.

Here is a quote from Peter Block, Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest.

I very much appreciate the direction. I particularly find the emphasis on adulthood to be refreshing. Too often those of us with "position," treat other adults as children. This is a blatant violation of their humanity and an attack on the image of God in which they have been made. Henri Nouwen speaks to relationships of power in Reaching Out.

The alternative to leadership is stewardship. Not a perfect concept, but an entryway into exploring what fundamental, sustainable change in our organizations would look like.

Stewardship asks us to be deeply accountable for the outcomes of an institution, without acting to define purpose for others, control others, or take care of others. Stewardship can be most simply defined as giving order to the dispersion of power. It requires us to systematically move choice and resources closer and closer to the bottom and edges of the organization. Leadership, in contrast, gives order to the concentration of power. It keeps choices and resources at the center and places power at the boundaries as an exception to be earned. When we train leaders, the topics of defining purpose, maintaining controls, and taking care of others are the center of curriculum. We were raised to believe that if we were to be accountable, we needed the authority to go with it. How many times have we heard the cry, “How can you hold me accountable, without giving me the authority?”

Stewardship questions the belief that accountability and control go hand in hand. We can be accountable and give control to those closer to the work, operating from the belief that in this way the work is better served. Instead of deciding what kind of culture to create, and thus defining purpose, stewards can ask that each member of the organization decide what the place will become. Stewardship also asks us to forsake caretaking, an even harder habit to give up. We do not serve other adults when we take responsibility for their well-being. We continue to care, but when we caretake, we treat others, especially those in low power positions, as if they were not able to provide for themselves. In our personal relationships we have begun to understand the downside of caretaking and the dominance that defining purpose for others can represent. What we have not yet done is to apply these concepts to the structure of how we govern. Many individual “leaders” understand the issues, and have desire to serve, in the best sense, but the machinery of how we manage is filled with prescription and caretaking.

We are reluctant to let go of the belief that if I am to care for something I must control it.

Eugene Peterson was interviewed in the latest issue of Renovare on The Re-emergence of Spiritual Theology.

He is describing his 5 volume work on spiritual theology. The first is Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, second Eat This Book. The following comments relate to the upcoming book three. (Emphasis mine - this is my concern with the way we govern)

I think my title for the third volume will be The Jesus Way. And I take the metaphor of Jesus as the way and explore it in every dimension I can figure out.

We can't say Jesus is the way—"I'm going to follow Jesus"—and then use all the devil's ways. All the "I like to do" or "have a talent for" or "have an aptitude for" or "have a spiritual gift" language is popular in our churches, but we have to do it Jesus's way. The way Jesus did it is as important as the way Jesus is. I'm just trying to connect ways and means. The means by which we do something can destroy what we're doing if they're not appropriate. And I think the American Church is very conspicuous for destroying the way of Jesus in the ways we do church.

Revealing my bias

Here's the simple truth...I don't like running program. I never have. And much of professional ministry is pedaling someone else's bicycle. In those cases, it would not matter if I were present or not. Any functioning person could run the program, anyone with logically thinking skills could write strategy for the organization.

But I am a shepherd.

One afternoon I met a man that I respect very much at a local pub to chat over life, theology and ministry. We did that regularly. I had spent that entire day in study and had very little on paper by the time I left my office. He asked how the day had gone and I responded that I had read a lot, thought about many different things but felt like I didn't accomplish anything. He answered in a way that changed much of my thinking. "Perhaps that is true," he said, "but those of us who will listen to you teach on Sunday will be glad that you wasted a day in that way."

Much of ministry is like that. You prepare, think, organize, plan for days, week and sometimes years for those short shepherding moments in which both you and your brother/ sister know that Jesus in alive and with you.

I had one of those this morning and am reminded of why I do what I do. God's calling to the pastorate is a gracious suffering.

I will never be hyped about the business aspect of church ministry. I need to remember who I am so that I don't regulate that portion to irrelevant and evil. I need to remember that efficient structure does aid the going of the gospel.

On the other hand, I need to be aware that when structure begets structure, the going of the gospel is in jeopardy. And when the called and gifted shepherds of the church spend their time and energy planning, strategzing and voting - the people of God suffer loss.

Structure sufficiently for the going of the gospel in your context and then stop. When things grow or change so that the structure no longer fits, reform it and then stop. When business leads, the gospel loses.

Alright. Having spent several weeks thinking about this now, I've got some practical thoughts to put forward. This may take a few days to work itself out of my head...

The goal of gospel governance is the going of the gospel. Everything we do as Christian leaders ought to support the going of the gospel, it ought to portray that Jesus came into the world to save sinners. EVERYTHING WE DO! Every aspect of church is about the gospel, not about the church.

In reality, we know that the Evangelical church today is largely seeking a certain kind of leader. One who understand the corporate leader model. Leadership tends to be pragmatic, asking, “What practices of the leader most effectively reach the goal of the organization?” The ends are used to not only justify, but to define the means. This truth works itself out in small business, multinational corporations, government, military and even in churches. In honesty, we in the church seldom begin developing leadership definitions, structures and practices by thinking theologically. Which would be the natural process for Christian people. We borrow, sometimes thought for thought, from the corporate model while attempting to baptize it with scripture verses....but God is looking for gospel governers who believe in Jesus, model what a Jesus following life looks like and trains others to love and follow Jesus. Its a gospel structure, not a corporate one. There may be some crossover, but the gospel, not effectiveness or efficiency must determine what we do.

The church is looking for type A personalities who are charismatic and draw a crowd...but God is looking a myriad of personalities who together portray a living and communal picture of the gospel, drawing people to Jesus.

There is often a dramatic difference between what God expects of us and what the congregation expects of us or even what other pastors expect of us.

I am a servant of Jesus and his gospel. The Bible calls me a shepherd, an overseer, an elder, a bishop. I am not a manager. I am not an administrator. I am not an executive. Perhaps I do need to be better at those things, but I know that I have to serve the gospel well in word, in deed and in the way that I govern for the gospel.

The formation of the community through the leader’s gifts has been discussed as equipping, shepherding, serving and teaching. But what of the leader’s formation in the work of governance? Does gospel governance support the work of the gospel in the leader’s own soul?

Absolutely, yes! The work of governing is good in and of itself because of its gospel orientation (1 Tim. 3:1). Additionally, the work of the officer also finds a particular spiritual benefit for himself (1Tim. 3:13). Gospel governance is formative. Serving others builds in leaders those benefits which are treasured most, a more sincere and confident faith.

The act of governing is an act of faith. It takes faith to structure the community in a way that aids the going of the gospel rather than simply the growing of the church. It takes faith in the transforming power of the Spirit using the Word to teach and preach sound doctrine, the kind that conforms to godliness. It taks faith to create an environment where Jesus and His teachings rule rather than the power of man.

When such faith is exercised by a leader and a congregation, faith is strengthened. Gospel governance forms the leader's soul.

From my friend Len Hjalmerson on leadership as creating culture.

Check it out.

The offices of overseer and deacon are essentially relational. Therefore service, caring, pray and character precede tasks like teaching, shepherding and equipping in priority. In fact, caring, pray and character make up the content of teaching and the aim of shepherding and equipping. Jesus embodied such servant leadership by giving his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). He uses the example of His propitiatory death as the basis for His disciple’s leadership style. Their manner shall not be described as Lording, it shall be as servants of the whole on mission of the community of redemption wrought in the death Jesus died for the many.

In practice, the three tasks are grounded in and take place within the household of God. It is not possible to practice gospel governance outside of relationship. The office holder teaches a fellow priest, a member of the family. She shepherds one who lives in the neighborhood and takes their children to the same school. He equips a spiritual sibling who at times speaks words of life into his own soul.

Paul presents equipping leadership (Eph. 4:1-20) as a gift of God from among the one body. It is given in absence of the incarnate savior to re-achieve the original community in relationship to God and each other under Christ as the one head. Grace was given to each member of the one body according to the measure of Christ’s gifts. Paul begins this passage by, again, establishing the communal and relational context of gospel governance. The absence of the incarnate Christ following the ascension would certainly bring concern for those required to continue in faith. However, one of the gifts of grace that Jesus gave to build His church were these offices of apostle, prophet, evangelist and pastor/ teacher. Their particular aim the congregation is described as καταρτισμoν, equipping the others to do the works of service. That is, structuring the church and shepherding the individuals so that the corporate story serves God’s story in the gospel. Marva Dawn sees this as one of the clearest descriptions of the pastoral role in the Bible and if we do this well we will be primarily working ourselves out of a job.[1]

It is also important to note that the maturity of verse 13 is a communal reality. There can be no maturity of one that separates from the whole. There is no maturity for me without maturity for you. In fact, the passage doesn’t even speak in those terms or allow for the possibility. It is πaν τa σwμα, the whole body which grows itself as it grows up in relation to Christ who is the head. The body grows; it grows as it cooperates on the mission of proclaiming the gospel of Christ.

Of course, all the members in the Body contribute to the wisdom that helps the community not to be childish, but pastors are especially trained and practiced in spiritual wisdom, so we must take seriously the importance of our equipping call to enable the Church’s members to swim against the tides of streams inimical to the gospel.[2]

[1] Dawn and Peterson, Unnecessary, 243.
[2] Ibid, 245.

In the first chapter of Paul’s first letter to Timothy, the apostle insists that the gospel serve as the objective of both the teaching and leadership of the church. In the Pastoral Epistles, Paul tightly binds teaching and oversight within the church. It is the teaching of the gospel and its behavioral corollaries that unite the church as a fellowship with one Lord and one mission. Paul confirms the faith as unifier in Ephesians 4:13, where the faith certainly involves a body of doctrine that is taught by those gifted to be pastors and teachers. It is knowledge of the Son of God that unifies so that:

When the faith is duly communicated, people from their different backgrounds of error and ignorance come into a growing understanding of the ‘one hope (v. 4), an increasing dependence on the ‘one Lord’ (v. 5), and so to a developing appreciation of the ‘one body’ (v. 4).[1]

The value of the church’s offices is compared in the Pastorals to such foundational teachings as Jesus’ coming to save sinners, the benefit of godly discipline, our participation in the death of Christ and justification by grace.[2] The placement of aspiration to office (1 Tim. 3:1) alongside such teachings does not elevate the office above the other members of the priesthood of believers but rather weights the significance of governance by anchoring it to the gospel. Gospel governance is of eternal significance. The office itself is intended to support the going of the gospel.[3] Gospel governance guides the community so that the corporate story proclaims that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).

Office will only proclaim that which the officers model. That is exactly what Paul’s life did, that is what he calls Timothy to do and that is what the qualifications of chapter three require officers to do. So Paul continues from the gospel tie of 3:1 to expound upon the character and relational qualification of both overseers and deacons. George Knight summarizes the character qualities of 1 Tim. 3:2-7 as focusing on two areas: (1) personal self-discipline and maturity, and (2) ability to relate well to others and to teach and care for them. [4] The qualifications of leadership in the community of Jesus are always relational.

A prominent characteristic of church governance, repeated three times in one chapter, is the relation of the officer to his or her family. An overseer must manage his/ her own family well, for somehow the structure of the church corresponds to that of the family (3:4). Inability to lead at home makes leadership in the church difficult (3:5). Deacons likewise are to be good managers of their children and their own household (3:12). All of this seems to be connected to the reality that the church is understood to be the household of God (3:15). [5] The imagery of family here and elsewhere (Eph. 2:19; 1 Peter 4:17) firmly ensconces church governance, and all church dealings, in relational context. Craig Keener sees the comparison of 3:1-13 with ancient household codes. These verses:

Thus serve a function analogous to the household codes of many ancient writers: providing a specific framework of wisdom for administrating the family unit and society. [6]

Peterson wants to emphasize from this imagery that “the way people are referred to in the Pastorals is in terms of social relationships and social identities, not tasks and talents. [7]
The church therefore proclaims by its structuring and governance the rescue and restoration that God brought to them in Christ by their familial behavior.

[1] Francis Foulkes, ”Ephesians,” Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 129.
[2] Eugene Peterson writes that these statements are part of establishing salvation as the subculture for developing leaders in the community of Jesus, Dawn and Peterson, Unnecessary, 192-194.
[3] Barlett repeats “ministry lives for service of the church as the church lives for the service of the gospel,” 55 and 185.
[4] George W. Knight III, “The Pastoral Epistles,” The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 156.
[5] “The use of the household metaphor to describe the church echoes v 5 and explains why Paul is concerned that an official should govern his family well.” D. A. Carson, “1 Tim. 3:14,” New Bible Commentary, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994).
[6] Craig S. Keener, “1 Tim. 3:14,” The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993).
[7] Dawn and Peterson, Unnecessary, 199.