There's been much ranting and raving on the inadequacies of leadership in the church, but I must admit I recoil whenever I hear people say "leadership is biblical" for a lot of reasons. When I say "leadership," I am talking about the way the term has become adopted into the vernacular of evangelical conferences and books. Last night at our "leadership meeting" (wink wink) I went off on a rant on this very topic. (I have since had to repent—to me repentance is the best way of leading I know.) I posted something on Facebook, and several brothers and sisters set me straight. So, after learning much on Facebook (it is good for something), I feel like I need to put out there why I think leadership in this mode is not biblical, why we might need to find a new word when we are talking about what leaders do in a church, and why, if we are ever going to truly lead a community into the kingdom, it will require a skill quite different from what many in the church have come to describe as "leadership."
Here are five comments on why leadership is not biblical.
1. The Word Leader Is Generally Avoided in the New Testament.
Within the context of the church (with the notable exception of Hebrews 13:17, 24) we don't find the word used. Likewise, the NT writers generally avoid using secular or Old Testament (LXX) titles for authoritative office. The NT instead uses the term diakonia (servant, service) to label people in leadership far more times than any other term in the NT (for example, Rom. 11:13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph. 3:7; 6:21; Col. 1:7, 23; 4:7, 12; 1 Thes. 3:2; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:5, 11). The NT writers therefore used a word to describe leadership in the church which contrasted violently with the current secular notions of office. Hans Kung outlines how the NT writers saw that any words which suggest a relationship of rulers and the ruled were unusable in the new community context (see his book, The Church, pages 498–502). The NT on this reading appears to carefully avoid the models of authority available in surrounding society by defining leadership in the church differently and by using different words. All this suggests that using the word leader as has been defined by the business culture of North America is highly dubious for the church and, dare I say, unbiblical.
2. Whenever the Word Leader Is Use in the New Testament, It Is Subverted By the Church.
In the NT, the word leadership takes on the element of leading by character not coercion, by submission not hierarchy in reverence for the Lordship of Christ. See for example Hebrews 13:7: "Remember your leaders. … Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith." Wisdom, age, maturity, gentleness, and self control—not lording over others—are the signs that someone is leading. This pattern, I would argue, is present throughout the NT in the way the term elder and overseer are interchangeable (see for example Titus 1:7) revealing that for the early communities age, wisdom, and maturity were the recognizable traits of leadership. (The word elder, after all, means “an older, mature person”). Even the way leader is supposedly translated in Romans 12:8, it is placed within a total communal relationship of the gifts where each person exerts the authority of his or her gift in submission to the others. I would argue then that leadership is never a position of authority or skill placed unilaterally above the congregation, but always in submission to the body. Once again, the word leadership as used in the common parlance of business appears to be unbiblical.
3. Jesus Subverted the Term Leadership.
The NT writers were so careful with their use of the words for leadership because the NT church carried the consciousness of Christ's words: "If any one wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all" (Mark 9:35).
You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. Because the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:42–45 par Luke 22:25–27).
The NT church bears the image of Christ modeling servanthood when he washed his disciples feet (John 13:13–17). They remember his words from Matthew 23:9–11:
But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher and you are all students, And call no one your father on earth, for you have one father, the one in heaven, and do not be called leaders, for One is your leader, the Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant; and whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (NASB).
Jesus commands his disciples to refuse any titles of the secular authorities including religious (Rabbi), family (father), or group style leadership (leader). Though we may argue how to implement Jesus’ commands on authority and leadership within the church, we must surely conclude that Jesus instructs the church to resist modeling its own leadership in any way on secular notions of leadership existing outside of the church.
4. Christian Leadership Is Defined By the Posture of Submission.
All of this does not discount the need for leadership; it just demands a different kind of leadership. This is why I had to repent of my rant last night. I believe we need leaders who lead from below, allowing God in Christ through the Spirit to exalt himself in the midst, leaders who always act out of the authority of his or her gifts as received from Christ (Eph. 4:7), who exercise authority as received only in dependence upon Christ. This is the leadership of Christ. We still need this kind of leadership. In fact, we need theological leadership sufficient to guide doctrine and practice in the church. We need ordination which is recognition by the community for this gift. Yet all of these gifted ones lead out of submission to God in Christ by the Spirit, always offering what God is giving to the body in submission to one another. Dare I say, any other kind of leadership is unbiblical?
5. The Business Models of Leadership Will Handicap Us from Leading into Mission.
Because business-style leadership works from the top down and often works only in already established authority structures, because business styles of leadership work to passivize the congregation negating participation, and because business styles of leadership work well with people who already are acclimated to church and its Christendom structures of leadership, my general prejudice is that the kind of leadership most often taught in our evangelical churches and institutions is poorly suited to lead our churches into post-Christendom engagement (i.e., into mission). I don't know how biblical this reason is (it may be sociologial), but it's another reason to be cautious about traditional leadership language.
No doubt this post will raise more questions than it answers. There are thousands of pages to be written on how the submissive, radically subordinate leader is actually the revolutionary leader. But for now, I'm ready and willing to hear objections and ways this has played out in your own lives.
Click here for Bob Hyatt's response to David Fitch's post.
