bob.blog

Leadership thoughts, pt 2

(This post and the previous are in response to my good, good friend and respected pastoral colleague David Fitch, known colloquially as "Fitch" to many who know and love him. Read his post and the first part of my response for background.)

Here's the thing- leadership isn't a choice, it's gift, And beyond that, it's a given. 

I talked in my previous post (contra-Fitch) about places in Scripture where leadership is mentioned and described as happening in the church. But beyond descriptions both specific (the use of the word "leader", or "leadership") and general (places where we see words like "elder" or "overseer" used and qualifications given to those who would desire those positions), it seems as though both Jesus and the Holy Spirit assume there will be leadership in the church. 

First, much has been of Jesus' words that point us towards being last, not first and servanthood. The inference is this negates any sense that Jesus would have anyone lead in the ecclesia. But that's simply not a careful reading. What he says is this: "But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. " (Luke 20:22)  This issue is not that no one exercises authority or leads, but rather HOW. Leadership? Yes... How? Servant leadership. And to explain what that means, we have the entire life of Jesus as our guide. 

Second, the Holy Spirit desires that some in the church will lead- how do we know?

"In his grace, God has given us different gifts for doing certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to prophesy, speak out with as much faith as God has given you. If your gift is serving others, serve them well. If you are a teacher, teach well. If your gift is to encourage others, be encouraging. If it is giving, give generously. If God has given you leadership ability, take the responsibility seriously. And if you have a gift for showing kindness to others, do it gladly." (Rom 12)

God gives gifts to supernaturally enable us to do what we need to in our lives and in ministry. And one of the gifts He gives is leadership, enabling some to exercise the kind of servant leadership He desires. 

Why so many don't do it this way is (at least at the moment) beside the point (and perhaps up to the brokenness we are all living with). God gives gifts of leadership, Jesus tells us how to lead and Scripture gives qualifications for leaders (in the epistles of 1 Tim and Titus) and tells us to obey those God has given this responsibility ("Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden"- Heb 13:17). 

Further- let's just face it. Leadership is a given. Like they say- ask a group without a leader why they have none and the person who answers? That's your leader.  

(I'm aware of groups like AA and I think they fit into a very special category of groups that intentionally don't change or evolve and so are led, in effect, by the dead and the structures they left behind. The church can't be like that- because we don't follow a dead guy and are being called to continually grow and mature as a body, both local and universal.) 

I understand the skepticism with applying leadership concepts from the corporate world in the church. And I disagree with Andy Stanley when he says "There's nothing distinctly spiritual [about leadership in the church]. I think a big problem in the church has been the dichotomy between spirituality and leadership."

There are absolutely limits with what we can learn from sources that don't acknowledge the fundamental brokenness of the world, our hearts and our systems, and build significant checks of the Spirit in to counter and redeem exactly those things. So I'm with Fitch up to a point... but where he'd put the stop of what we can learn from "secular" sources at "ZERO", I'd be a bit more generous. I think there's a lot we can learn about leadership from extra-biblical sources- but we need to make sure that we are grounded in the kind of Spirit-led, servant leadership Jesus calls us to first. That's the only thing that will enable us to separate the wheat from the chaff and see what fits as wisdom in a servant leadership model ecclesia and what doesn't. 

Let me put it this way: Can Christian people gain wisdom about marriage and loving each other, communicating with each other or raising their children from sources that are not Christian? Am I wrong to ever suggest the wisdom of a Dr. John Gottman (on whose research many Christian marriage authors base their works) to someone who wants to know how to better communicate in marriage, better discipline children, better love their spouse?

How about leading worship? Am I limited in learning guitar theory or vocal techniques to only believers? Our insurance company offers some helpful guidelines for safety in church children's ministry. Verbotten? 

I guess I'm just missing where the difference lies between learning from non-Christians in the area of marriage, music theory and ministry to children and leadership. Why is leadership different?

If I can gain wisdom about all kinds of things that Scripture speaks to, but does not claim to exhaustively speak to, why not leadership? 

I love that Fitch and others often sniff out and push back against resurgent fundamentalism. But I gotta say... It's a HALLMARK of fundamentalism to deny wisdom can be found anywhere but in Scripture. And more- I think it's missing the common grace that God gives to this world that allow us, even apart from Him, to catch glimpses of wisdom and even live reasonably successful lives apart from God (you don't buy the lie that only Christians are "happy", do you?). The notion of the imago dei alone tells me that when I'm sitting across from (or reading the book of) someone who doesn't know Jesus, I need to listen for truth as well as proclaim it. The story of Peter and Cornelius tell me the same. 

All I know is I want to be a servant leader and if my community recognizes a gift and gives me a role in leading I want to heed the words of Rom 12 and "take the responsibility [to lead] seriously." And if there's wisdom out there to help me do it, by all means with careful consideration and discernment, I need to make use of it.

Anything less would be irresponsibility, I think, 

Is "Leadership" Biblical? A few reasons to say "Yes!"

One of my favorite guys and discussion partners in the world, David Fitch today posted a bit giving five reasons he saw the idea of "leadership" as it is currently used as unbiblical. I don't think it was Dave's intention to disown any concept of leadership in the church (regardless of how I may have treated him on Twitter :), but rather to argue against it's misuse. 

However. 

I've noticed in the last few years a real bandwagon of anti-leadership sentiment in some circles. I think it started as a push-back to the "CEO" model/mentality in some, and as such, I'm sympathetic. But from there, it's very much progressed straight down the road paved by hurt and abuse perpetrated by poor leaders to where we have many arguing that in the church, any concept of leadership at all should be avoided. 

I get where that's coming from and certainly am in favor of flattening things as much as is possible- but the truth is, there always has been leadership in the church and there always will be- at least in biblical models of the church. There will always be the community as a whole and from that community certain men and women who serve by exercising the role of (depending on how you translate) presbyter, overseer or elder. 

And inherent in the concept is a sense of both serving AND leading. 

We'll get to that in a second- Fitch's five reasons were as follows:

1.)   THE WORD “LEADER” ITSELF IS GENERALLY AVOIDED IN THE NT

2.)   WHENEVER THE WORD “LEADER” IS USED IN THE NT – IT IS SUBVERTED BY THE CHURCH 

3.)   JESUS HIMSELF SUBVERTED THE TERM “LEADERSHIP.”

4.)   CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP IS DEFINED BY THE POSTURE OF SUBMISSION- TO THE WORLD THIS IS NOT LEADERSHIP

5.)   THE BUSINESS MODELS OF LEADERSHIP WILL HANDICAP US FROM LEADING INTO MISSION.

I'll let you read Fitch's specific arguments over at his blog. For now, I'll just answer with a few of my own points. 

 1. The word "leader" is found and used in the New Testament. 

Fitch cops to the "notable exceptions" of Heb 13: 17 &24 (forgetting vs 7, though!)... but then says that other than that, leadership is about diakonia, or service/servants in the NT. No argument that a biblical model of leadership includes servanthood, but it goes beyond that. Much beyond. 

Fitch says "The NT on this reading appears to carefully avoid the models of authority available in surrounding society for defining leadership in the church." However, this isn't necessarily true. One of the most common words for leader in the NT, "presbuteros", often translated "elder" could and did refer to: 1. members of the great council or Sanhedrin 2.of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice and 3. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches). The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably. (here)

It's clear that when describingleadership in the Church, the most common terms were also used of leaders in Judaism (both nationally and in the synagogues) as well as the culture around them. 

Further, the command was to "appoint elders (presbuteros) in every city (ie, every church community)." (Titus 1:5) Why? That they might help lead and decide the affairs of the church- 1 Timothy 5:17 -- "Let the elders [PRESBUTEROS] who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine."

Another common phrase which carried connotations of leadership in the NT was "episkopos", often translated "bishop." What were the "episkopos" to do? Among other things "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son."- Acts 20:28

It may be true that the word "leader" is found in only a few places in the NT in relationship to the Church- But when you take the weight and context/usage of the words "presbuteros" and episkopos" along with passages like Heb 13:7, 17, 24 and Gal 2:2, it's clear- There were leaders in the church, and though they may have exercised a leadership that felt different than the "lord it over you" kind Jesus warned us of, it wasn't completely different than leadership outside the church. There were still people appointed to responsibility, they still discerned and decided (Gal 2:2-3) and helped lead the church (Acts 15:22). 

2. Fitch's second point is that whenever the term "leader" or "leadership" is used in the NT, it is subverted by the church. He makes the point that leadership in the church has less to do with hierarchy and has more to do with age, wisdom and maturity, that it is something that is never "above the congregation" but always in submission to the body. And while I would agree with the general principle of mutual submission, and that church leadership should be about wisdom and maturity (I don't know about age- seems like that's something that actually IS subverted in biblical leadership-1 Tim 4:12), it's also something that IS, biblically, unilaterally (and carefully, prayerfully, considerately) decided by those already in leadership. How else are we to read verses like Titus 1:5 ("The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.")

Seems like there's a whole lot of leadership gettin' exercised there. :)

I won't deal with Fitch's last three points except in summary...

I agree with Fitch that the "Pastor as CEO" model is broken- and that to look first to Jack Welch and Co before Jesus for instructions as to how to lead in the church is wrong- but within the context of Christ-like and Christ-honoring leadership, in balance with biblical principles of servant leadership, I just have to ask- are there NO universal principles of good leadership we can learn from good leaders in the secular world? How to take care of those who are serving with and even "under" us? How to lead thru hard decisions/change? How to get the right people on the bus??? (I kid, I kid). What happened to "Truth is truth no matter where you find it"?

I love Fitch and his rhetorical hand-grenades :) I just see the issue of leadership in the church as one where we are severely prone to a babies and bathwater scenario. I recognize that many have been hurt by the exercising of poor or abusive leadership in the church. But to me, to use that as an excuse to question the whole concept of leadership (which is where I think many will take Fitch on this, even if it's not where he himself was intending to end up) is like questioning the whole concept of fatherhood because you had a crappy dad. 

From the Archives: On Burger King Health Clinics and Christmas Humbug

Two thoughts have collided for me today...

Today's newspaper contained some great news. Nearly $9million of federal stimulus money is flowing to Portland in the form of a grant to open a health care clinic in the middle of downtown for the poor. And the best part (at least in my mind)? It's taking an old, abandoned Burger King and transforming it into a one-stop medical center helping Portland's poor, homeless and mentally ill. 

I love the idea of using a place that once dispensed artery-clogging Whoppers and french fries, sugar drinks and all manner of other greasy, deep fried anti-nutrition (don't get me wrong- I LOVE all of that stuff- too much, in fact), and turning it into a place that does exactly the opposite- dispenses health, medicine... help. 

No doubt, when you look at the building, you'll still be able to tell it was a Burger King because of its very distinctive design. And yet- a whole different kind of impact with its presence. 

And all that made me think of Christmas. 

How?

I'm remembering when I first became aware of the "pagan" origins of Christian celebrations like Christmas and Easter. Discovering that early Christians had co-opted existing pagan celebrations was a bit of a shock. No Virginia, Santa Claus, much less Christmas celebrations isn't in the Bible.

But... those who look at that fact and decide that the responsible thing is to eschew celebrating Christmas altogether or just humbug about it (especially all the non-Jesusy parts) all season long really miss the point. 

Certainly- nearly all cultures and even religions have holidays around this time of year, mostly started to somehow celebrate the turn from shorter and shorter days to longer and longer ones. The move from darkness to light. 

And when the early Christians looked at that, it seems they had a really good idea...

There's no reason to think that Jesus was born on December 25th. We all know that. He was most likely born in the Spring sometime, because the shepherds were out in the fields keeping watch over their flocks- a Spring activity. But even though there's no reason to believe He was born then, there are great reasons to celebrate then. 

Whenever we bring the Gospel into a culture, we have a responsibility to contextualize it- to use the language, the symbols and the existing social structure (where it doesn't overtly contradict the Gospel) to explain the great Good News that God Himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf. 

So what to do when your culture has celebration hard-wired in? Fight that? Talk about humbug. 

But... A celebration where we focus on the coming of light into the world after a time of darkness? Hmmm... Sounds familiar. 

Sounds perfect, in fact.

Custom made for re-interpretation in light of the narrative of the Gospel and Jesus. Custom made to explain the coming of the Son of Righteousness into our darkness. 

Those early followers of Jesus who gave us things like Christmas, far from retreating from their culture simply repurposed some of the best parts of it. Like the solstice celebrations. And like I said- I love the irony of taking something meant to point to one thing and making it point to a better thing. 

"'The Christians stole it,' said Marie Elena Castle of Minneapolis, the 82-year-old founder of Atheists for Human Rights and an atheist activist for two decades."

Exactly. 

We took something that pointed at the sun and pointed it in a different direction. Towards the One who made the seasons, the sun and the moon, the one who came to give them real reason to celebrate. Jesus. 

So if you don't want to celebrate, that's fine. Your choice! But you're not just taking yourself out of a very Christian tradition, but a very human one as well.  

And don't tell me celebrating Advent isn't a great way to tell the Gospel story in a hundred different ways- to our kids in our Advent readings, to our neighbors in our hospitality and gift-giving (at a time when they are more open to that than any other time in the year), and especially to ourselves- maybe the ones who need most to hear "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people...Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord."