Archives for 2011

Leviticus 19:13 is interesting: “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him.”

What does this have to do with leadership?

It’s simple. Command and control leadership is an oppressive way to lead. Authoritarian leadership is a form of oppression. And this verse says “you shall not oppress your neighbor.” While the implications of this verse go far beyond leadership, they do pertain to leadership. If you lead in a way that oppresses your people, you are not leading in accord with this verse.

Am I being too extreme to call authoritarian leadership a form of oppression?

Obviously some forms of oppression are worse than others. I’m not classifying authoritarian leadership with slavery or other such things, which are clearly far more severe.

But as Christians we are to reject all forms of oppression. And authoritarian leadership is a subtle form of oppression because it does not seek the good of those being led. It views the leader as the one knowing all the answers, and the followers as existing to primarily carry out the will and desires of the leader. Instead of seeing his people as having initiative and ability to unleash, he sees them simply as tools. That is a failure to build people and serve them and, yes, it is a form of oppression.

I am not saying that clear, decisive leadership is a form of oppression. I’m not even saying that it is wrong for a leader to get in the details on things and seek to uphold high standards in how things are done.

Rather, we are primarily getting at a heart issue here. Is your aim in leading to serve and build others up in the accomplishment of the mission? Or do you see others merely as a tool to accomplish your aims?

There’s a big difference. That difference plays itself out in varying leadership styles, but at root and most important is your motive. Why are you even leading at all?

From Alex and Brett Harris’ Do Hard Things, quoting the daily periodical Bits & Pieces:

Complacency is a blight that saps energy, dulls attitudes, and causes a drain on the brain. The first symptom is satisfaction with things as they are. The second is rejection of things as they might be: “Good enough” becomes today’s watchword and tomorrow’s standard.

Complacency makes people fear the unknown, mistrust the untried, and abhor the new. Like water, complacent people follow the easiest course — downhill. They draw false strength from looking back.

You’ll notice something interesting: Everything about complacency is the opposite of leadership.

Leadership inspires energy; complacency saps it.

Leadership enlivens attitudes; complacency dulls them.

Leadership energizes you to think hard; complacency is a brain drain.

Leadership is not satisfied with the problems and wrongs of the current situation; complacency says “OK.”

Leadership rallies people to a better future; complacency says “things can’t change; let’s stay here.”

Leadership challenges you with high expectations; complacency is content with “good enough.”

Leadership provides clarity and hope; complacency fears the unknown.

Leadership takes risks and is willing even to make excellent mistakes; complacency fears the untried and is not only unwilling to risk, but scoffs at it.

Leadership motivates people to endure challenges and difficulty to get to where they are going; complacency refuses to challenge the status quo or do hard things.

Leadership is energized by looking to the future; complacency seeks to take a nap in the present, even when it is full of need and opportunity.

But, like leadership, complacency is diligent. It is diligent in its commitment to prevent change and do nothing. At the heart of complacency is a militant commitment to mediocrity that scoffs at the notion that things can be better. And that is the worst thing of all.

Andy Stanley:

Doing the right thing when it costs something is the essence of true heroism. It is also the mark of a great leader.

From his Next Generation Leader: 5 Essentials for Those Who Will Shape the Future.

From J. Oswald Sanders’ Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer. I can’t get it to work as a table, as it is in the book, but you should be able to see the comparisons well enough:

Natural

Self-confident

Knows men

Makes own decisions

Ambitious

Creates methods

Enjoys command

Seeks personal reward

Independent

Spiritual

Confident in God

Knows men and knows God

Seeks God’s will

Humble [and ambitious for God’s aims]

Follows God’s example

Delights in obedience to God

Loves God and others

Depends on God

Sometimes people say to me, “leadership is not a biblical category. The right terms are shepherding or stewardship or discipleship.”

Shepherding, stewardship, and discipleship are indeed critical things. And the absolute last thing I would want to say to pastors is “you aren’t shepherds, you’re leaders.” That would be horrible. Shepherding is a massive, valid, critical, and biblical category, and I think it communicates more about the nature of the pastoral role than simply the term “leader” does.

However, leadership is a biblical category. Pastoring (shepherding) is a type of leadership. And there are other types of leadership in the church and in all sectors of society everywhere that we are unable to properly describe and understand if we abandon the term “leadership.” Leadership is a good and right and proper category for these things.

In other words, if we abandon the category of “leadership,” we abandon an essential and necessary grid for understanding the task of (dare I say it) leading people. That’s what school superintendents, project managers, small group leaders, managers, CEOs, directors, vice presidents, marketing managers, executive pastors, senior pastors, and on and on, are doing.

Saying “that’s not leadership, that’s stewardship” doesn’t help a ton — stewarding what? Neither does saying “this is discipleship.” In the church and among Christians, that’s a helpful category. But is the marketing manager at Target discipling his or her employees? Maybe there is an element of that, even in the general arena of work. But if so, it’s discipleship in the context of leading a department, or carrying out whatever your role is.

We might be tempted to say that leadership is the right category for the task of leading outside the church, but it’s not a biblical category for inside the church.

But this would ignore the fact that the Bible actually speaks of leadership, and uses that term to describe the task of leading and shepherding inside the church as well. For example:

Luke 22:26: “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

Hebrews 13:7, 17: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls.”

Acts 5:31: “God exalted him at his right hand, as leader and savior.”

One interesting thing to note, and this is one reason this matters so much: In Luke 20:26, Jesus is drawing a contrast with how the Gentiles led, and how he wants the church led. The Gentiles lorded it over people and saw exercising authority and controlling people (for the leader’s benefit!) the main thing in leadership. Jesus said: “Not so. That’s a wrong view of leadership. It will not be that way among you.”

Here’s the point: If we remove leadership as a category of thought, we are unable to make these sorts of contrasts and comparisons. If what a person in the general society is doing can be called “leadership,” but what we are doing in the church can’t be, we lose the ability to learn from comparisons and contrasts. Jesus couldn’t have made the point he did here.

And, it is to be noted, Jesus’ point was not “you aren’t leaders.” His point was: “Lead in this way, not that that way. You will lead for the benefit of those you serve, not your own benefit. You will not focus on controlling people and exercising authority, but building them up for their good.” That’s true leadership.

The problem is not the concept of “leadership.” It’s that there are lots of wrong ideas about leadership out there. The problem is not leadership, but bad leadership.

We don’t need to be afraid of the term leadership — it is a biblical category. Let’s not eat the confusing fruit of overspiritualization that seeks to eliminate real, biblical, helpful categories in favor of more spiritual-sounding, but often ambiguous, ways of speaking.