The Christian Leadership Sidetrack

Steve at Cruciorm Life has posted something of great significance, in my opinion [HT: Milton Stanley]. It's called, Is Leadership a Healthy Christian Aim?

I read a lot about the missional church movement and I thinnk it's one of the best things to happen in the church world in some time, but the conversation is almost always among leaders, about leadership, about being a better leader, etc. It sometimes seems, and I think I've even heard it said, that everybody is supposed to aspire to leadership, and there's a whole branch of the Christian publishing industry to help us do so. I think it's mostly half-baked nonsense.

No doubt we need leaders, but aspiration to leadership, thirst for leadership, can be a dangerous thing. Steve quotes Church historian John Hannah:

If we don’t develop a generation of people who are not afraid of anonymity, who are willing to be nothing as far as being unknown, who don’t see sacrifice as a crime, and who realize God has commanded contentment not happiness, then what will happen to the missionary enterprise in two generations?

After all, who was David speaking of when he refers to the quiet in the land. There is a passage in Romans 12 where Paul sums up the aspiration of the common (non-leader) Christian. It is not to have a successful ministry, but to:

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

That's quite a to-do list, and it doesn't necessarily include leading. Maybe Henri Nouwen, who was in my opinion a fine leader, had this in mind when he said that the Christian leader must aspire to downward mobility. I think most of our talk about leadership militates against this vision of Paul's. We need to look more closely, and more questioningly, at this whole issue of leadership. Are we getting it all wrong? I think so.

[Addendum: Steve's follow-up post is here. And I'm nodding in agreement throughout.]

What's all this talk about leadership?

I've been meaning to write about leadership. I mean, that seems to be the word--the concept--that no one dare question or gainsay, right? Not in Christian circles, anyhow. Except of course Brant Hansen.

I'm very interested in the missional church movement, but have you noticed that most of its big-name writers and bloggers (dare I say, its "leaders") are always talking about leadership?

I just have to say it: leadership schmeadership!

I mean, some of us are, well, I know it doesn't sound nearly as cool, but, well, we really have no desire to "lead". None. Zilch. We long ago bottomed out on the whole leadership thing. Is that ok?

I've been to leadership conferences. That's where they sell the leadership books--you know, read this book and become the leader you always wanted to be, or God always wanted you to be, or your wife always wanted you to be. Or something. Everybody says, well, what we really mean by leadership is "serving." Which always makes me wonder, why not just call it that then? Ummm, why not just shut up and serve?

Not that I mind other people leading. Pastoring, heading up ministries, etc. Some people seem especially equipped for that sort of thing. Fine. Go for it.

Perhaps much of the promotion of "leadership" in the churches is simply born of the need to have lots of "vibrant and active" ministries, coupled with the simple reality that there are not enough people willing to "serve" in those ministries. Not enough Sunday school teachers. Not enough soup kitchen volunteers. So somewhere along the way this idea comes along: let's not ask people to serve. Let's ask 'em to lead! Let's call them leaders and tell them how God is equipping them for leadership, etc. And let's not ever ask the question that fairly begs to be asked: if everyone is called to leadership, who will the followers be?

My take: it's just a lot of fashionable talk. It doesn't match up well with the Bible. And it won't go away as long as people keep harboring the suspicion that they're just not adequate Christians and need to be prodded to new levels of heroic leadership (or whatever) in order to feel good about themselves (or to believe God feels good about them).

That's what I think. Hope no one's leadership feathers got ruffled by all this. If so, sorry.

[Next up: What's the big deal about U2?]