DashHouse.com

Came across this quote from a commentary on Ephesians by Klyne Snodgrass:

The servant leadership Jesus requires is only the application of the gospel to the task of leadership. If leaders cannot apply the gospel to themselves, they are not leaders.

Also found this article today, sent to me by Mike Murdoch:

Not a week goes by before another leadership book or three crosses my desk. In a pile of recent church books sitting in front of me sits The Soul of a Leader, The Leadership Dynamic, and Strengthening the Soul of Your Leadership...

In our culture, leadership has become a "cult" — in the sense of an obsessive or faddish devotion. And Christians have been initiated into it. Besides the books that sit before me, there are many others authored by big-name pastors — or former pastors, since some pastors have managed to parlay their leadership insights into whole careers. Christian colleges are all about "developing future leaders." And there's the famous Leadership Network. And Leadership journal. And on it goes...

Leadership is but only one of the gifts. And it's not by any means the most important. Any man or woman who imagines otherwise is, to not put too fine of a point on it, a fool. When it comes to spiritual gifts, St. Paul never suggests that is it something one should strive for — he thinks prophecy is much more important (1 Cor. 14:1). And when Jesus talks about the topic, he tells his followers to reorient their priorities completely: think less about leadership and more about servanthood.

more

Good stuff.

Just came across The Leadership Dynamic: A Biblical Model for Raising Effective Leaders. I think I'm going to have to get it. I liked the author's first book From Embers to a Flame.

I really appreciate this quote:

The American church is standing at the brink of a self-inflicted death spiral accelerated by worldly leadership. God's people are the "salt" and "light" of surrounding culture, so when the church begins its free fall, all of American culture will soon follow. What's the poisonous elixir that the contemporary American church seems so determined to consume? The answer: the leadership model now practiced and promoted in the boardrooms of American big business. What? Is traditional American capitalism wrong? Unbiblical? Dangerous? The answer is no—traditional capitalism is not the problem. The leadership model that is infecting the church today—with disastrous results—is a product of contemporary capitalism, which is a greed-based, wealth-consuming mutation that has replaced the historically Christian-influenced system of capitalism that created the wealth upon which our nation thrived and blessed the world. Today's self-promoting, infected corporate leadership is a deadly potion that countless churches are drinking as they thoughtlessly imbibe the contemporary corporate leadership models of the day.

Earlier this year I sat in a room with Ed Stetzer and a group of pastors. We had Ed for the day, and we could ask him about pretty much anything. When my turn came, I asked him about revitalizing existing churches. What he said surprised me.

When Stetzer began research on his book Comeback Churches, he wanted to discover some of the key factors in seeing churches come alive again after slowly dying.

Ed said that the research told him exactly what he didn't want to hear. We are so sick of corporate style leadership in the church, and all the pro-leadership propaganda, that many of us - including me - have reacted against the concept of leadership. But contrary to what he wanted to discover, Stetzer found, "Comeback leaders agreed that having a clear and compelling vision was foundational in the transformation of their churches."

In New York, Ed said that the pendulum has swung too far the other way against vision. Don't tear everything down, Ed said, because you didn't invent it. He advised us to go back and learn from some of the older stuff written about leadership and vision, even if we had to sort through it and hold our noses at times.

So here are some tensions I'm holding right now:

• Leadership is more important than many of the younger leaders say, but less important than many of the boomer leaders say.
• Leadership can learn from Jim Collins and Tom Peters, but it has more to learn from the failed leadership of Saul, or pretty much any other king in the Old Testament.
• Leadership is about strength. But God shows up a lot in our weaknesses. Leading with a Limp helps us a lot here.
• The most important qualification of a Christian leadership is the knowledge that one is not qualified. As Tim Keller said:

My dear friends, most churches make the mistake of selecting as leaders the confident, the competent, and the successful. But what you most need in a leader is someone who has been broken by the knowledge of his or her sin, and even greater knowledge of Jesus' costly grace. The number one leaders in every church ought to be the people who repent the most fully without excuses, because you don't need any now; the most easily without bitterness; the most publicly and the most joyfully. They know their standing isn't based on their performance.

• Leadership is important as far as what people can do, but what the church needs more than this is to see what only God can do. Some boast in conferences and some in leaders. But we trust in the name of the LORD our God.

But after all that - leadership is still important. Kind of.

One of the reasons I liked Transforming Power (mentioned yesterday) is because it really makes you think about what leadership is. You have to, because the images and stories of leadership are so different.

Two examples. First, Paul Borden of Growing Healthy Churches takes no prisoners in his approach to leadership:

Congregations that have been on a plateau or in decline for more than three years are like old drunks. Intervention is needed to produce change...Leadership is essential. The pastor must be a leader or have the ability to exercise leadership behavior...

Pastors and denominations that do not want to disrupt comfortable congregations must understand they are abdicating their responsibilities as Christian leaders to serve God well. Enabling and helping congregations to continually exercise sinful dysfunctional behavior means that such pastors and denominational leaders are practicing carnal co-dependent relationships that work against God’s mission for His Church.

This approach to leadership is going to have very predictable characteristics and results.

Contrast this with the image of leadership presented by James Howell:

As much as churches try to learn from corporate leadership models, I suspect that, at the end of the day, the shape, the style, the mood of the ordained pastor can (and must!) differ in fundamental ways...All clergy near this zenith of leadership incandescence will (thankfully) always seem to be square pegs in the round holes of corporate leadership techniques...

No matter how a particular congregation is organized, no matter what the optimal strategy is in this place to unleash the workers out into the vineyards, no matter the posture of hands-on involvement or in-the-background enabling the leader suspects is the wisest course at this time, the leader maintains that docent feel, continually, and in every possible setting, to direct people’s attention to the treasures of the Church, to urge them to keep moving, to do whatever they do with their minds fixed on the stories, the creeds, the liturgy, the songs, the practices of the Church that dazzle, and give us every good chance of going somewhere meaningfully integrated into the dawning of the Kingdom of God.

You couldn't ask for two more different pictures of leadership. Which one is right? Do we go in with our hardhats and aggressively attack the dysfunction and lead toward measurable results, or do we pursue a spiritual, non-corporate type of leadership that trusts the Spirit and the Gospel to do its work? And these are only two of the models to choose from.

Hugh Ballou, the editor of this book, observed that these differences are probably a result of personality. I think he's right. Yet each personality has the tendency to baptize that approach as the only right way.

I'm going to post a little more about leadership models and tensions tomorrow. For now, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the two approaches to leadership I've just described.

Today I have an interview with Hugh Ballou, a motivational speaker and former music minister. Hugh is the man behind the book Transforming Power. Here's a blurb about the book:

Leaders who have lead a transformation share the story of their experience. This information is invaluable for leaders who are undertaking a transformation of an organization. The information in this book can be advantageous for anyone who is in a situation where they need to make a transformation - no matter what the mission the organization or the type of transformation.

The key to transformation is different for each individual, group, or congregation. Hugh Ballou has brought together a collection of over 25 articles and stories from individuals who have experienced real-life transformations of themselves or their institution. The inspiration offered from the words will enlist a sense of hope and perseverance during difficult times of change. Discover inspiration and transformation through the struggles of other leaders ranging from children's ministry to being in prison, from making Hollywood movies to winning football games, to being leaders who truly lead.

I have mixed feelings about leadership. I struggle with what seems to be an overemphasis on leadership in some circles, as well as many of our leadership practices. However, I still believe that leadership of the right kind is important. Some of these tensions run through this book, so I thought it would be interesting to interview Hugh.

The Spring 2007 issue (PDF) of Ockenga Connections, put out by Gordon-Conwell Seminary, has a great article on churches and mission statements.

The article describes the problems with mission statements, and it suggests a better way: for the church to seek, "with great intentionality, the character and behavior God has laid out clearly in Scripture, and to bring the qualities of character and behavior to memory through worship, teaching, and personal interaction." The article quotes Eugene Peterson's Working the Angles - always a good thing - and includes some thoughts that need to be repeated every time a church begins a vision process:

Intend that the priority in church life is character and spiritual health - not program and organization. There is not much point in having the latter if the former isn't present...

Think first of the church as the people of God, rather than as an organization defined by programs and goals. Then think of those experiences that are necesssary for the maturing and development of all the people of God, including the children...

Church as a corporation is not a complete expression of the church...Scripture is not clear on the types of organization that should characterize a church. The Scripture is, however, very clear about the character and behavior that should characterize the people of God. This is what must not be lost in any planning process.

This article is a welcome change from what we normally read about churches and mission statements.

My friend Tim Bailey - who knows how to find a mean convenience store in Honduras (really Jared's fault) - blogs about discovering vision versus creating it.

This line alone makes the whole post worth it: "A vision from God will always be a picture of the world and its redemption, not a picture of a wonderfully 'effective' church." This may be slightly overstated, but not much. It's a good reminder that the end game isn't a better and more fulfilling church for its own sake.

Last week I attended a session that described an assessment process for churches. Consultants go in and diagnose a church, and then provide some affirmations and prescriptions for further action.

I never know exactly what to make of these approaches. Part of me - a lot of me, actually - wants to write this approach off completely. But I've come to recognize that there is some value in assessing as part of a larger strategic planning process. I used to want to say it's of no value. Now I want to say that a process like this is of limited value. It's still valuable; we just need to recognize its limits.

To illustrate: In January I witnessed the operations of the Compassion office in Honduras. I usually think that people who have the right dynamics - the heart and passion - are going to be well-meaning but a little scattered and disorganized. I was really surprised to find an operation that had the dynamics - the heart - but that also employed very effective systems. They had really thought through the ends they were trying to achieve, had created effective structures. They could explain everything they did, and why they did it that way after trying various options. I had the sense that if I came back a year later I would see further changes, because they always seem to be looking for a better way to do things.

It is one of the few times I have seen dynamics (heart) and mechanics (structures) working well together.

I have the sense that when churches engage in a strategic planning process, it's because the dynamics are all wrong. The church has lost its focus on the gospel, or it has become ingrown, or there is some kind of problem with heart and passion. You can do all the strategic planning in the world and you won't solve this. Strategic planning is great at fixing mechanics, but it will never go deep enough to fix the deeper issues, the issues of dynamics, the issues of the heart.

If a church needs new life, then what they need is what Richard Lovelace called a rediscovery of the gospel. That, not strategic planning, will give them the life they need. But if a church needs to channel that life into effective ministry, then maybe strategic planning will help.

Strategic planning will never give new life, but it may help in channeling existing life more effectively. It's of some value, but only when used against problems it's designed to solve.

"Leadership as 'vision' has become another way of talking about exercising dominance and pushing other people around with your ideas...Vision has become a way of declaring dominance, of achieving alpha status and stats. Furthermore, 'vision casting' is most often nothing more than 'strategic planning' board games." (Leonard Sweet, Summoned to Lead)

"Show me a leader without vision, and I'll show you someone who isn't going anywhere." (John Maxwell)

"The leader's job is to keep the projector focused, to keep the "big picture," the overall purpose or vision of the organization, in view. (James Kouzes and Barry Posner, The Leadership Challenge)

A few weeks ago, some pastors and I spent the day with Ed Stetzer in New York. By spending the day I actually mean spending most of the day before one of us (me) left to see Letterman...but that's a different story.

The day was spent talking about church planting and revitalization. At one point I got Ed to talk a little about his book Comeback Churches. What are some of the key factors in seeing churches come alive again that are currently in the process of slow death?

Ed said that the research told him exactly what he didn't want to hear. We are so sick of CEO-style leadership in the church, and all the pro-leadership propaganda, that many of us - including me - resonate strongly with Leonard Sweet's criticism of vision above. But contrary to what he wanted to discover, Stetzer found, "Comeback leaders agreed that having a clear and compelling vision was foundational in the transformation of their churches."

In New York, Ed said that the pendulum has swung too far the other way against vision. Don't tear everything down, Ed said, because you didn't invent it. The statement "Everything rises and falls on leadership" is true, even though our image of leader should be that of an orr-master - someone who sits up front and gets everyone to pull together - rather than as Superman.

I didn't enjoy hearing Ed saying these things, but I wonder if he's right. I'm so sick of strategic planning masquerading as true transformation, but I think I've caught myself going to the opposite extreme.

What do you think? Do we need to rediscover a model of leadership within the church that avoids CEO-type alpha leadership, but still makes room for vision? Has the pendulum indeed swung too far away from vision?

D.A. Carson is in town this week for the Toronto Spiritual Life Convention. He's also speaking at other events. Thanks, by the way, to Ken Davis for chairing the Convention and bringing Carson to town.

On Sunday night Carson spoke tangentially about leadership from Matthew 20:25-28, a passage that's often quoted on the subject. In this passage Jesus says:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

I've often heard these verses used to argue against all hierarchy in Christian leadership. It's tempting to accept this interpretation. If we believe this it has all kinds of implications. Churches must be flat. Leadership is arrogance. I've heard these arguments made.

Carson argues that Jesus is not arguing against leadership, nor is he saying that Christian leadership means being told what to do by everyone.

What Jesus is tackling here, Carson says, what generally happens to leaders. In this fallen, broken world, people love power for selfish motives. After some time, they give the impression that they are serving only themselves. Christian leadership cannot be like this. Jesus exercised his authority in service all the way to the cross. It was a revolutionary idea of kingship. "All Christian leadership," Carson said, "must follow down this road."

I think Carson is right. This passage isn't about abolishing leadership or hierarchy. Instead, Jesus is speaking of a kind of leadership that is not motivated by self-interest, that exercises itself in service, even to the point of death.

I've been thinking: how many structures have been completely dismantled by a wrong interpretation of this passage? But more importantly - what an amazingly high bar and example to set for leadership.

(Still waiting for a good Christian theology of leadership - it may be out there, but I still haven't found one that's as comprehensive as I'd like.)