Leadership, Church

Attitudes toward leadership and the practices of leaders in the church are rarely informed by theological truth or spiritual perspective. On the one hand, people in the church regard leadership as a necessary evil, something which we must have in order to moderate the competing self-interests of members who, left to their own devices, would plunge the church into self-destructing chaos. Good leadership keeps bad leadership from emerging! On the other hand, leadership is sometimes invested with a quasi-divine authority, often with a focus on preaching, administering the sacraments or exercising charismatic ministry, so that some members feel one must not touch or criticize the Lord’s anointed. The pastor is like Moses to the people.

On the first extreme, the Old Testament contains a disturbing allegory (Jotham’s parable of the thornbush, Judges 9:7-15) which suggests that leadership is something seized by those who have nothing constructive to give! This negativity about office and leadership roles seems reinforced by two other Old Testament examples: Gideon’s rejection of the invitation to be king because he knew the Lord was King of Israel (Judges 8:22-23) and Saul’s appointment as the first king, which appears to have been a divine, though ultimately providential, concession to human faithlessness (1 Samuel 8:6-9). On the other extreme is Diotrephes, “who loves to be first” (3 John 9) in the church, matched by thoughtless believers who idolize and idealize their pastors as mouthpieces for God. Writing in the context of Hitler’s rise, Dietrich Bonhoeffer expounded this pathology by noting that when leader becomes Leader, the person in front cannot let people see his face; they can only see from behind. In between these extremes are millions of voluntary and remunerated leaders who serve the church either reluctantly or wholeheartedly, often with little recognition or sense of doing this as a ministry.

The Ministry of Leadership

Sometimes a leader is defined simply as anyone who obtains followers. But in the church it is different. Church leaders are not merely people who get followers for themselves; they are people who get followers for Jesus. Their service helps people themselves to get directly in touch with the Head of the church. They are not intermediaries, as were the priests, prophets and some of the kings under the Old Testament. Now that Christ has come and the Spirit has been poured out, all the people know the Lord, from the least to the greatest (Jeremiah 31:34). Pastor-teachers and other designated leaders of the church do not run the church. Their job is to teach, administer, manage, shepherd and equip people so that the people grow into maturity, into the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephes. 4:13), so the body of Christ, the church, is built up and people are equipped for ministry in the church and world.

In a sense all believers are leaders in that they have a sphere of influence in which they can encourage people in a Godward direction and assist in drawing out the spiritual gifts and service in others. This means that the real task of leaders is to unleash and develop the leader that is in every person. But in a special sense, leaders who influence the whole of the congregation are gifts of God and therefore noted among the gift lists of the New Testament.

Prophets, priests and princes. One common way to approach church leadership is to explore the three major patterns of leadership in the Old Testament: prophets (like Isaiah), priests (like Aaron) and princes (like David). Prophets spoke for God using the typical phrase “Thus says the Lord.” They verbalized the obligations of Israel’s covenantal relationship with the living God. Priests expressed covenantal life in terms of the holiness of God. They were bridge builders who blessed God on behalf of the world and people and blessed the people and the world on behalf of God. Kings were a visible link between God and the people, expressing the rule of God through a visible monarch, much as Adam and Eve were mandated to be God’s visible representatives on earth. Kings were tested by covenant fidelity and would lose their leadership, as Saul did, when they lost their relationship with God.

While these three forms of Old Testament leadership are often viewed as analogies for church leadership, this is a tragic anachronism. Christ has come and embodied completely the ministry of prophet, priest and prince in his own person, so that the newly reconstituted people of God as a whole now enters into Christ’s leadership. That is why we may speak truly of the prophethood of all believers (Acts 2:17), the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6) and the royal rule of all believers (1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 5:10) as we share the life of Christ’s kingdom. These leadership roles are now whole-people or laity roles. No single priest can represent God to the church. Church leadership will encompass these three offices but empower the whole people of God to exercise them in the church and in the world.

Charismatic and official leadership. There is another Old Testament analogy for which greater continuity in the New Testament can be found. The tension between charismatic leaders, such as the judges and prophets like Amos, and official leaders, such as David and Solomon, yields a fascinating and useful study. Much of church life today is influenced by a lopsided emphasis on either unappointed charismatic leadership or top-down leadership through elders and ordained pastors. Each has its value: charismatic leadership can guarantee the right job for the right person, encourages innovation and inspires confidence, while official leadership can encourage ongoing stable structures, continuity and accountability. Both were needed under the old covenant, an insight Moses expressed when he approved the nonordained charismatic ministry of Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:24-30). And both are needed in the church today.

But all too often charismatic leadership is suppressed in the name of stability, and official leadership is snubbed for fear of quenching the Spirit. Tragically, some churches try to institutionalize charismatic leadership by appointing a person with prophetic gifts as senior pastor (an action that is frustrating to both the church and the pastor) or by insisting that all official leaders, such as elders, give evidence of innovative charismatic ministry (which could lead these elders into perpetual frustration with the demands of office). This same tension is apparent in the New Testament, where it appears the Corinthian church so prioritized the charismatic leaders that they rejected even the apostle Paul!

Diversity of leaders and leadership. The rich diversity of leadership words in the New Testament suggests that there are many ways to function as a leader in the body of Christ. In Romans 12:8 the word for leadership is a verb, not a noun, proistēmi (the one who goes before); in 1 Cor. 12:28 leadership is a function, not a position, kybernēsis (administrators); in Phil. 1:1 the word for leadership is a term for a minor responsibility, episkopoi (overseers; see also Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:1); in 1 Tim. 3:8 the word represents a position of lower status, diakonos (servant); in Titus 1:5 the word for leadership is a descriptive term, presbyteroi (elders, or older, wiser people); and in Ephes. 4:11 the word is a metaphor, not a title, poimenes (pastors or shepherds). Obviously some are offices, some are not. But all are ministries. One thing that stands out in all these passages is that leadership is a group or corporate, not a solo or individual, affair.

Contrary to what is sometimes alleged, Scripture does not give us a single biblical pattern of church leadership except what is suggested by the paradoxical term servant-leader (Matthew 20:25-28; John 13:1-17; Ephes. 5:21). All three major patterns of church government—presbyterian (rule by plural elders), episcopal (rule by bishops) and congregational (rule by the people)—are claimed to be the biblical pattern, but no single model of church order is mandated. There is a theological reason for this: under the old covenant God was the ultimate leader of the people of Israel (which was therefore a true theocracy, with human servant-leaders facilitating God’s purposes with his people), and under the new covenant Christ is the head of the church (Ephes. 1:22-23; Ephes. 5:23) and its true leader. No human leader in the New Testament is ever called the head of the church. So, not surprisingly, Scripture provides multiple models of leadership for the people of God, each suited to the occasion and context, including elders, presbyters, bishops/overseers, deacons, deaconesses, evangelists, apostles, prophets and pastor-teachers.

Some leaders in the New Testament just emerged; some were nominated by the people (Acts 6:1-7); some were appointed by apostles. The Seven took care of the widows. James led the Jerusalem Council. Many gifted women gave leadership to the churches (see Romans 16). The common factors are appropriateness and spiritual integrity. The particular form leadership takes is secondary to its theological purpose and practical character. Ironically, the purpose of church leadership is not to lead the church but to equip people to relate to its true Leader. Jesus himself said that we should not allow anyone else to call us “leader” or “master” because we have one leader, Jesus (Matthew 23:8-12). This text in Matthew should cause us to be cautious about using leadership language for anyone but Christ, and it should also haunt all of us who aspire to leadership or who are dragged, kicking and screaming against our wills, into leadership posts. The theological purpose of equipping others to relate to Jesus must inform our practice and attitudes.

Toward a Theology of Leadership

A cursed blessing. Leadership is a blessing and gift of God. Humankind was originally mandated by God to give leadership to the rest of the created order as a loving stewardship in order to take care of creation (Genesis 1:28-30; Genesis 2:15) in grateful humility before God. This original leadership was perverted by human sin into autonomous and arrogant exploitation of the earth and all human relationships. Even the most delicate and immediate context of human life, the relationship between man and woman, was changed from a side-by-side relationship of companionship (Genesis 2:24) to “rule” (Genesis 3:16) by the male and “revolt” by the female—for that is what the Hebrew word for “desire” (Genesis 3:16) actually means. This is not what God intended or wants; it is what God has allowed humankind to bring upon itself to experience the results of sin. By the grace of Christ the curse is substantially reversed in this life, permitting mutual submission (Ephes. 5:21), which depoliticizes the marriage relationship.

The marriage relationship finds its spiritual counterpart in church leadership. Church leaders do not rule in an ultimate sense, since the church has one head, Christ. When they rule outside of the rule of Christ, they will often incite revolt or pathological compliance. Compliance is a psychological adaptation to pain; it is less painful to go along with the ruler than to speak up or resist. But there is always a sliver of resentment in the compliant person, a sliver that will manifest itself in either depression or revolt—both being spiritually unhealthy. So leadership is a cursed blessing: even with the substantial redemption accomplished by Christ in the here and now, leaders and followers will continue to wrestle with control and compliance. But there is more to leadership than disciplining and compensating for the flesh—what human nature (and the world) has become because of sin.

Natural and supernatural leadership. Leadership is something God gives widely and generously to the human family. The various New Testament words for leadership in the church do not preclude the use of natural leadership gifts or talents. But Scripture points to an extra element that concerns motive and style. For example, in the gift passage in Romans 12:6-8 the extra element appears in the process of doing something for God: “If it is leadership, let him govern diligently.” The extra element is the diligence.

So-called secular management skills have their place in the church, especially if this extra element is in place. Put differently, leadership in the church is not mere leadership but is something that takes place in God. It is a refraction of the continuing ministry of Jesus through his own people. These ministries may be expressed in offices, but they may also be expressed situationally, even temporarily by people who have not been officially appointed but are informal leaders in the church. They, however, are subject to the ordering and shepherding of the official leaders, just as the official leaders need to be responsible to the prophetic challenge of charismatic leaders.

Official leadership. So what is the distinctive ministry of church leaders? Most important of all is the modeling role. They exemplify Christian character and demonstrate in their handling of people the ways of God. Together the official leadership of the church (here envisioned as a group of elders, a church council or a pastoral team) have three further responsibilities: doctrine, that is, shaping, monitoring and leading in public teaching so that the people of God become mature, not being blown here and there by every wind of doctrine (Ephes. 4:14); discipline, that is, dealing with difficult pastoral and moral situations as well as discerning gifting and qualifications for leadership, missionary service and public roles; and direction, that is, discerning and communicating the vision of this particular congregation and orchestrating the priorities in terms of finances and human resources to accomplish these priorities.

Strictly speaking, the administration and implementation of doctrine, discipline and direction are management roles, but in local church leadership, particularly in smaller churches, the same people manage as lead. In a larger church the voluntary, part-time leaders must assume a role closer to an advisory one, with remunerated staff doing the implementing. This latter situation has peculiar hazards to pastors if they are relegated to the role of gofers and do not share in the formation of policy or, conversely, if they treat their elders or council as a mere board of reference without empowering laypeople for real leadership. Needless to say, there are many problems associated with church leadership, many of which are not considered directly in the Bible.

Problems of Leadership

One obvious problem occurs when someone is placed in an office or role for which God has not apparently equipped him or her. Sometimes a church outgrows its leadership. Someone who was a fine pastor or elder for a small church may become incapacitated when the church grows larger. There are many advantages of the small church, not least of which is the fact that more people, comparatively speaking, may enter into the service of leadership, whereas very few people are endowed by God with both the natural and supernatural charisma to lead a megachurch of five thousand. This is a matter not directly considered by Scripture, though the New Testament assumes the church is a size that facilitates true community and face-to-face relationships.

Leadership style. Another matter not considered in the Bible is leadership style. A pastor with a directive style serving a highly educated congregation accustomed to participating in decision-making is almost certain to run into opposition and may be discharged. A collegial, consultative style may run afoul in a blue-collar church where people want a union boss. Further, cultural factors are at work. In an anti-authority culture, leaders will find themselves without followers and questioned at every turn. In crisis times people will expect too much of leaders and will blame most of the problems on their poor performance.

It is seldom realized that to a large extent a local congregation gets the leadership it deserves. Leaders are for the most part created by followers. As Bonhoeffer once said, the group is the womb of the leader. Since each local church will be, like each individual family, a unique system (Collins and Stevens), leadership exercised in one context may not be transferable to another, a matter which should be considered by both volunteers and remunerated church staff when they change churches. Much frustration experienced by leaders has more to do with failing to discern the context than with lack of gifting in the leader. In the same way, churches that are dissatisfied with their leaders need to ask what kind of leaders they are producing and why.

Leadership power. Power, however, turns out to be one of the most vexed problems for leaders. Of the many ways of regarding power, the many forms in which power is manifested (information, referral, position, coercion, persuasion, etc.) and the many ways of using power (power brokering, power sharing, overpowering), the most biblical approach is empowering: giving resources, information, opportunity and encouragement to others so they can fulfill God’s ministry through them in the church and the world. This is the essence of equipping. Simply stated, the primary purpose of church leaders is not to do the ministry of the church themselves but to empower every individual member and the congregation as a whole to fulfill God’s purpose for them in service, mainly in the world. Voluntary and paid church leaders need to be held accountable to this biblical purpose (Ephes. 4:11-12) and evaluated on the basis not of how well they have performed but how well they have helped others serve!

Questions that arise for leaders in actual service include these: Do I have a need to lead? Am I gaining my identity from a position in the church, or is that based in who I am before God? Does my leadership serve my own interests or those of God’s people? Do I have a need to control? Am I too sensitive to criticism and in need of continual approval? Do I love and serve God’s people as they are rather than demand they accept what I want to give them? Why do Christian leaders fail morally? Is there dependence or addiction in my or the church’s approach to leadership?

For the people there are related questions. Do we have a need not to be led? Do we pray for leaders even more than we criticize them? What does our church do to its leaders and why? Do we accept leadership as a gift from God, or do we devalue it? Do we bring the best out of our leaders, equipping them just as they are called of God to equip us? Do we expect leaders to do for us what the Lord intends to do?

The Discipline of Leading

These questions suggest that both leading and following—the absolute necessity for effective church leadership—are spiritual disciplines that direct us to God and invite us to live a life of faith. For leaders this yields important practical applications. The primary qualification for leadership in the church is not the presence of discernible spiritual gifts but maturity of character, namely, fidelity in marriage, self-control, being hospitable, not addicted, not a lover of money and not quarrelsome (1 Tim. 3:1-7). The cultivation of these qualities in the context of everyday life is the most important theological education for church leadership and is normally neglected by the seminary system. The standards for leadership in the New Testament are higher than the standards for membership. An elder must be “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2). Leaders have a symbolic role, a modeling function. Therefore moral, relational, financial and sexual sins by members would be dealt with by church discipline leading to full and immediate restoration, but those same sins by leaders will lead to the loss of leadership, at least for an extended period of time, because the confidence and respect of the people have been violated.

Since no single person in the body of Christ, even a gifted, experienced pastor, fully has the mind of Christ, and since Christ dwells fully not in the individual believer but in the body (Ephes. 1:23), plural leadership is the norm (compare Acts 13:1; 1 Tim. 4:14). This leads to more thoughtful and balanced decisions that will be implemented more easily because of the extended process of consultation. It allows for the mutual ministry of other leaders—discerning, encouraging, exhorting, correcting—and releases the solo leader from an impossible burden. Such plural leadership may take various forms: a staff team, a college of leaders including a mix of voluntary elders and remunerated staff, or a group of lay leaders sharing the leadership role together.

Exercising leadership requires spiritual discernment and often engages one in spiritual warfare. William Stringfellow observed that “the most poignant victim of the demonic in America today is the so-called leader” (p. 89). Complex principalities and powers (Ephes. 6:12), which though part of God’s good creation are manipulable by the evil one, victimize even the best intentions of leaders. Stringfellow observes, “They are left with titles, but without effectual authority; with the trappings of power but without control over the institutions they lead; in nominal command, but bereft of dominion” (p. 88). Church leadership is not exempt from such systemic struggles.

Since the enduring force of leadership in the church comes not from the force of one’s personality or the unassailability of one’s position but rather from one’s real life in God, the strength of Christian leadership is humility, that powerful meekness. Servant-leaders in the church are not first of all servants of the people, for this is the path to premature burnout. They are primarily servants of God—seeking God’s interests and priorities in the life of the church—and therefore are freed to serve the deepest needs of the people.

Since all church leadership is time-bound and contextual, continual accountability and discernment are needed. The ultimate test of maturity in leadership is the willingness not to step up but to step down to make room for others. Speaking to this, an Indian brother advises that we lead from the end, not the front, of the line. P. T. Chandapilla says that “those committed to the vocation of servanthood . . . will remain there to see the line move (the line is determined by the human factor in any situation). They are happy to see others get ahead of them.” There is a lot of time for prayer and meditation at the end of the line.

The Discipline of Following

Thus leaders are also followers, followers of Christ, and willing to accept the leadership of others. This turns out to be the harder discipline. Almost all aspire to be leaders; few aspire to be followers. Following involves the recognition that we must operate not as a cluster of independent individuals but as the body of Christ. God has designed the body for interdependence, not codependence or independence. On a deeper level, following requires personal humility and the crucifixion of pride. Too rarely do leaders say, “I am laying all my professional skills, abilities, and economic resources at your disposal. Take them and use them as you see fit.” We are too proud to give our lives away to people who are not perfect.

Accepting the leadership ministry of others is also a call to faith. We must entrust both the leaders and the process to God’s sovereignty. Leaders will make mistakes. But God is more than able to make all things—even mistakes—work together for good (Romans 8:28). Following also requires discernment. As stated earlier, control and compliance are the structures of pseudoleadership and pseudofollowing. Discerning leaders call forth participation, discussion and even opposition; they are not satisfied with either control or compliance. Better yet is to cultivate decision-making processes that lead to true mutual submission. Discerning followers also can read their own compliant responses, or the controlling tendencies of leaders, name these unworthy strategies and insist on a process of mutual submission.

So there is something in the Bible better than a prescription for the ideal leadership structure in the local church. There is a theology and spirituality of leadership that makes the experience of giving and receiving leadership—something we all must do at some level—an incentive for spiritual growth. In the end, Jesus must have had this in mind when he forbade the disciples to seek leadership positions (Mark 10:35-45) and reminded them that he was their only leader. Only when leadership is for God and focused on helping everyone depend on God, rather than on the pastor or elder, is it safe and productive to be a leader, for then one’s identity is first of all to be a follower.

» See also: Authority, Church

» See also: Equipping

» See also: Integrity

» See also: Ministry

» See also: Organizational Culture and Change

» See also: Organizational Values

» See also: Power

» See also: Vision

References and Resources

R. S. Anderson, Minding God’s Business (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986); R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); D. Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1965); P. Collins and R. P. Stevens, The Equipping Pastor (Washington, D.C.: Alban Institute, 1994); M. DePree, Leadership Is an Art (New York: Doubleday, 1992); E. H. Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York: Guilford, 1985); R. K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (New York: Paulist, 1977); E. B. Habecker, The Other Side of Leadership: Coming to Terms with the Responsibilities That Accompany God-Given Authority (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1989); T. W. Manson, Ministry and Priesthood: Christ’s and Ours (London: Epworth Press, 1958); H. Nouwen, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership (New York: Crossroad, 1993); A. W. Schaef and D. Fassel, The Addictive Organization (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); W. Stringfellow, An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1973).

—R. Paul Stevens