A Definition of Leadership

Posted by Jonathan Brink
October 4, 2007

follow.jpg

Over the last couple of months I have been reading an increasing number of people talk about and engage the issue of leadership. We know we want it but we don’t necessarily know what it is. We know it when we see it but we also know when what we’re being fed something that has a distinctly awful aroma. I would suggest there is a clear definition of leadership in Scripture. But first lets take a look at some of the concerns that the word “leadership” brings out in people.

Billy Calderwood says, ” “Leadership.” Through the lenses of my own personal history with various expressions of Christianty, this word has picked up good deal of baggage and has become something of a source of anxiety to me.”

Nathan says, “I don’t think I can throw out all ideas of leadership. There is something inside of it that still rings true with me. I think there can be a leader/follower relationship that is healthy and not degrading to either side. It needs to be reinvented, of course, but I don’t think it needs to be thrown out or looked past.”

Glenn and Aaron duked it out over “high-caliber leadership” here in the comments section.

Aaron says, “High caliber leaders are those that “get it” about leadership and have an amazing capacity to lead others towards the vision and get people on board towards helping people find their way back to God.”

Glenn responds with, “Using high caliber leaders to lead the church makes perfect sense on one hand and sounds exactly like the corporate world on the other hand. That is not a bad thing by itself, except I don’t see that the corporate/high caliber leadership model has produced many truly missional churches.”

Dan has a great take on the issue here. He says, “In particular, much of the Christian discourse about leadership seems to be flawed, and fatally so, in two regards: (1) in its focus on the individual; and (2) in its understanding of power. This, I think, is largely due to churches looking to outside models when it comes down to issues of polity and structure. By and large, a business paradigm has come to dominate the church (and, I might add, the social services — think of the pervasiveness of the role of the “manager” as that is described in MacIntyre’s After Virtue). Consequently, leaders, Christian or otherwise, are understood as powerful and influential individuals who can “get results.” A successful Christian leader is the sort who has a full church, heck, a growing church, and, perhaps most importantly, a tithing church… blah, blah, blah (in social work, a successful Christian leader is the sort who can produce glowing stats and has the connections and voice necessary to bring in abundant donations).”

In both Glenn’s and Dan’s posts, there is a tension about the adoption of business approaches to leadership. I get this. Why are we looking to business for solutions? Part of this is because they are the one’s who are doing the research and writing the books. Business has a vested interest in knowing how an organization runs effectively. Churches can share this concern because they are organizations. And compound this with the problem that there are virtually no classes on administration, marketing, leadership, or governance in seminary. And yet these are all components of a church organization.

These conversations are important. We want to know what leadership is and what is the best expression of it. The tension is palpable in each of these posts, and I’m sure there are thousands like them. All of which leads to the question of what is leadership?

And to add to the confusion the people who study leadership don’t know either. I just finished my Master’s in Organizational Leadership from Gonzaga and you would think that those who created an entire Master’s program, let alone a PhD program would know what they were studying. But sadly this is not the case. There is no single definition for the word leader or leadership. In fact at last count there were 87 (and some say up to 300) documented definitions of leadership. I’ve been part of a the ILA’s leadership dialog for over a year and mention the word definition and you get silence or tremendous flack.

But I would suggest that leadership is actually very simple. Jesus modeled leadership with one simple word: love. Love is the definition of leadership for many different reasons. It is the fullest expression of our design as human beings made in the image of God. There is no single expression that is greater. Love speaks to the dignity of the other person, letting them know that they are worth what ever cost to restore the person. Love is not interested in hierarchy or org charts because a role is a responsibility of action, not a validation to be attained up a ladder or with a title. In fact love would place oneself at the bottom of the ladder, elevating those around her as valuable. Love would search out meaningful opportunities to restore people because they are God’s creation. Love knows the mission, which is the restoration of all creation. It is bent towards real change, listening to and speaking for those who have lost their voice. Love sees the image of God in everyone, including the neighbor that rubs us the wrong way or the enemy at work. Love constantly urges us, prods us, and calls us into maturity, which is the capacity to think outside of the self. It invites us to become the fullest expression of our own humanity. Love is not interested in force, but it is powerful. In fact love is more powerful than force because it always includes the human heart.

Jesus said, “Come, follow me.” He was calling us into an action. And that action was love. He was calling us into leadership by choosing followership, which was the hidden path to true leadership.  Followership is essentially the process of aligning our hearts to the way the universe already works, to His mission. And in doing so we become part of the solution.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
Church Leadership, Emerging Church, Jesus, Missional, discipleship, leadership, love, postmodern

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Bob B.
    Jonathon, great thoughts. I completely agree with you regarding the lack of leadership training in seminaries. I finished a contemporary MDiv program last year that was heavy (3 defined classes) in leadership training and I still feel inadequate to lead. Your definition of leadership as love is something that requires further thought, but I think you are on the right track.

    As for a leadership model, I think that we err in trying to follow business principles. There may be aspects to church organization that can benefit from business leadership training, but I think we would be "better off" following a military leadership model. Our mission is to fight the battles of a great cosmic war and sometimes we forget that. I'm taking a course now on the church and find it interesting that one author talks about the church being militant.

    Any thoughts?
  • Jonathan-

    Thanks for continuing the discussion! I love what you said about love (as leadership.)

    Now, I will try to stir the pot a little. Can you be a great lover and lousy leader? I think is is obvious that one can be a effective leader (by some definition) and a lousy lover. Isn't leadership a gift, a skill, and an art? Doesn't someone have to be recognized as the primary leader in order to have continuity and to have anyone following?
  • Bob,

    Business models are learning that the organization has to think outside of itself to create better ROI. I think there some hidden gems in business leadership when we throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of the work by Jim Collins, as example, points to humility as the defining quality of leadership. Humility is simply the willingness to learn.

    Military models actually are great examples because the good ones point to the teaching people how to think for themselves in stressful situations of combat. Plans start the process but learning to adapt in the moment is real life. This is discipleship and teaching people to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    And this is why I point to love as the essence of leadership. Love filters all action towards His mission. It works towards positive ends that are consistent with restoration and reconciliation, bringing people out of oppression and ending suffering. It restores people's dignity by showing them they are worth it.
  • Glenn,

    I would suggest that the individual who needs to be seen as a leader is actually wrestling with issues of validation and control.

    We often assume that someone has to be a leader but Jesus flipped that model and brought himself under people. This, to be honest, can freak people out. When we give in to love as leadership we find that God is so much better at influencing people than us. We may have a gift to influence but when we use it for our own ends, our ends are all we get. When we use it for love, we restore His creation.

    True organization comes when we follow and learn. If we love people will often magically show up behind us.
  • Well said. Today's organizations have many leaders who have excellent brains. They can develop marvelous business plans, can chart excellent strategic direction for the company, are superb financial analysts, are very creative in developing new products and extremely skilled at developing air-tight budgets. However, most of these organizations lack leaders who have heart. It takes more than brains to run excellent organizations. There's a leadership proverb that goes: 'people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care'. Caring is rooted in love.
  • Joe
    I must be very simpleminded. Why do we make such a big hubbub about this leadership thingy? You are on target with the love concept; however, both the world and the worldly church do not understand the concept -- we've successfully managed to bastardized it into some ethereal term that has no meaning or have painted it with a meaning that defines weakness.

    Kinda comical isn't it? The chosen ones of the Living Lord have turned the church, and its "leadership," over to the Enemy while we do ceremonial, and sanitized, war dances, shaking our spears, painting our faces and growling real ferociously, while being encouraged in our fantasies by our "Leader." Then we go home, eat ice cream and watch "Desperate Housewives," proud of ourselves at how we're conquering the world for Jesus.

    We desperately need leadership. Or, perhaps stated in a more appropriate manner, we desperately need to accept the leadership of Jesus and move to a war footing.

    I always looked at Josua when thinking of leadership. Poor fellow. He had a good thing going; second in command to Moses. Never had to make the hard decisions, just carry out and enforce what his boss laid down. Then, poof! Moses is gone, he's inherited the presidency and the nation is about to unleash a preemptive strike on their enemies of major proportions.

    I love the narrative in Joshua 1, especially in The Message:

    God spoke to Joshua, Moses' assistant:
    "Moses my servant is dead. Get going... no one will be able to hold out against you. In the same way I was with Moses, I'll be with you. I won't give up on you; I won't leave you. Strength! Courage! You are going to lead this people to inherit the land that I promised to give their ancestors. Give it everything you have, heart and soul. Make sure you carry out The Revelation that Moses commanded you, every bit of it. Don't get off track, either left or right, so as to make sure you get to where you're going. And don't for a minute let this Book of The Revelation be out of mind. Ponder and meditate on it day and night, making sure you practice everything written in it. Then you'll get where you're going; then you'll succeed. Haven't I commanded you? Strength! Courage! Don't be timid; don't get discouraged. God, your God, is with you every step you take."

    Perhaps we should be redefining what leadership really is. Maybe we've turned it into something its not and have ignored what it really is...
  • Bob B.
    Joe, good point about Joshua.

    I think the hub-hub about leadership comes from the fact that many people in the church are trying to define what it means in practical and contextual terms. Frankly, a lot of the "leaders" I've experienced in the church were/are lacking in qualifications and ability, not to mention love. They lead because someone or some group named them the leader and others were willing to simply follow along. Thankfully, people are less willing to simply follow the designated leader any more. For some, including myself at times, this is due to rebellion against the status quo, but I like to think that we've also learned the lessons that come from blindly following the designated leader.

    Leadership is especially important in light of the radical reformations taking place in the church today. For instance, if we are to be "always reformed, always reforming," a critical question is "how does one effectively lead change and re-formation?" Four years ago my response would have been, "pray and do it, and if necessary, beat a few people up." After seminary and the leadership classes we were required to take, my answer is, "pray, pray some more, pray again, work with people, cooperate, and use the leadership tools available to accomplish the mission."

    I'm not suggesting we become compulsive/obsessive about leadership, but I am suggesting we take it more seriously than some in the church have in the past.
  • Bob B.
    PS - I'm still processing Jonathan's idea of love as defining leadership. I've known some pretty loving people who weren't very effective leaders.
  • Jonathan,

    Great post and comments!

    I think the reason the topic of leadership is so muddy in the church realm is because we confuse organizational leadership with spiritual leadership.

    This quote is from a leadership article that I previously wrote:

    "We have blurred the lines within the church between the administrative organization and the organic spiritual life of the church body. While a person may be needed to administratively lead an organizational structure, if that structure happens to be a church group, he must not assume that his organizational rank presumes an elevated spiritual position in the group."

    I see that this is where the confusion often occurs within the church in regard to leadership. It is often assumed and taught that spiritual authority follows the same lines as organizational authority.

    There is nothing wrong with organizational leadership within a church if we recognize it as an administrative function for the purpose of structural organization. If our church structure is an organization, it is helpful to have effective administration of that organization.

    The problems begin when we believe that the church organization is the same as the organic church body. Within the church, we have tried to combine a role of spiritual and organizational leadership into one person called the pastor. In that, we end up with a perverted role that fits neither description.

    You and others have hit on the nature of real spiritual leadership, which in the church happens in our relationships with one another, not in our political structures.

    Unless we unravel our thoughts about church as a body versus church as an organization and about leadership as an administrative task versus leadership as a spiritual act of service, we have trouble in our understanding and definition of leadership as it relates to church.
  • Joe,

    I think we make a big deal is because we don't see anyone really leading. We see people doing stuff but it is missing a central element of love.
  • Bob,

    What do you mean by "loving people"?
  • Grace,

    I am reminded of the original structure of the church, which took place primarily in homes and thought, "You know, it's not hard to serve a meal and tell people of this guy who is my Jesus who introduced me to my real Daddy, who gave me His Spirit." Instead we like to build big building and organizations that turn people into ministers of children's ministry and minister of finance. We like to turn the simple into a complex thing and make it in our image.
  • Bob B.
    RE: "loving people who weren't very effective leaders"

    I had in mind the person with a servant's heart, who does everything with humility. They will do anything for anyone, with anyone, and you never hear a word of complaint. They are always willing to go the extra mile. They are patient, kind, considerate, compassionate, and never jealous. Give them a task and it's done, and they'll probably do a little extra as well. If they see a need, it's taken care of, and you usually don't hear about it unless someone else mentions it.

    Ask them to pick up someone on the way to church and you'll find out later they not only picked them up, but took them to lunch on the way home just because it seemed the right thing to do. And, without asking, they'll do it again next week too. But, don't ask them to organize and administer (ie, lead) the church's "pick-up ministry." They lead by example and are effective in that role, but getting others organized, or telling others what needs done isn't their thing. They are too busy doing to be an organizational leader.

    Hope that answers your question.
  • Bob,

    Your response made me laugh. I kept thinking that I wanted to be the first person more than the second. The first person is leading by love and "refuses" to get sucked into the muck and mire of a "church program".
  • Using a defintion of love as leadership, we area all called to leadership - Jesus said "they will know you are my disciples by your love..." We are to love God and our neighbours as ourselves... I have always equated love with maturity. When you look at a 3 year old their whole world revolves around them and their needs. As they get older, they hopefully begin to see how they fit into the whole world and that other's needs are as important as their own, and basic needs (like food and shelter) are more important thatn things like entertainment and doodling. Love and maturity are about the ability to think outside of yourself, putting others needs before your own with wisdom (ie, put the oxygen mask in the airplane on yourself first, then help your child).
    Leadership is a matter of gifting (Holy Spirit). I think our issues from leadership stem from bad models. The Bible likes to use the Body and a building as analogies for the church. Where is the leader in the body? Sure you have a brain, but without the heart pumping, the veins to carry the blood, and the feet to get the food that the hands put in our mouth while the armpits cool us all down...
    We fail to see our interconnectedness when we ascribe special priority to the leader. He or she is just as important to the body as followers, for without anyone to lead ...

    So a definition of leadership? It is one of many gifts for an individual within the body of Christ. It is a place of ministry ("others" focussed), exercised in servanthood (c.f. the washing of the feet) and maturity (completeness, love), designed to facilitate the coordination of the body to the common cause of becoming more Christlike, both corporately as well as individually.
  • Are you looking for a good leader or are you looking for a good manager?
  • Gene, I'm not sure I understand your question in regards to this post? Help me understand.
  • Raelene
    I really enjoyed reading this.

    ..."He was calling us into leadership by choosing followership..." very powerful.

    I believe Leadership is best defined in Jim Collins book "Good to Great". This was an amazing book our "leadership" team at my job read together. He describes leadership being people who have both "personal humility" and "professional will". He goes on to describe professional will not being personal success but rather success being something that is so great that it gets passed on and outlasts their time.

    The church or business, I think leadership is caring first for those being "led", having a heart for others development (business, spiritual or both), and a willingness to contribute to something great so others can benefit from the greatness.
blog comments powered by Disqus