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. 

Comments

[David Fitch]

OK bro, it's later in the evening in the midwest, so while you're eating dinner let me throw a few bombs your way.
1.) I agree that the way you have interpreted presbuteros, episcopos in the pastoral epistles is common fare for the standard account and the established church, but not for us Anabaptists. Tomorrow, when I am at the office for a bit, I'll give some substantial articles that counter this interpretation of these terms, that actually as seen within the Hebrew cultures,synagogues etc. these terms have long communal roots that refer to the character of wisdom, maturity (and yes age - although this was diminished in the church touche!) as opposed to any particular leadership skill. These nuances were lost in the Catholization - Constantinization - i.e. hierarchicalization of the church. I'm not so crazy as to say all of this is automatically illegite ... I just need to acknowledge that the authority of the church once ensconced in the power of the Roman Christendom changed and some of that was not for the good.
Yet even in the later epistles, where Paul urges the communities or the apostle delegates to recognize and appoint elders - I don't see why this should take away from their authority as based in their character as recognized in the community. It seems indeed that this is readily recognized in the long character lists of the pastoral epistles. Even in the pastorals, leadership is out of one's character in submission to a community.

2.) As for "all truth is God's truth" ... as I have said elsewhere ... we start with Jesus, God revealed, and then move from him out to the fallen world to claim places where by God's grace some light might be shon for some insights into the truth. But to go to these sources as the wellsping for leadership ignores the ways the world is formed around the ways of sin, violence, coercion and the self isolated from God. On this I'm sure we already agree ...

Ok, I've got to go back to grading papers ... thanks for being Bob

[geoffrey holsclaw]

I would also add, that those instances don't really tell/show us what leadership looks like, it is most just that a word was used. I think paul himself does give a really good example of leadership that is cruciform, that lays down his rights in a way that some might even think to be abdication.

[bobhyatt]

Fitch- I'll take a run at this response tomorrow, but geoff- to that I'll say "yes, but"... 
Yes- all pastoral leadership is (or should be) cruciform, including the times when it would be easier to NOT "lead" or make a call, or do the hard thing... but more to the point- Paul does provide a great model, but it's a model not necessarily of local church eldership, but more of meta-church Capital "A" Apostleship. SO when people justify video venues because Paul taught long distance through letters, I say apples and oranges- He was contributing to the local churches' teaching- not replacing local teachers. Same thing with leadership- he was contributing to their pool of leadership, but not replacing local leaders, which he insisted they appoint and submit to. 

[Kinnon]

Bob,
Let me say up front that you and I, too a large degree, appear to be on the same page when it comes to an understanding of the ecclesia - the assembling of the saints - based on our conversations on the interwebs and in person. I'll have more to say about what lens we view leadership through as we continue what has become, effectively, a synchroblog on Leadership from the missional/mission-shaped viewpoint.

However, I need to call you on a canard, that you've used a number of times before in responding to those who strongly question what functions as church leadership in the North American context:

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...

First, most of us who've been engaged with the church at any reasonably deep level have been "hurt by the exercising of poor or abusive leadership in the church." It's pandemic.

How is this an "excuse to question the whole concept of leadership" when one speaks from that experience whilst considering the Scriptures and how they appear antithetical to what is largely practiced as "church leadership". Your use of this canard is counter productive. It strongly suggests to those of us in this category that we should "shut up until you're healed."
Who decides when "we" are healed enough to participate in the discussion?

I honestly don't believe you're trying to shut out those who've been hurt from the discussion - and I know Evergreen has lots of folk in this category - but the continued use of this canard neither proves your argument nor makes you appear open to the fullness of the needed discussion. Perhaps you might consider laying that one to rest.

[bobhyatt]

Now who's telling whom to shut up?? :)
Thanks Bill- I appreciate the candor and pushback-
Honestly, I don't think it's a canard- I think it's recognizing the very human tendency to build our theology on the back of our experiences, rather than objectively (at least as "objective" as any human can get) do our best to view our experiences through our theology and what we know to be true. 
I recognize that you are saying your hurt in the area of church leadership was the impetus for asking the questions, not necessarily determinative of your answers or conclusions, and perhaps for you that is totally true... I tend to think that for many it is not. 
I don't think it's a canard to challenge someone who grew up in a broken home, experienced divorce themselves and now has sworn off marriage to rethink their stance and believe that the answer to broken marriages is not co-habitation or promiscuity- it's good marriages. Living with someone without commitment won't heal you from divorce.  In the same way, I know that failed church leadership is pandemic (though, I would say, not as widespread as failed marriages) and the answer lies not in sub-biblical leadership, but in true, Christ-honoring servant leadership. 
Our disagreement, I suspect,  and the way forward conversationally lies in exactly what that can and should and could look like. 
On a personal note- I don't mean to suggest that you have to be "healed" to have a discussion on the topic- but if one always starts from with "Leadership hurt me" before we ever get to "here's what I see in Scripture" I see that as telling...
I, like you, very much want people to find healing and wholeness. I think we might just be disagreeing on the course of treatment? 

[Kinnon]

I'm just telling you that that particularly duck doesn't quack - in my never humble opinion. :-)

And I do hope you aren't suggesting I begin every discussion of leadership with "Leadership hurt me..."

And as you feel that which I call a canard quacks much too loudly, I'd appreciate you pointing out where in these discussions you find that - or are you projecting from pastoral experience.

[Kinnon]

I'm just telling you that that particularly duck doesn't quack - in my never humble opinion. :-)

And I do hope you aren't suggesting I begin every discussion of leadership with "Leadership hurt me..."

And as you feel that which I call a canard quacks much too loudly, I'd appreciate you pointing out where in these discussions you find that - or are you projecting from pastoral experience.

[bobhyatt]

Projections simply abound!
:)

[Kinnon]

Why do I picture holograms?

But the question still stands. Who in this discussion leads with "leadership hurt me..."? I'm just sayin'

[A. Amos Love]

Anyone... I was wondering... Instead of “Leadership” in the ekklesia...
Where are you with the use of the word “leader” for a “Disciple of Christ?” ;-)

Jesus always took and recommended the **low place.** Yes?
The word “leader” seems like a “high place.” Yes?

Seems Jesus has a unique take on “Leaders” for **His Body.** “ONE”

As man - Jesus humbled Himself, made himself of NO reputation,
and took on the form of a **Servant.** Php 2:7-8. ;-)

How do “you” reconcile the use of the word “leader”
when “Jesus” told **His disciples** NOT to be called “leader?”

Jesus, in Mat 23:10 KJV, told **His disciples** “NOT” to call themselves
“Master / Leaders,” for you have “ONE” “Master / Leader” “The Christ.”

King James Version -
Neither be ye called masters:
for “ONE” is your Master, even Christ.

The Interlinear Bible -
Nor be called leaders,
for “ONE” is your leader the Christ.

Phillips Modern English -
you must not let people call you leaders,
you have only “ONE” leader, Christ.

Today's English Version -
nor should you be called leader.
your “ONE” and only leader is the Messiah.

Jesus told **His disciples** NOT to be called **leaders** and NONE did.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
Col 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God,
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant

**His Disciples** all called themselves **Servants.**
None called themselves “Leaders.” None? None.
None called themselves “Servant-Leader.” None.

If Jesus instructed **His Disciples** NOT to call themselves “leaders”
and someone calls them self a “leader” or thinks they are a “leader;”

Are they a "Disciple of Christ?"
Or, are they NO LONGER a "Disciple of Christ?" Oy Vey!!! ;-)
Or, are they just a **disobedient** "Disciple of Christ?" ;-)

Why isn’t what Jesus said important? ;-)

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold - One Shepherd - One Voice.
If Not Now, When?

Be blessed in your search for Truth... Jesus.

[bobhyatt]

Lemme guess- house church guy?
What Jesus ACTUALLY said, Philips' translation notwithstanding, was "call no one 'master.'" We are owned by Jesus alone.

Here's a couple to try on...

20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,

and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,

Acts 15:22
Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers.

Galatians 2:2
I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 13:17
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, for that would be of no benefit to you.

Hebrews 13:24
Greet all your leaders and all the Lord’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.

Romans 12:8
if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

Apparently God is okay with leaders and leading in the church. He just wants us to do it the Jesus way- with humility and servanthood...

[Miguel]

Excellent and needed discussion. I will share this on facebook "Making DIsciples" and add comments later. For now, I will simply add that leading without lording over others is possible and biblical.

[Dan Brennan]

Bob, this was probably the most balanced post I've read on the leadership discussion. Thanks!

[len]

Given all these layers of complexity, let me add another: context.

How leadership is viewed in my current eastern, rurual context, and how terms like "pastor" are used, is vastly different from the dominant lenses of my previous urban, western Canada context.

So, Bob argues that personal experience impacts this discussion; how much more so does our location?

And I think we see this also in the NT. We see several models of ecclesial governance. I suspect that what appears to be a more formal or official model in the pastoral epistles is actually an adjustment for context in less mature, less healthy NT communities.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

Bob,

I for one agree with your analogy that the best antidote to a bad marriage is to leave about what a good marriage is. So too with the church. But with that said, I've not been hurt by the church (from childhood to adulthood) and have had a very positive experience of the church, BUT I still find the "idea" as it is practiced in the West suspect even if the word is found in the NT (the opposite is of course true the concept of the Trinity).

Back to your thoughts on my thoughts on Paul. I'm sure you are working a little too near some pastors who use Paul as a justification for their mega-ministry, but I think that is a little to neat and quick of a dismissal of Paul's model and his understanding of his ministry (i.e. that he is a mega-Apostle). Paul does dare to say to the Corinthians, "Therefore I urge you to imitate me. He doesn't set himself above as a super-minister, but just as one of everyone (being a super-apostle is exactly what he repudiate in Corinth).

As Micheal Gorman has pointed out (Inhabiting the Cruciform God), Paul takes the Philippians Hymn as programmatic for his life and ministry, that although had the status of God, he did not use this status to his advantage, but to on the form of a slave, even death on a cross. (this is all spelled out in my most recent post). This model is put into practice by Paul in Philemon, Corinthians, and Romans. I think Paul and Jesus have much, much more to say here (even if implicitly) than a smattering of text that use a word.

Does this mean Paul doesn't have the authority to call out the Corinthians on their crap, or the Galatians, or Peter? No. He still makes the hard calls (ask Barnabas about John Mark...), but why call this "leadership"?

I agree some are responsible for the maturity of others, for the preservation of right doctrine, of the edification of others, for the correction and discipline of others, but why call this leadership?

[geoffrey holsclaw]

btw, please read the above comment in a cheerful friendly tone. I tend to get dry and arid on comments and sound more combative than I intend. :-)

i'm passionate about his topic, but was in a hurry...and still am...(as the boys are calling me...)

[Ben Sternke]

Just to jump in quick - why NOT call it leadership?

[bobhyatt]

Geoff- no problem :)
I'm not sure we're not missing each other here. I'm not saying that Paul set himself up as a "Super" anything, but rather that he saw his ministry as being broader than the local church, and by no means meant to replace what happened on the local level, in terms of teaching and leading.

As for the question "Why call this leadership?"... I like Ben's response- why not? Isn't that what it is?

But more to the point- as I've pointed out, contra-Fitch, it IS a biblical word. The early church had recognized leaders (see above) and more importantly- leadership is one of the gifts listed in Rom 8: "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."

At this point we get into what does it mean to live out that gifting, where do gifts and roles intersect and overlap, and what does it mean to lead in a Jesus way, but let's all agree: God gifts people for leadership in the church and expects them to use those gifts for the building up of the Body, not themselves. But however servant-y a leader they are able to be, they are still leading. You don't have to have paid leaders (though that's biblical)- you don't have to call them pastors (though that also is biblical). But you have to have leadership. Men and women set apart as elders to serve, teach, encourage and equip and... lead. Less than that is sub-biblical.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

I agree their is leadership in the church, but I'm most concerned with the need to find, to have, "leaders". Who are the leaders? Are they trained? Are the effective? Do they know the vision?

Even your text their buries the term under/around non-leader terms which suggests that Paul didn't think as highly/lowly of it as we do.

Why do most/many want to designate the gift-equipping gifts as "leaders" and "church leadership" when Paul doesn't (Eph. 5). They, as you say, are given for the maturing of the Body.

If by "leader" and "leadership" you mean a mature disciple of Christ growing maturity in others, then why not just say "mature disciple" instead of leader?

When I walking into a room or a ministry, I can always tell who the "leader" of the group is (the one people listen to, follow), but after a little longer I can usually tell who the mature disciple is (quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to get angry [Jam. 1.19], etc...). I praise God when they are one and the same, but all too often they are not. In our day and age their is just no quick way to bring the two concepts together, so it is generally best to avoid the former and focus on the latter.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

to "why NOT call it leadership?" i would say, "because Paul doesn't."

Why not call it "maturing a disciple?" or "encouraging/exhorting?" or "nurturing/growing other?"

These are all concepts more often used by "Paul, the slave of Christ."

When I sit down with a ministry "leader" and help him learn how to deal with conflict in a Christ-like manner, and to overcome the sin in his life (by rebuking him), am I leading or discipling? Obviously I'm disicpling. Why would I or he call it leading?

[geoffrey holsclaw]

Bob,

Also, I'm always worried when we start talking about different levels (Paul is on a national/global/apostolic level and pastors in a local context are in a different level). so are there different ways of practicing 'leadership' at these different level? I don't think Paul argues that way at all. He tell everyone to live as he lives, which is to follow Christ.

certainly his influence is different, but leadership?

[bobhyatt]

Geoff- I'm not arguing that the most effective leadership is based off influence, not authority, but there are over-laps and both are needed. I would submit that an effective missional community needs both the "leader" type and the "sage" type you've described. Yes, the leader needs to be a mature disciple, but there's a distinction made, isn't there, scripturally, between one who is simply a mature disciple and one who is an elder, as "mature disciple" is one of the requirements to BE an elder (i.e. every elder should be a mature disciple but not every mature disciple is an elder).

In terms of Paul- I'm just describing, not prescribing. He did leadership at a level where he impacted and influenced churches all over the known world at that time. That was different than a local church pastor, but Paul never acted as though what he did was meant to replace local eldership- just supplement it.
We have the same today within denominations and "tribes" of churches, even crunchy ones like ours- it's just the less structured those tribes are, the less formal the role. But I'd say in the missional tribe, guys like Frost and Hirsch and even Fitch exercise a certain amount of "leadership." And that's a good thing!

[bobhyatt]

As for your questions (I agree their is leadership in the church, but I'm most concerned with the need to find, to have, "leaders". Who are the leaders? Are they trained? Are the effective? Do they know the vision?") I think that's why God gives gifts of leadership, why the Eph 4 categories are given, and why the nuts and bolts "qualifications" of elder are given in Timoty and Titus- to help us answer exactly those questions.

[Dan Steigerwald]

I want to read the sequel to this, when the added practical complexity of shared vs. point leadership is bantered about :). When churches/organizations try to animate and multiply local bodies in the world for Kingdom impact, the overarching questions quickly move from somewhat abstract conversations to figuring out (often clumsily) how to practice leadership well, how to mobilize leadership diversity, and how to orchestrate it all in God-honoring ways.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

(should be grading, but i'm talking a break...)

I think my whole concern can be summed up when you say, "...God gives gifts of leadership...". Is that really what God gives? No. And our tendency is to do just that, translate what God is actually going with His gifts by bringing in leadership language/concepts too quickly. God gives gifts to mature his Body. Why do we feel then need to re-conceptualize it as if he has given leadership gifts.

I know you aren't advocate the type of leadership I outlined, and in practices I assume we shepherd in very similar ways, so I don't want to take this too far.

But in one sense we are talking past each other, but hopefully it can be a productive non-conversation.